Literature DB >> 7873296

Switching from DXA pencil-beam to fan-beam. II: Studies in vivo.

P Eiken1, N Kolthoff, O Bärenholdt, F Hermansen, S Pors Nielsen.   

Abstract

Switching from the Hologic QDR-1000/W to the QDR-2000 DXA densitometer was critically evaluated with regard to cross-calibration and dosimetry. Studies with bone equivalent humanoid spine phantoms and patient studies were done. Fan-beam scanning with the QDR-2000 is problematic because of magnification. Mean phantom bone mineral content (BMC) and bone mineral density (BMD) were moderately but significantly different. Biological variation disguised differences between the two devices in humans, but significant differences were revealed when individual data were analyzed. Longitudinal assessments of BMC and BMD, initiated with QDR-1000/W and continued with the QDR-2000, should employ single-beam mode only and not fan-beam mode--but even if that is done, significant errors can be introduced. The new QDR-2000 should be properly cross-calibrated with the original densitometer, and one should make sure that the same software, phantom, and type of collimator are used. The radiation dose is substantially higher with QDR-2000 (fan-beam and high-resolution array mode) than with QDR-1000/W (pencil-beam mode) and QDR-2000 (pencil-beam mode), and higher than claimed by the manufacturer. The typical radiation dose given by the manufacturer was half the actual radiation dose measured (e.g., for fan-beam scan 62 microSv versus 33 microSv). High-resolution array mode does not improve precision, but augments the radiation dose to the patient.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7873296     DOI: 10.1016/8756-3282(94)90316-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone        ISSN: 1873-2763            Impact factor:   4.398


  7 in total

1.  Pediatric in vivo cross-calibration between the GE Lunar Prodigy and DPX-L bone densitometers.

Authors:  Nicola J Crabtree; N J Shaw; C M Boivin; B Oldroyd; J G Truscott
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Comparison of the Lunar DPX-L and Prodigy dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers for assessing total and regional body composition.

Authors:  Derek M Huffman; Niamh M Landy; Eva Potter; Tim R Nagy; Barbara A Gower
Journal:  Int J Body Compos Res       Date:  2005-01-01

3.  Replacing DXA scanners: cross-calibration with phantoms may be misleading.

Authors:  G M Blake
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 4.333

4.  Correcting fan-beam magnification in clinical densitometry scans of growing subjects.

Authors:  Jacqueline H Cole; Jodi N Dowthwaite; Tamara A Scerpella; Marjolein C H van der Meulen
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2009 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.617

5.  Bone loss. Quantitative imaging techniques for assessing bone mass in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  C F Njeh; H K Genant
Journal:  Arthritis Res       Date:  2000-08-03

6.  Estimating the absorbed dose to critical organs during dual X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  M Mokhtari-Dizaji; A A Sharafi; B Larijani; N Mokhlesian; H Hasanzadeh
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.500

7.  Cross-calibration of pencil-beam (DPX-NT) and fan-beam (QDR-4500C) dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for sarcopenia.

Authors:  Kenyu Ito; Kazuyo Tsushita; Akiko Muramoto; Hiroki Kanzaki; Takashi Nohara; Hitomi Shimizu; Tomoko Nakazawa; Atsushi Harada
Journal:  Nagoya J Med Sci       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.131

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.