Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of BMD precision for Prodigy and Delphi spine and femur scans

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Precision error in bone mineral density (BMD) measurement can be affected by patient positioning, variations in scan analysis, automation of software, and both short- and long-term fluctuations of the densitometry equipment. Minimization and characterization of these errors is essential for reliable assessment of BMD change over time.

Methods

We compared the short-term precision error of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) devices: the Lunar Prodigy (GE Healthcare) and the Delphi (Hologic). Both are fan-beam DXA devices predominantly used to measure BMD of the spine and proximal femur. In this study, 87 women (mean age 61.6±8.9 years) were measured in duplicate, with repositioning, on both systems, at one of three clinical centers. The technologists were International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) certified and followed manufacturer-recommended procedures. All scans were acquired using 30-s scan modes. Precision error was calculated as the root-mean-square standard deviation (RMS-SD) and coefficient of variation (RMS-%CV) for the repeated measurements. Right and left femora were evaluated individually and as a combined dual femur precision. Precision error of Prodigy and Delphi measurements at each measurement region was compared using an F test to determine significance of any observed differences.

Results

While precision errors for both systems were low, Prodigy precision errors were significantly lower than Delphi at L1–L4 spine (1.0% vs 1.2%), total femur (0.9% vs 1.3%), femoral neck (1.5% vs 1.9%), and dual total femur (0.6% vs 0.9%). Dual femur modes decreased precision errors by approximately 25% compared with single femur results.

Conclusions

This study suggests that short-term BMD precision errors are skeletal-site and manufacturer specific. In clinical practice, precision should be considered when determining: (a) the minimum time interval between baseline and follow-up scans and (b) whether a statistically significant change in the patient’s BMD has occurred.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Riggs BL, Wahner HW, Melton LJd, Richelson LS, Judd HL, Offord KP (1986) Rates of bone loss in the appendicular and axial skeletons of women. Evidence of substantial vertebral bone loss before menopause. J Clin Invest 77(5):1487–1491

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cummings SR, Karpf DB, Harris F, Genant HK, Ensrud K, LaCroix AZ, Black DM (2002) Improvement in spine bone density and reduction in risk of vertebral fractures during treatment with antiresorptive drugs. Am J Med 112(4):281–289

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pocock NA, Noakes KA, Griffiths M, Bhalerao N, Sambrook PN, Eisman JA, Freund J (1997) A comparison of longitudinal measurements in the spine and proximal femur using lunar and hologic instruments. J Bone Miner Res 12(12):2113–2118

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Faulkner KG (2003) Improving femoral bone density measurements. J Clin Densitom 6(4):353–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. White J, Harris SS, Dallal GE, Dawson-Hughes B (2003) Precision of single vs bilateral hip bone mineral density scans. J Clin Densitom 6(2):159–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ellis KJ, Shypailo RJ (1998) Bone mineral and body composition measurements: cross-calibration of pencil-beam and fan-beam dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers. J Bone Miner Res 13(10):1613–1618

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tothill P, Hannan WJ (2000) Comparisons between Hologic QDR 1000W, QDR 4500A, and Lunar Expert dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scanners used for measuring total body bone and soft tissue. Ann N Y Acad Sci 904:63–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gillette-Guyonnet S, Andrieu S, Nourhashemi F, Cantet C, Grandjean H, Vellas B (2003) Comparison of bone mineral density and body composition measurements in women obtained from two DXA instruments. Mech Ageing Dev 124(3):317–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tothill P, Avenell A (1994) Errors in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine owing to fat distribution and soft tissue thickness during weight change. Br J Radiol 67(793):71–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tataranni P, Pettitt D, Ravussin E (1996) Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: inter-machine variability. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 20:1048-1050

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hui SL, Gao S, Zhou XH, Johnston CC, Jr., Lu Y, Gluer CC, Grampp S, Genant H (1997) Universal standardization of bone density measurements: a method with optimal properties for calibration among several instruments. J Bone Miner Res 12(9):1463–1470

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lu Y, Fuerst T, Hui S, Genant HK (2001) Standardization of bone mineral density at femoral neck, trochanter and Ward’s triangle. Osteoporos Int 12(6):438–444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Genant HK, Grammp S, Gluer CC, Faulkner KG, Jergas MJ, Engelke K, Hagiwara S, Van Kuijk C (1995) Universal standardization for dual x-ray absorptiometry: Patient and phantom cross-calibrations results. J Bone Miner Res 9(10): 1503–1514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. El Maghraoui A, Do Santos Zounon AA, Jroundi I, Nouijai A, Ghazi M, Achemlal L, Bezza A, Tazi MA, Abouqual R (2005) Reproducibility of bone mineral density measurements using dual X-ray absorptiometry in daily clinical practice. Osteoporos Int

  15. Leslie WD, Ward LM (2004) Bone density monitoring with the total hip site: time for a re-evaluation? J Clin Densitom 7(3):269–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by a grant from GE Healthcare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of California, 185 Berry Street, Ste. 350, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0946, USA

    J. A. Shepherd, B. Fan, Y. Lu & H. K. Genant

  2. New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    E. M. Lewiecki

  3. Colorado Center for Bone Research, Lakewood, CO, USA

    P. Miller

  4. Synarc, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA

    H. K. Genant

Authors
  1. J. A. Shepherd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Y. Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. M. Lewiecki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H. K. Genant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. A. Shepherd.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shepherd, J.A., Fan, B., Lu, Y. et al. Comparison of BMD precision for Prodigy and Delphi spine and femur scans. Osteoporos Int 17, 1303–1308 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0127-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0127-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation