Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 52, Issue 2, pp 79–84 | Cite as

Cross-calibration of DXA equipment: Upgrading from a hologic QDR 1000/W to a QDR 2000

  • Kenneth G. Faulkner
  • Claus-C. Glüer
  • Michelle Estilo
  • Harry K. Genant
Clinical Investigations

Summary

In this study, the cross-calibration of a fan beam DXA system (Hologic QDR-2000) to a pencil beam scanner from the same manufacturer (Hologic QDR-1000/W) is described. The scanners were calibrated by the manufacturer using the same anthropomorphic spine phantom at installation. To verify consistent machine calibration, a group of 69 female subjects, aged 46–75, had anteroposterior (AP) spine and proximal femur scans on the QDR-1000/W followed by pencil and array scans of the same sites on the QDR-2000 during the same visit. Many of the subjects had bilateral examinations of the proximal femur for a total of 123 hip scans. Pencil and array area, bone mineral content (BMC), and bone mineral density (BMD) from the QDR-2000 were compared with the values obtained on the QDR-1000/W, and linear regression equations were derived for relating the two instruments. At the spine, no differences were found between the QDR-1000/W BMD values and the QDR-2000 array BMD values. A slight difference between pencil beam modes was detected but was not deemed clinically significant. Linear regression models relating the QDR-2000 and QDR-1000/W AP spine BMD measurements showed correlation coefficients greater than 0.99, with slopes of 1.00, intercepts equivalent to zero, and small root mean square errors. Comparisons at the proximal femur showed equivalency at the femoral neck and trochanter regions for the two machines in pencil mode, but slight increases in BMC and BMD at the other femoral sites on the QDR-2000 in both pencil and array mode. Correlation coefficients were 0.97–0.99 for all measurement regions except for Ward's. Regression slopes relating the BMD for the femoral regions were 1.00–1.04, with intercepts not significantly different from zero and small residual errors. As with the spine, the differences were small enough that they were not of clinical significance. However, in longitudinal drug trials requiring highly precise determination of spinal and femoral BMD changes, these differences may be important.

Key words

DXA Cross-calibration Spine Femur 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lilley J, Walters BG, Heath DA, Drolc Z (1991) In vivo and in vitro precision of bone density measured by dual-energy x-ray absorption. Osteoporosis Int 1: 141–146Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glüer CC, Steiger P, Selvidge R, Elliesen-Kliefoth K, Hayashi C, Genant HK (1990) Comparative assessment of dual-photonabsorptiometry and dual-energy-radiography. Radiology 174: 223–228Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sartoris DJ, Resnick D (1989) Dual energy radiographic absorptiometry for bone densitometry: current status and perspective. AJR 152: 241–246Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steiger P, von Stetten E, Weiss H, Stein JA (1991) Paired AP and lateral supine dual x-ray absorptiometry of the spine: initial results with a 32 detector system. Osteoporosis Int 1(3): 190Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pommet R, Chambellan D, Reverchon P, Pare C, Lecluse A, Panissier P (1991) Array multidetector bone densitometer for supine vertebral measurement in lateral projection. Osteoporosis Int 1(3): 190Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stein JA, Lazewatsky JL, Hochberg AM (1987) Dual energy x-ray bone densitometer incorporating an internal reference system. Radiology 165(P): 313Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    von Stetten EC, Steiger S, Steiger P, Kelly TL (1992) Cross-calibration of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone densitometry systems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Bath Conference on Osteoporosis and Bone Mineral Measurement, Bath, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth G. Faulkner
    • 1
  • Claus-C. Glüer
    • 1
  • Michelle Estilo
    • 1
  • Harry K. Genant
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Osteoporosis Research GroupUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Providence Medical CenterOsteoporosis Research CenterPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations