Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 76, Issue 5, pp 348–354

Towards Standardization of Dual X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) at the Forearm

A Common Region of Interest (ROI) Improves the Comparability among DXA Devices
  • S. Prevrhal
  • Y. Lu
  • H. K. Genant
  • J. O. Toschke
  • J. A. Shepherd
Article

Abstract

Manufacturer-implemented regions of interest (ROIs) to determine the bone mineral density (BMD) at the forearm are currently not standardized across dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) devices. We hypothesized that their differences introduce considerable variation in measurement results for forearm BMD when taken on different devices, and that a ROIs common to all devices with standardized placement and size significantly improve device comparability. The common ROI was defined to have a fixed length of 2 cm and to extend proximally from the location where the ulna and radius bones superimpose on the DXA image. The effects of universal standardization of forearm BMD were combined with and compared to those of the common ROI. They were drawn on 91 female study participants (ages 20–80 years, 10 per decade) who were scanned on Hologic QDR-4500, Aloka DCS-600EX, GE Lunar PIXI and Norland pDEXA DXA scanners. For all device combinations, manufacturer-implemented ROI root mean-square errors were significantly higher than for the common ROI, suggesting that implementing an ROI with common design on all scanners is a good way to reduce interdevice variability. When manufacturer-implemented ROIs were universally standardized root mean-square error (RMSE) values were less different from that of the nonstandardized Common ROI, suggesting that universal standardization can further improve interdevice comparability even when a common ROI such as the one implemented here is used. ROI standardization dramatically improves interdevice comparability.

Keywords

Bone densitometry Forearm Standardization Regions of interest 

References

  1. 1.
    Cummings, SR, Black, DM, Nevitt, MC, Browner, W, Cauley, J, Ensrud, K, Genant, HK, Palermo, L, Scott, J, Vogt, TM 1993Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research GroupLancet3417275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duppe, H, Gardsell, P, Nilsson, B, Johnell, O 1997A single bone density measurement can predict fractures over 25 yearsCalcifi Tissue Int60171174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jones, T, Davie, MW 1998Bone mineral density at distal forearm can identify patients with osteoporosis at spine or femoral neckBr J Rheumatol37539543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Genant, HK, Grampp, S, Gluer, CC, Faulkner, KG, Jergas, M, Engelke, K, Hagiwara, S, Kuijk, C 1994Universal standardization for dual X-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration resultsJ Bone Miner Res915031514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Genant, HK 1995Universal standardization for dual X-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration resultsJ Bone Miner Res10997998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hui, SL, Gao, S, Zhou, XH, Johnston, CC,Jr., Lu, Y, Gluer, CC, Grampp, S, Genant, H 1997Universal standardization of bone density measurements: a method with optimal properties for calibration among several instrumentsJ Bone Miner Res1214631470PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lu, Y, Ye, K, Mathur, AK, Hui, S, Fuerst, TP, Genant, HK 1997Comparative calibration without a gold standardStat Med1618891905CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shepherd, JA, Cheng, XG, Lu, Y, Njeh, C, Toschke, J, Engelke, K, Grigorian, M, Genant, HK 2002Universal standardization of forearm bone densitometryJ Bone Miner Res17734745PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berntsen, GK, Tollan, A, Magnus, JH, Sogaard, AJ, Ringberg, T, Fonnebo, V 1999The Tromso Study: artifacts in forearm bone densitometry–prevalence and effectOsteoporos Int10425432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Efron, B, Tibshirani, RJ 1993An Introduction to the BootstrapChapman & HallSan FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bland, JM, Altaian, DG 1986Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurementLancet1307310PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Prevrhal
    • 1
  • Y. Lu
    • 1
  • H. K. Genant
    • 1
  • J. O. Toschke
    • 1
  • J. A. Shepherd
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations