Advertisement

Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 76, Issue 2, pp 113–120 | Cite as

Dual X-ray Absorptiometry

Clinical Evaluation of a New Cone-Beam System
  • G. M. Blake
  • K. M. Knapp
  • I. Fogelman
Article

Abstract

The DMS Lexxos is the first cone-beam dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) system capable of performing bone mineral density (BMD) measurements of the spine and hip. By using a two-dimensional (2-D) detector array rather than the linear array used with conventional fan-beam DXA systems, image acquisition time on Lexxos is only 1.5 s. However, the need to correct for the large signal from scattered radiation reaching the detector is a potential source of error in cone-beam DXA. The aim of this clinical evaluation of the Lexxos bone densitometer was to investigate the relative accuracy of cone-beam BMD measurements compared with conventional DXA by performing an in vivo cross-calibration study with an established fan-beam system, the Hologic QDR-4500. Spine (L1–L4) and hip BMD measurements were performed in 135 patients (111 women, 24 men) referred for a bone densitometry examination. Duplicate Lexxos measurements were performed in 27 female patients to evaluate precision. On average, Lexxos spine and femoral neck BMD measurements were 2% lower than those on the QDR-4500, whereas total hip BMD was 5% higher. Larger differences were found for the trochanter and Ward’s triangle regions. For all sites, Lexxos BMD measurements showed a strong linear relationship with those measured on the QDR-4500 with correlation coefficients in the range r = 0.95 to 0.97 for the clinically important spine, femoral neck, and total hip regions. The root mean standard error (RMSE) between Lexxos and QDR-4500 BMDs ranged from 0.037 g/cm2 for the femoral neck to 0.060 g/cm2 for the spine, whereas Lexxos precision was 1.3% for total hip, 2.0% for femoral neck, and 2.3% for spine BMD. Although for the hip BMD sites the RMSE and precision of Lexxos measurements were similar to studies of pencil-beam and fan-beam DXA systems, the results for the spine were poorer than expected. The findings of this study suggest that Lexxos corrects accurately for the effects of scattered radiation at the detector, but that the precision of spine BMD measurements may be limited by involuntary patient movement between the high and low energy X-ray exposures.

Keywords

Dual X-ray absorptiometry Cone-Beam DXA Cross-calibration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank CML for the opportunity to evaluate the Lexxos DXA system and the DMS engineers for technical support.

References

  1. 1.
    Genant, HK, Engelke, K, Fuerst, T, Gluer, C-C, Grampp, S, Harris, ST, Jergas, M, Lang, T, Lu, Y, Majumdar, S, Mathur, A, Takada, M 1996Noninvasive assessment of bone mineral and structure: state of the artJ Bone Miner Res11707730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kanis, JA, Glüer, C-C 2000An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometryOsteoporos Int11192202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gullberg, B, Johnell, O, Kanis, JA 1997World-wide projections for hip fractureOsteoporos Int7407413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ray, NF, Chan, JK, Thamer, M, Melton, LJ 1997Medical expenditures for the treatment of osteoporotic fractures in the United States in 1995: report from the National Osteoporosis FoundationJ Bone Miner Res122435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Black, DM, Cummings, SR, Karpf, DB, Cauley, JA, Thompson, DE, Nevitt, MC, Bauer, DC, Genant, HK, Haskell, WL, Marcus, R, Ott, SM, Torner, JC, Quandt, SA, Reiss, TF, Ensrud, KE 1996Randomised trial of the effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fracturesLancet34815351541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ettinger, B, Black, DM, Mitlak, BH, Knickerbocker, RK, Nickelsen, T, Genant, HK, Christiansen, C, Delmas, PD, Zanchetta, JR, Stakkestad, J, Gluer, CC, Krueger, K, Cohen, FJ, Eckert, S, Ensrud, KE, Avioli, LV, Lips, P, Cummings, SR 1999Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: results from a 3-year randomized clinical trialJAMA282637645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris, ST, Watts, NB, Genant, HK, McKeever, CD, Hangartner, T, Keller, M, Chesnut, CH, Brown, J, Eriksen, EF, Hoseyni, MS, Axelrod, DW, Miller, PD 1999Effects of risedronate treatment on vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosisJAMA28213441352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neer, RM, Arnaud, CD, Zanchetta, JR, Prince, R, Gaich, GA, Reginster, J-Y, Hodsman, AB, Eriksen, EF, Ish-Shalom, S, Genant, HK, Wang, O, Mitlak, BH 2001Effect of recombinant human parathyroid hormone (1-34) fragment on spine and non-spine fractures and bone mineral density in postmenopausal osteoporosisN Engl J Med34414341441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    WHO Technical Report Series 843. (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Royal College of Physicians (2000) Osteoporosis: clinical guidelines for prevention and treatment. Update on pharmacological interventions and an algorithm for management. RCP, London, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cullum, ID, Ell, PJ, Ryder, JP 1989X-ray dual photon absorptiometry: a new method for the measurement of bone densityBr J Radiol62587592PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mazess, RB, Collick, B, Trempe, J, Barden, HS, Hanson, JA 1989Performance evaluation of a dual-energy X-ray bone densitometerCalcif Tissue Int44228232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bouyoucef, SE, Cullum, ID, Ell, PJ 1996Cross-calibration of a fan-beam X-ray densitometer with a pencil-beam systemBr J Radiol69522531PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mazess, RB, Hanson, JA, Payne, R, Nord, R, Wilson, M 2000Axial and total-body bone densitometry using a narrow-angle fan-beamOsteoporos Int11158166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dinten, JM, Robert-Coutant, C, Darboux, M 2001Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry using a 2D digital radiography detector: application to bone densitometryProc SPIE4320459468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fordham, JN, Chinn, DJ, Kumar, N 2000Identification of women with reduced bone density at the lumbar spine and femoral neck using BMD at the os calcisOsteoporos Int11797802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bouxsein, ML, Michaeli, DA, Plass, DB, Schick, DA, Melton, ME 1997Precision and accuracy of computed digital absorptiometry for assessment of bone density of the handOsteoporos Int7444449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boudousq, V, Kotzki, PO, Dinten, JM, Barrau, C, Robert-Coutant, C, Thomas, E, Mariano Goulart, D 2003Total dose incurred by patients and staff from BMD measurement using a new 2D digital bone densitometerOsteoporos Int14263269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Genant, HK, Grampp, S, Glüer, C-C, 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
  20. 20.
    Patel, R, Blake, GM, Rymer, J, Fogelman, I 2000Long-term precision of DXA scanning assessed over seven years in forty postmenopausal womenOsteoporos Int116875CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Altman, DG 1991Practical statistics for medical researchChapman HallLondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Faulkner, KG, Gluer, C-C, Estilo, MJ, Genant, HK 1993Cross-calibration of DXA equipment: upgrading from a Hologic QDR-1000/W to a QDR-2000Calcif Tissue Int527984CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gluer, C-C, Blake, G, Lu, Y, Blunt, BA, Jergas, M, Genant, HK 1995Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniquesOsteoporos Int5262270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Looker, AC, Wahner, HW, Dunn, WL, Calvo, MS, Harris, TB, Heyse, SP, Johnston, CC, Lindsay, R 1998Updated data on proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adultsOsteoporos Int8468489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blake, GM, Parker, JC, Buxton, FMA, Fogelman, I 1993Dual X-ray absorptiometry: a comparison between fan beam and pencil beam scansBr J Radiol66902906PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blake, GM, Harrison, EJ, Adams, JE 2004Dual X-ray absorptiometry: cross-calibration of a new fan-beam systemCalcif Tissue Int75714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Knapp, KM, Blake, GM, Spector, TD, Fogelman, I 2004Can the WHO definition of osteoporosis be applied to multi-site axial transmission quantitative ultrasound?Osteoporos Int15367374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Guy’s, King’s and St Thomas’ School of MedicineLondonUK

Personalised recommendations