Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

New technology REMS for bone evaluation compared to DXA in adult women for the osteoporosis diagnosis: a real-life experience

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Osteoporosis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

Osteoporosis is a prevalent skeletal disorder in postmenopausal women. REMS represents a potential technology for osteoporosis diagnosis in clinical practice.

Objective

To assess the accuracy of Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) technology in diagnosing osteoporosis in comparison with dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) on a population of Brazilian women.

Methods

A population of women age ranged between 30 and 80 was recruited at DXA Service of São Paulo School-Hospital, Brazil. They underwent REMS and DXA scans at the axial sites. The REMS accuracy for the osteoporosis diagnosis was evaluated in comparison with DXA on both sites. The intra-operator and inter-operator coefficient of variation (CV) was also calculated.

Results

A total of 343 patients were enrolled in the study. Erroneous scans due to poor quality acquisitions with both methods or to other technical reasons were excluded; 227 lumbar spine exams and 238 hip exams were acceptable for comparison analysis. The comparison between REMS and DXA outcomes showed that the average difference in BMD (expressed as bias±1.96 SD) was −0.026±0.179g/cm2 for the spine and −0.027±0.156g/cm2 for the femoral neck. When accepted 0.3 tolerance on T-score, there were no cases diagnosed as osteoporosis by DXA that were defined as normal by REMS. The REMS intra-operator CV was 0.51% for the lumbar spine and 1.08% for the femoral neck. The REMS inter-operator CV was 1.43% for the lumbar spine and 1.93% for the femoral neck.

Conclusion

The REMS approach had high accuracy for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in comparison with DXA in adult women. According to our results, this new technology has shown to be a promising alternative for populations without access to DXA densitometry.

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. Compston JE, McClung MR, Leslie WD (2019) Osteoporosis. Lancet 393(10169):364–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32112-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bliuc D, Nguyen ND, Nguyen TV, Eisman JA, Center JR (2013) Compound risk of high mortality following osteoporotic fracture and refracture in elderly women and men. J Bone Miner Res 28(11):2317–2324. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.1968

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Reid IR (2020) A broader strategy for osteoporosis interventions. Nat Rev Endocrinol 16(6):333–339. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-020-0339-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Black DM, Rosen CJ (2016) Clinical Practice. Postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 374(3):254–262. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp1513724

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kanis JA (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: synopsis of a WHO report. Osteoporos Int 4(6):368–381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Theodorou DJ, Theodorou SJ (2002) Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in clinical practice: application and interpretation of scans beyond the numbers. Clin Imaging 26(1):43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0899-7071(01)00356-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lewiecki EM, Binkley N (2017) DXA: 30years and counting: introduction to the 30th anniversary issue. Bone. 104:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2016.12.013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Adams JE (2013) Advances in bone imaging for osteoporosis. Nat Rev Endocrinol 9(1):28–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lochmüller EM, Müller R, Kuhn V, Lill CA, Eckstein F (2003) Can novel clinical densitometric techniques replace or improve DXA in predicting bone strength in osteoporosis at the hip and other skeletal sites? J Bone Miner Res 18(5):906–912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jain RK, Vokes T (2017)Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry. J Clin Densitom 20(3):291–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2017.06.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lewiecki EM, Binkley N, Petak SM (2006) DXA quality matters. J Clin Densitom 9(4):388–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Conversano F, Franchini R, Greco A, Soloperto G, Chiriacò F, Casciaro E, Aventaggiato M, Renna MD, Pisani P, di Paola M, Grimaldi A, Quarta L, Quarta E, Muratore M, Laugier P, Casciaro S (2014) A novel ultrasound methodology for estimating spine mineral density. Ultrasound Med Biol 41(1):281–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Casciaro S, Peccarisi M, Pisani P, Franchini R, Greco A, De Marco T et al (2016) An advanced quantitative echosound methodology for femoral neck densitometry. Ultrasound Med Biol 42(6):1337–1356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Di Paola M, Gatti D, Viapiana O, Cianferotti L, Cavalli L, Caffarelli C et al (2019) Radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry compared with dual X-ray absorptiometry for osteoporosis diagnosis on lumbar spine and femoral neck. Osteoporos Int 30(2):391–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Adami G, Arioli G, Bianchi G, Luisa M, Caffarelli C, Cianferotti L et al (2020) Radiofrequency echographic multi spectrometry for the prediction of incident fragility fractures : a 5-year follow-up study. Bone 134:115297. Available from. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ohe MN, Bonanséa TCP, Santos RO, Das Neves MC, Santos LM, Rosano M et al (2019) Prediction of bone mass changes after successful parathyroidectomy using biochemical markers of bone metabolism in primary hyperparathyroidism: is it clinically useful? Arch Endocrinol Metab 63(4):394–401

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shuhart CR, Yeap SS, Anderson PA, Jankowski LG, Lewiecki EM, Morse LR, Rosen HN, Weber DR, Zemel BS, Shepherd JA (2019) Executive summary of the 2019 ISCD Position Development Conference on monitoring treatment, DXA cross-calibration and least significant change, spinal cord injury, peri-prosthetic and orthopedic bone health, transgender medicine, and pediatrics. J Clin Densitom 22(4):453–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2019.07.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention D and T (2001) Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA. 285(6):785–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bonnick SL, Junior JCC, Kleerekoper M, Lindsay R, Miller P, Sherwood LSE (2001) Importance of precision in bone density measurements Sydney. J Clin Densitom 4(2):105–110

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cortet B, Dennison E, Diez-Perez A, Locquet M, Muratore M, Nogués X, Ovejero Crespo D, Quarta E, Brandi ML (2021) Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in a European multicenter clinical context. Bone. 143:115786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cosman F, de Beur SJ, LeBoff MS, Lewiecki EM, Tanner B, Randall S, Lindsay R, National Osteoporosis Foundation (2014) Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 25(10):2359–2381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Woodson G (2000) Dual X-ray absorptiometry T-score concordance and discordance between hip and spine measurement sites. J Clin Densitom 3(4):319–324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moayyeri A, Soltani A, Tabari NK, Sadatsafavi M, Hossein-neghad A, Larijani B (2005) Discordance in diagnosis of osteoporosis using spine and hip bone densitometry. BMC Endocr Disord 5:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Adas-Okuma MG, Maeda SS, Gazzotti MR, Roco CM, Pradella CO, Nascimento OA, Porto EF, Vieira JGH, Jardim JR, Lazaretti-Castro M (2020) COPD as an independent risk factor for osteoporosis and fractures. Osteoporos Int 31(4):687–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05235-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Farr JN, Khosla S (2016) Determinants of bone strength and quality in diabetes mellitus in humans. Bone 82:28–34. Available from. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2015.07.027

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Diez-Perez A, Brandi ML, Al-Daghri N et al (2019) Radiofrequency echographic multi-spectrometry for the in-vivo assessment of bone strength: state of the art-outcomes of an expert consensus meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO). Aging Clin Exp Res 31(10):1375–1389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-019-01294-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Pisani P, Greco A, Conversano F, Renna MD, Casciaro E, Quarta L, Costanza D, Muratore M, Casciaro S (2017) A quantitative ultrasound approach to estimate bone fragility: a first comparison with dual X-ray absorptiometry. Measurement. 101:243–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Greco A, Pisani P, Conversano F, Soloperto G, Renna MD, Muratore M, Casciaro S (2017) Ultrasound fragility score: an innovative approach for the assessment of bone fragility. Measurement. 101:236–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. De Marco T, Peccarisi M, Conversano F, Greco A, Chiozzi S, Pascalis FD, Casciaro S (2016) A new approach for measuring the trabecular bone density through the echosound backscattering: an ex vivo validation on human femoral heads. Measurement. 87:51–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Khu A, Sumardi M (2020) A REMS scan-based report on relation between body mass index and osteoporosis in urban population of Medan at Royal Prima Hospital. Maj Kedokt Bandung 52(1):2–7. Available from. https://doi.org/10.15395/mkb.v52n1.1827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bojincă V, Popescu C, Decianu R, Dobrescu A, Șerban B, Bălănescu A et al (2019) A novel quantitative method for estimating bone mineral density using B-mode ultrasound and radiofrequency signals-a pilot study on patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Exp Ther Med 18:1661–1668

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) for the PhD scholarship (#grant 166824/2018-6) and the Echolight group for technical support with the interpretation of REMS data and clarifications of the method. We would also like to thank Victor José Fidelis and Alessandra Marie Miott Renz (i2medi Comercial Medica Ltda. technicians) for REMS data acquisitions and Luciana Morita Ishihara for statistical analysis research.

Funding

This study was partially funded by i2medi Comercial Medica Ltda., specifically the technicians and the REMS device for the Bone Research Unit of São Paulo School-Hospital.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Endocrinology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Débora Meira Ramos Amorim, Eliane Naomi Sakane, Sergio Setsuo Maeda & Marise Lazaretti Castro

Authors
  1. Débora Meira Ramos Amorim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eliane Naomi Sakane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sergio Setsuo Maeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marise Lazaretti Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Débora Meira Ramos Amorim.

Ethics declarations

The study design and its conduction were carried out by the research team without any interference from the manufacturer. The study was conducted following the ethical standards for clinical research in human beings and previously approved by the ethics and research committee of the Federal University of São Paulo (number 0252/2019).

Conflict of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amorim, D.M.R., Sakane, E.N., Maeda, S.S. et al. New technology REMS for bone evaluation compared to DXA in adult women for the osteoporosis diagnosis: a real-life experience. Arch Osteoporos 16, 175 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-021-00990-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-021-00990-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation