Empirical Functions for Conversion of Femur Areal and Volumetric Bone Mineral Density

Original Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is areal and in the unit of g/cm2, while BMD measured by quantitative computed tomography (QCT) is volumetric and in the unit of g/cm3. There is often a need to convert them to each other, but a simple conversion method is not available. The objective of this study was to establish empirical functions for the conversion. QCT of left femur from 67 subjects were acquired from a local clinical centre. For each subject, volumetric BMD was extracted from QCT using QCT Pro; the corresponding areal BMD was measured by CTXA-Hip. Both QCT Pro and CTXA-Hip are commercial software. The paired volumetric and areal BMD datasets were randomly split into two groups, and used respectively in construction and validation of empirical functions. Correlation between volumetric and areal BMD was 0.9073 (p < 0.0001) without considering femoral neck width (FNW), and 0.9970 (p < 0.0001) with the consideration of FNW. In the validations, the best agreement between predicted and measured volumetric BMD was R2 = 0.9796, SSE = 0.0074, CV = 2.7%; the best agreement between predicted and measured areal BMD was R2 = 0.9713, SSE = 0.0072, CV = 2.8%. Femur size represented by FNW had substantial effect on correlation between areal and volumetric BMD. With the consideration of FNW, areal and volumetric BMD can be converted to each other using the empirical functions constructed in this study.

Keywords

Areal bone mineral density (aBMD) Volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) QCT Pro CTXA-Hip 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The reported research has been supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and Research Manitoba in Canada, which are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Bauer, J. S., & Link, T. M. (2009). Advances in osteoporosis imaging. European Journal of Radiology, 71, 440–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blake, G. M., & Fogelman, I. (2007). The role of DXA bone density scans in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 83, 509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engelke, K., Lang, T., Khosla, S., Qin, L., Zysset, P., Leslie, W. D., et al. (2015). Clinical use of quantitative computed tomography (QCT) of the hip in the management of osteoporosis in adults: The 2015 iscd official positions-part I. Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 18, 338–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Linet, M. S., Slovis, T. L., Miller, D. L., Kleinerman, R., Lee, C., Rajaraman, P., et al. (2012). Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62, 75–100.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shuryak, I., Sachs, R. K., & Brenner, D. J. (2010). Cancer risks after radiation exposure in middle age. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 102, 1628–1636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martin, R. B., & Burr, D. B. (1984). Non-invasive measurement of long bone cross-sectional moment of inertia by photon absorptiometry. Journal of Biomechanics, 17, 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beck, T. J., Ruff, C. B., Warden, K. E., & Jr, W. W. (1990). Scott, and G.U. Rao. Predicting femoral neck strength from bone mineral data: A structural approach. Investigative Radiology, 25, 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yoshikawa, T., Turner, C. H., Peacock, M., Slemenda, C. W., Weaver, C. M., Teegarden, D., et al. (1994). Geometric structure of the femoral neck measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 9, 1053–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luo, Y., Ferdous, Z., & Leslie, W. D. (2013). Precision study of DXA-based patient-specific finite element modeling for assessing hip fracture risk. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering, 29, 615–629.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang, L., Peel, N., Clowes, J. A., McCloskey, E. V., & Eastell, R. (2009). Use of DXA-based structural engineering models of the proximal femur to discriminate hip fracture. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 24, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luo, Y., Ferdous, Z., & Leslie, W. D. (2011). A preliminary dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-based finite element model for assessing osteoporotic hipfracture risk. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 225, 1188–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Naylor, K. E., McCloskey, E. V., Eastell, R., & Yang, L. (2013). Use of DXA-based finite element analysis of the proximal femur in a longitudinal study of hip fracture. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 28, 1014–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Helgason, B., Perilli, E., et al. (2008). Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: A literature review. Clinical Biomechanics, 23, 135–146.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lotz, J. C., Gerhart, T. N., & Hayes, W. C. (1990). Mechanical properties of trabecular bone from the proximal femur: A quantitative CT study. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 14, 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keller, T. S. (1994). Predicting the compressive mechanical behavior of bone. Journal of Biomechanics, 27, 1159–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morgan, E. F., Bayraktar, H. H., & Keaveny, T. M. (2003). Trabecular bone modulus–density relationships depend on anatomic site. Journal of Biomechanics, 36, 897–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Den Buijs, J. O., & Dragomir-Daescu, D. (2010). Validated finite element models of the proximal femur using two-dimensional projected geometry and bone density. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 104, 168–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Targownik, L., Luo, Y., Goertzen, A., Slotboom, A., Leslie, W. D. (2015). Comparing bone structure and bone metabolism between long-term proton pump inhibitor users and non-users. Gastroenterology, 148, S–153.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pickhardt, P. J., Bodeen, G., Brown, J. K., & Binkley, N. (2015). Comparison of femoral Neck BMD evaluation obtained using lunar DXA and QCT with asynchronous calibration from ct colonography. Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 18, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheng, X., Wang, L., Wang, Q., Ma, Y., Su, Y., & Li, K. (2014). Validation of quantitative computed tomography-derived areal bone mineral density with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in an elderly Chinese population. Chinese Medical Journal, 127, 1445–1449.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khoo, B. C., Brown, K., Cann, C., et al. (2009). Comparison of QCT-derived and DXA-derived areal bone mineral density and t scores. Osteoporosis International, 20, 1539–1545.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cann, C. E., Adams, J. E., Brown, J. K., & Brett, A. D. (2014). CTXA hip—An extension of classical DXA measurements using quantitative CT. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e91904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leslie, W. D., Kovacs, C. S., Olszynski, W. P., et al. (2011). Spine-hip T-score difference predicts major osteoporotic fracture risk independent of FRAX((R)): A population-based report from CAMOS. Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 14, 286–293.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Szulc, P., Duboeuf, F., & Chapurlat, R. (2017). Age-related changes in fat mass and distribution in men-the cross-sectional STRAMBO study. J Clin Densitom, 20, 472–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Taiwanese Society of Biomedical Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations