Advertisement

Bone Density Data from DPA to DXA and Manufacturer to Manufacturer

  • Sydney Lou Bonnick
Part of the Current Clinical Practice book series (CCP)

Abstract

The extraordinary advances in bone-density technology over the past 30 years, enhancing the physician’s ability to detect and manage metabolic bone disease, have also created a dilemma as physicians have attempted to compare results obtained on early dual-photon devices with today’s dual-energy X-ray devices. As dual-energy X-ray technology has advanced, data from pencil-beam systems is now being compared with data from fan-array systems. Data from one manufacturer’s pencil-beam DXA device may need to be compared to data from another manufacturer’ s pencil-beam device. This situation is not dissimilar to circumstances created during the evolution of other types of quantitative measurement techniques used in clinical medicine. For example, the measurement of some parameter in blood may have initially been performed using one type of assay, only to be later replaced by a different assay. There may be different ranges of normal, depending on the assay, and even depending on the laboratory. Although it would be ideal for a patient being followed with a quantitative measurement technique for any reason to return year after year to the same laboratory to be tested using the same assay, this is not a reasonable expectation. In the context of bone densitometry, it is useful to have some ability to compare measurements originally made with DPA to measurements being made with DXA. In addition, the differences between the values obtained on different manufacturers’ DXA devices, with their respective reference ranges, must be appreciated.

Keywords

Femoral Neck Proximal Femur Bone Densitometry Bone Density Data Quantitative Measurement Technique 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kelly TL, Slovik DM, Schoenfeld DA, Neer RM (1988) Quantitative digital radiography versus dual photon absorptiometry of the lumbar spine. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 67: 839–844.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pacifici R, Rupich R, Vered I, Fischer KC, Griffin M, Susman N, Avioli LV (1988) Dual energy radiography (DER): a preliminary comparative study. Calcif Tissue Int 43: 189–191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holbrook TL, Barrett-Connor E, Klauber M, Sartoris D (1991) A population-based comparison of quantitative dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry with dual-photon absorptiometry of the spine and hip. Calcif Tissue Int 49: 305–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mazess RB, Barden HS (1988) Measurement of bone by dual-photon absorptiometry (DPA) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Annal Chirurg Gynaecol 77: 197–203.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lees B, Stevenson JC (1992) An evaluation of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and comparison with dual-photon absorptiometry. Osteoporosis Int 2: 146–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McClung M, Roberts L (1989) Correlation of bone density measurements by 153-Gd and X-ray dual photon absorptiometry. Abstract. J Bone Miner Res 4: S368.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arai H, Ito K, Nagao K, Furutachi M (1990) The evaluation of three different bone densitometry systems: XR-26, QDR-1000, and DPX. Image Technol Inf Display 22: 1–6.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lai KC, Goodsitt MM, Murano R, Chesnut CH (1992) A comparison of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry systems for spinal bone mineral measurement. Calcif Tissue Int 50: 203–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pocock NA, Sambrook PN, Nguyen T, Kelly P, Freund J, Eisman JA (1992) Assessment of spinal and femoral bone density by dual X-ray absorptiometry: comparison of Lunar and Hologic instruments. J Bone Miner Res 7: 1081–1084.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Genant HK, Grampp S, Gluer CC, Faulkner KG, Jergas M, Engelke K, Hagiwara S, Van Kuijk C (1994) Universal standardization for dual X-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results. J Bone Miner Res 9: 1503–1514.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hanson J (1997) Standardization of femur BMD. J Bone Miner Res 12: 1316, 1317.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Economos CD, Nelson ME, Fiatarone MA, Dallai GE, Heymsfield SB, Wang J, et al. (1996) A multicenter comparison of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers: in vivo and in vitro measurements of bone mineral content and density. J Bone Miner Res 11: 275–285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blake GM, Tong CM, Fogelman I (1991) Intersite comparison of the Hologic QDR1000 dual energy X-ray bone densitometer. BrJRadiol 64: 440–446.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Orwoll E, Oviatt SK, and the Nafarelin Bone Study Group (1991) Longitudinal precision of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in a multicenter study. J Bone Miner Res 6: 191–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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: 190.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eiken P, Barenholdt O, Bjorn Jensen L, Gram J, Pors Nielsen S (1994) Switching from DXA pencil-beam to fan-beam. I: studies in vitro at four centers. Bone 15: 667–670.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blake GM, Parker JC, Buxton FM, Fogelman I (1993) Dual X-ray absorptiometry: a comparison between fan beam and pencil beam scans. Br J Radiol 66: 902–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Faulkner KG, Gluer CC, Estilo M, Genant HK (1993) Cross-calibration of DXA equipment: upgrading from a Hologic QDR 1000/W to a QDR 2000. Calcif Tissue Int 52: 79–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laskey MA, Crisp AJ, Cole TJ, Compston JE (1992) Comparison of the effect of different reference data on Lunar DPX and Hologic QDR-1000 dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers. Br J Radiol 65: 1124–1129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Faulkner KG, Roberts LA, McClung MR (1996) Discrepancies in normative data between Lunar and Hologic DXA systems. Osteoporosis Int 6: 432–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Looker AC, Wahner HW, Dunn WL, Calvo MS, Harris TB, Heyse SP, Johnston CC, Lindsay RL (1995) Proximal femur bone mineral levels of US adults. Osteoporosis Int 5: 389–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hologic. Reference database and reports. QDR 4500 Operator’s Manual. Waltham, MA, pp. 8–1–8–20.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lunar. Comparison to reference population. DPX-IQ User’s Manual. Madison, WI, pp. 5. 1–5. 19.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Norland. Patient comparison. XR-Series X-ray Bone Densitometer Operator’s Guide. Ft. Atkinson, WI, pp. 12. 1–12. 30.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simmons A, Simpson DE, O’Doherty MJ, Barrington S, Coakley AJ (1997) The effects of standardization and reference values on patient classification for spine and femur dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporosis Int 7: 200–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sydney Lou Bonnick
    • 1
  1. 1.Texas Woman’s UniversityDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations