Skip to main content
Log in

Site of bone density measurement may affect therapy decision

  • Clinical Investigations
  • Published:
Calcified Tissue International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The purpose of this study was to determine whether bone mineral density (BMD) measurements at the lumbar spine and femoral neck provided comparable information to women planning to use that knowledge to help them make a decision about hormone replacement therapy. Eighty-eight healthy Caucasian women, aged 44–59 and within 0 to 5 years of menopause, participated in the study. BMD measurements were performed at the lumbar spine (L1-L4) and the femoral neck by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Criteria suggested by the National Osteoporosis Foundation were used to categorize women as “at risk” for osteoporosis, bone density more than one standard deviation (SD) below the young adult mean, or as “low risk”, bone density at or above this level. The re that 46 women would be classified into the low risk category on the basis of spinal BMD alone. However, 28 of these 46 women would fall into the at risk category when the femoral neck BMD was measured. Sixty-one percent of women informed they were at low risk on the basis of spinal BMD would be considered at risk based on femoral neck BMD. When femoral neck BMD was used as the primary risk indicator, 14% of the women classified as low risk would be at risk if spinal BMD were added. These results suggest that both lumbar spine and proximal femur measurements should be made when women are using bone density measurements as an aid in deciding whether or not to use hormone therapy in their postmenopausal years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Riggs BL, Melton LJ (1986) Involutional osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 314:1676–1686

    Google Scholar 

  2. Riggs BL, Melton LJ (1983) Evidence for two distinct syndromes of involutional osteoporosis. Am J Med 75:899–901

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lindsay R, Hart DM, Forrest C, Baird C (1980) Prevention of spinal osteoporosis in oophorectomised women. Lancet 2:1151–1154

    Google Scholar 

  4. World Health Organization (1981) Research on the menopause. WHO technical report #670, World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  5. Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Hennekens CH, Rosner B, Speizer FE (1990) Prospective study of estrogen replacement therapy and risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. JAMA 264:2648–2653

    Google Scholar 

  6. Consensus Development Conference (1991) Prophylaxis and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 90:107–110

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wasnich RD, Davis JW, Ross PD (1990) Appropriate clinical application of bone density measurements. JAMA 45:99–102

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wasnich RD (1987) Fracture prediction with bone mass measurements. In: Genant HK (ed) Osteoporosis update. Radiology Research and Education Foundation, San Francisco, pp 95–101

    Google Scholar 

  9. Johnston CC, Melton LJ, Lindsay R, Eddy DM (1989) Clinical indications for bone mass measurements. J Bone Miner Res 4 (suppl 2):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wasnich RD, Ross PD, Heilbrun LK, Vogel JM (1987) Selection of the optimal skeletal site for fracture risk prediction. Clin Orthop Rel Res 216:262–269

    Google Scholar 

  11. Need AG, Nordin BEC (1990) Which bone to measure? Osteop Int 1:3–6

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mazess RB, Barden H, Ettinger M, Schultz E (1988) Bone density of the radius, spine, and proximal femur in osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 3:13–18

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rencken ML, Murano R, Drinkwater BL, Chesnut CH (1991) In vitro comparability of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) bone densitometers. Calcif Tissue Int 48:245–248

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lai KC, Goodsitt M, 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

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lindsay R, Aitken JM, Anderson JB, Hart DM, McDonald EB, Clark AC (1976) Long-term prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis by estrogen. Lancet 1:1038–1041

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Willett WC, Manson JE, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Hennekens CH (1991) Postmenopausal estrogen therapy and cardiovascular disease: ten-year follow-up from the Nurses' Health Study. N Engl J Med 325:756–762

    Google Scholar 

  17. Melton LJ, Atkinson EJ, O'Fallon WM, Wahner HW, Riggs BL (1991) Long-term fracture risk prediction with bone mineral measurements made at various skeletal sites. J Bone Miner Res 6 (suppl):S136

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wasnich RD, Ross PD, Davis JW, Vogel JM (1989) A comparison of single and multi-site BMC measurements for assessment of spine fracture probability. J Nucl Med 30:1166–1171

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC, Browner W, Cauley J, Ensrud K, Genant HK, Palermo L, Scott J, Vogt TM (1993) Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. Lancet 341:72–75

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lai, K., Rencken, M., Drinkwater, B.L. et al. Site of bone density measurement may affect therapy decision. Calcif Tissue Int 53, 225–228 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320905

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320905

Key words

Navigation