Dataset Information

Can digital X-ray radiogrammetry be an alternative for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the diagnosis of secondary low bone quality in children?

ABSTRACT: Bone quality in children is generally measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Digital X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR) uses BoneXpert to measure cortical bone quality on hand radiographs. This prospective study compared DXR and DXA results in children with high probability of secondary low bone quality, defined as DXA of the lumbar spine (DXALS) Z-score ??-?2.0. One hundred one children underwent both DXA and DXR assessment. DXALSZ-scores were also adjusted for bone age. DXR Z-scores were compared with both DXALSZ-scores, using Pearson correlations, Bland-Altman analysis, and sensitivity-specificity analysis. Mean bone age, DXR, and both DXA Z-scores were significantly impaired. Pearson correlation coefficients were significant between DXR Z-scores and both DXALSZ-scores 0.507-0.564 (p?

SUBMITTER: Leijten AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6694095 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can digital X-ray radiogrammetry be an alternative for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the diagnosis of secondary low bone quality in children?

Leijten Alex D AD Hampsink Brieke B Janssen Marcel M Klein Willemijn M WM Draaisma Jos M T JMT

European journal of pediatrics 20190727 9

Bone quality in children is generally measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Digital X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR) uses BoneXpert to measure cortical bone quality on hand radiographs. This prospective study compared DXR and DXA results in children with high probability of secondary low bone quality, defined as DXA of the lumbar spine (DXA<sub>LS</sub>) Z-score ≤ - 2.0. One hundred one children underwent both DXA and DXR assessment. DXA<sub>LS</sub>Z-scores were also adjusted for bone ...[more]

PMID: 31352546

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesFracture liaison services are designed to identify patients needing osteoporosis treatment after a fracture. Some fracture liaison service designs involve a prescreening step, for example, fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®). Another possible prescreening tools are bone mass density assessment in the acute setting. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of prescreening tools.MethodsIn the present prospective cohort study, women aged >55 years with a radius fracture were included. Patients were recruited at the emergency department after experiencing their fracture. All patients performed fracture risk assessment by fracture risk assessment tool, and bone mass density assessment by digital X-ray radiogrammetry and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (prescreening steps) as well as full routine evaluation at the osteoporosis unit (endpoint). The main outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and area under the curve.ResultsForty-one women were recruited (mean age: 70 ± 8 years). Of these, 54% fulfilled the treatment indication criteria of osteoporosis after a full examination. Fracture risk assessment tool without bone mass density (cutoff ⩾ 15%) for prescreening patients had a high sensitivity (90%) but a low area under the curve (0.50) and specificity (16%). The highest area under the curve (0.73) was found prescreening with bone mass density assessment (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry or digital X-ray radiogrammetry) having a sensitivity of 59%-86% and specificity of 61%-90%.ConclusionThis study, though small, raises questions regarding the effectiveness of using a prescreening step in fracture liaison services for high-risk individuals. In this cohort, FRAX® without bone mass density had a low precision, with a risk of both underestimating and overestimating patients requiring treatment. Bone mass density assessment in the acute setting could improve the precision of prescreening. Further investigations on the effectiveness and health economics of prescreening steps in fracture liaison services are needed.

Project description:Introduction The WHO definition of osteoporosis, and published BMD (Bone Mineral Density) references ranges, do not consider differences in bone size. Because it is a two-dimensional technique, and cannot measure bone depth, aBMD (areal BMD) measured using DXA (Dual-energy X-Ray Absorptiometry) is affected by bone size variability. Mathematical models have been devised to correct aBMD for bone size, but these are confounded by variations in soft tissue surrounding bone. Confirmation of the actual quantitative effect on clinical results for patients requires precise changes in bone size and mineral density, but studies of humans and animals are limited by the inability to precisely control these in natural bones. Purpose The objectives of this experiment were to obtain precise, repeatable, quantitative data from sets of artificial vertebrae to confirm the dependence of aBMD on bone size in clinical practice, and to test the effect of applying corrections based on assumptions that the vertebrae were simple geometric shapes to produce corrected BMAD (Bone Mineral Apparent Density). Methods and materials Four sets of artificial bones, each set containing four cylinders of different diameters but identical in height, were constructed by casting a mixture of epoxy resin and calcium carbonate powder into a mould. The cylinders were considered to be artificial vertebrae L1 to L4 so that all four in a set may be tested in a single scan. The X-Ray attenuation of the material used was varied between the sets, to represent differences in BMD. Each set of vertebrae was inserted into a soft-tissue analogue and DXA scanned, in the anteroposterior position, with the GE Lunar Prodigy and the Hologic Discovery. Results The results verify the theoretical direct proportionality between aBMD and diameter, confirming that aBMD is significantly affected by bone size. Applying a BMAD correction, by assuming the vertebrae to be cylinders, reduced the effect of change in bone diameter by approximately two orders of magnitude to an insignificant level. Conclusion This experiment has confirmed that BMD measured using DXA, accepted in clinical practice as the “gold standard” means of diagnosing osteoporosis, could lead to misdiagnosis because it is significantly affected by differences in bone size. Graphical abstract Unlabelled Image Highlights • Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry is two-dimensional; results affected by bone size.• Those with small bones may be over-diagnosed; those with large bones under-diagnosed.• Experiment with artificial vertebrae confirms theory and previous clinical studies.

Project description:Bone mineral density (BMD) measurement using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is considered a diagnostic parameter for osteoporosis by the World Health Organization (WHO). DXA densitometers have different scanning modes for BMD measurements, although the specific scanning modes vary based upon the manufacturer. For DXA machines manufactured by Hologic, which are used globally, a range of scanning modes exist, including but not limited to (in order of decreasing spatial resolution) Array, Fast Array, and Express Array. Only a handful of prior studies have compared the reproducibility of BMD measurements across scan modes. The present study aimed to add to this body of literature by investigating the differences in BMD measured between 3 scanning modes in Hologic DXA machines at 19 different health centers. As part of cross-calibration activities for two multi-center studies in China measuring BMD, the European spine phantom (ESP, 1.000 g/cm2) was scanned on 19 different Hologic DXA machines. To measure differences in BMD between the 3 scan modes most commonly found on the Hologic models available (i.e., Array, Fast Array, Express Array), the ESP measurement was performed 10 times for each scan mode on each Hologic DXA machine. One-sample t test was used to compare the average difference between the measured ESP results of the 3 scanning modes at each hospital and reference ESP values. Single factor analysis of variance was performed to compare the average differences between the pairs of scanning modes using the reference ESP. Statistically significant differences between the measured ESP results with reference ESP values were found with each scanning mode at 19 hospitals (all p values <0.05). Consistent with this finding, differences in average BMD between the Array mode and Fast Array mode were invariably the smallest compared to differences seen between the other two pairs of scan modes. Significant differences were observed between average ESP BMD for the Array and Express Array scan modes (0.971 ± 0.013 vs 0.935 ± 0.027, p < 0.001), and between Fast Array and Express Array scan modes (0.972 ± 0.012 vs 0.935 ± 0.027, p < 0.001). However, no significant difference in average ESP BMD was observed between the Array and Fast Array scan modes (0.971 ± 0.013 vs 0.972 ± 0.012, p = 0.997). The selection of ideal scanning mode requires a balance of scanning time, radiation exposure, and measurement accuracy. In this ex vivo study, the Fast Array scanning mode appeared to be a reasonable choice compared with Array and Express Array for BMD measurements by Hologic DXA. Future in vivo studies can help guide the clinical application of these findings.

Dataset Information

Can digital X-ray radiogrammetry be an alternative for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the diagnosis of secondary low bone quality in children?

Publications

Can digital X-ray radiogrammetry be an alternative for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the diagnosis of secondary low bone quality in children?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets