Does the precision of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for bone mineral density differ by sex?

Bilateral hip DXA Reporting: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry

INTRODUCTION

This position development conference (PDC) Task Force examined the use and reporting of bilateral hip bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. This was deemed appropriate as increased availability of Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) technology offering bilateral hip measurement resulted in more routine clinical use. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry Official Positions accept bilateral hip BMD measurement for clinical use but currently do not include recommendations for reporting those studies.

METHODS

Four key questions regarding bilateral hip reporting were proposed by the PDC Steering Committee. Relevant literature was identified using PubMed. Questions included whether bilateral hip measurements are appropriate for diagnostic classification or monitoring, as well as which bilateral hip regions of interest should be reported for diagnosis and monitoring. Additionally, the appropriate nomenclature for bilateral hip acquisition was defined.

RESULTS

The literature review demonstrated that bilateral hip measurement is appropriate and diagnostic classification should be based on the lowest T-score at the right or left side femoral neck or total hip; the mean T-score should not be used for diagnostic purposes. Mean bilateral total hip is preferred for BMD monitoring. The terms hip, or total hip were deemed appropriate nomenclature instead of femur or total proximal femur.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral hip acquisition is clinically appropriate and reporting and nomenclature standards are offered herein when a bilateral hip study is acquired. In terms of future research, the impact of discordant hips on diagnosis and monitoring was identified as a significant knowledge gap.

Bone Mineral Density Precision for Individual and Combined Vertebrae Configurations From Lumbar Spine Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Scans

The accurate interpretation of repeat DXA scan measurements and the understanding of what constitutes a true and meaningful change require knowledge of measurement error (precision) and least significant change. The interpretation of lumbar spine bone mineral density in particular can be confounded by artefacts and as such, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) recommends exclusion of individual vertebrae if they are affected by local structural change or an artefact. The aim of this study was to determine the precision of bone mineral density measures of individual and various configurations of vertebrae from PA lumbar spine scans. The study group comprised of 30 women (age 36.3 ± 6.5 years; height: 165.2 ± 5.7 cm; weight: 67.7 ± 12.6 kg) who each received 2 consecutive anterior-posterior lumbar spine scans (Lunar iDXA, GE Healthcare, Madison, WI), with repositioning. Precision errors varied by individual vertebrae and by different configurations of vertebrae but all were within the ISCD acceptable range of precision. For vertebrae configurations containing at least 2 vertebrae, precision error ranged from 0.005 to 0.008 RMS-SD (0.44%-0.70% CV). Of the individual vertebrae, the lowest precision error was observed at L4, and from the different configurations, for L2L3L4 and L1L2L3L4. In conclusion, this study group demonstrated excellent precision for BMD measurements of individual and various configurations of L1-L4 vertebrae using the GE Lunar iDXA densitometer.

Spine Trabecular Bone Score Precision, a Comparison Between GE Lunar Standard and High-Resolution Densitometers

Trabecular bone score (TBS) is related to microarchitecture and fracture risk independently of bone mineral density (BMD) and clinical risk factors. Widespread clinical TBS use requires documentation of reproducibility and ideally comparability across scanners. This study evaluated TBS reproducibility and explored differences between Lunar Prodigy and iDXA densitometers. Reproducibility was assessed from replicate scans in 210 men and women participating in various dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) precision assessments. iDXA-to-Prodigy comparability was evaluated using 155 participants from 3 study groups. L1-L4 BMD and TBS precision was similar on iDXA and Prodigy (BMD coefficient of variation = 1.9% and 1.5% and TBS coefficient of variation = 1.4% and 1.6%, respectively). Precision did not differ between men and women; however, between-technologist differences (p < 0.05) of similar magnitude were observed for both BMD and TBS. Prodigy-to-Prodigy TBS values were highly correlated (R(2) = 0.85 with bias of -0.010 TBS units). Agreement was less robust comparing Prodigy with iDXA instruments (TBS R(2): 0.72-0.81 with biases of 0.012-0.034 TBS units). In conclusion, TBS precision is comparable to that of BMD and does not differ between men and women. Additionally, in these cohorts, slight TBS differences were observed between iDXA and Prodigy scans. These data suggest a potential difference between densitometer models perhaps due to higher iDXA image resolution.