Nellie Vallarta-Ast

An Overlying Fat Panniculus Affects Femur Bone Mass Measurement

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is currently the gold standard technique for osteoporosis diagnosis. However, DXA has limitations, including artifacts, such as degenerative disease or metallic foreign bodies, that may confound bone mineral density (BMD) results. Because fat folds overlying the proximal femur may alter soft-tissue density in a nonuniform manner, this may be a currently unappreciated confounder of proximal femur BMD measurement. This possibility was evaluated in 127 patients (52 women/75 men) referred for routine BMD measurement who were identified as having a fat panniculus overlying their proximal femur scan area. Presence of a fat panniculus within the scan field was confirmed by visual assessment of images obtained utilizing a GE Lunar Expert-XL. Subsequently, these individuals were rescanned while retracting their fat panniculus away from the femur scan area without other repositioning between scans. In 49% of the men, and 56% of the women, either the femoral neck, trochanter, or total femur BMD differed by more than the least significant change at our facility. No pattern was observed to predict whether BMD would increase or decrease upon fat retraction. Subsequently, 30 patients were scanned using the standard and retracted technique twice, with repositioning between scans to establish precision. Retracted and standard precision was similar. In conclusion, an overlying fat panniculus may alter proximal femur BMD measurement, which would be expected to impair the ability to accurately diagnose low bone mass and monitor osteoporosis therapy. When a fat panniculus overlays the proximal femur scan area, its retraction should be part of routine densitometric practice.

Interobserver Reproducibility of Criteria for Vertebral Body Exclusion

We studied reproducibility of the ISCD vertebral exclusion criteria among four interpreters. Surprisingly, agreement among interpreters was only moderate, because of differences in threshold for diagnosing focal structural defects and choice of which vertebra among a pair discordant for T‐score, area, or BMC to exclude. Our results suggest that reproducibility may be improved by specifically addressing the sources of interobserver disagreement.

Vertebral fracture assessment: impact of instrument and reader

PurposeMany osteoporotic vertebral fractures are not clinically recognized but increase fracture risk. We hypothesized that a newer generation densitometer increases the number of evaluable vertebrae and vertebral fractures detected. We also explored the impact of reader experience on vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) interpretation.MethodsVFA images obtained using Prodigy and iDXA densitometers in 103 older adults were evaluated for vertebral visualization and fracture presence in the T4–L5 region. A “true” read for each densitometer was achieved by consensus. If readers disagreed, the evaluation of a third expert physician was taken as true. Main outcomes were evaluable vertebrae, vertebral fractures, and intrareader/interreader reproducibility.ResultsUsing the “true” reads, 92% of vertebrae were visualized on iDXA and 76% on Prodigy. Numerically, more fractures were identified with iDXA; the “true” reads found 43 fractures on iDXA and 21 on Prodigy. The experienced reader had better intrareader and interreader reproducibility than the inexperienced reader when compared with the “true” read.ConclusionsUsing the newer iDXA densitometer for VFA analysis improves vertebral body visualization and fracture detection. Training and experience enhance result reproducibility.

BMD Measurement and Precision: A Comparison of GE Lunar Prodigy and iDXA Densitometers

This study assessed bone mineral density (BMD) comparability and precision using Lunar Prodigy and iDXA densitometers (GE Healthcare, Madison, WI) in adults. Additionally, the utility of supine forearm measurement with iDXA was investigated. Lumbar spine and bilateral proximal femur measurements were obtained in routine clinical manner in 345 volunteers, 202 women and 143 men of mean age 52.5 (range: 20.1-91.6)yr. Seated and supine distal forearm scans were obtained in a subset (n=50). Lumbar spine and proximal femur precision assessments were performed on each instrument following International Society for Clinical Densitometry recommendations in 30 postmenopausal women. BMD at the L1-L4 spine, total proximal femur, and femoral neck was very highly correlated (r(2)≥0.98) between densitometers, as was the one-third radius site (r(2)=0.96). Bland-Altman analyses demonstrated no clinically significant bias at all evaluated sites. BMD precision was similar between instruments at the L1-L4 spine, mean total proximal femur, and femoral neck. Finally, one-third radius BMD measurements in the supine vs seated position on the iDXA were highly correlated (r(2)=0.96). In conclusion, there is excellent BMD correlation between iDXA and Prodigy densitometers. Similarly, BMD precision is comparable with these two instruments.

Patient variables impact lumbar spine dual energy X-ray absorptiometry precision

IntroductionChanges in bone mineral density are used to monitor osteoporosis therapy. To determine whether a change in bone mass is clinically significant, the precision of bone mineral density measurements must be known.MethodsWe therefore measured the impact of vertebral body exclusion on dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) precision. At one university and one Veterans Affairs DXA center, three radiology technologists each scanned 30 participants twice, with repositioning between scans, to estimate DXA precision. Three International Society for Clinical Densitometry-certified physicians reviewed all lumbar spinal scans to note the presence of focal structural defects. We calculated precision for subsets of vertebrae, and for virtual samples of patients with and without physician-identified vertebral focal structural defects. We graphed the reciprocal of least significant change versus bone area to determine the dependence of precision on interpreted scan area.ResultsWithin each sample, greater interpretable bone area improved precision. The contribution of interpreted bone area to precision differed among the samples, ranging from 57 to 94%. Greater population bone mineral density heterogeneity and presence of focal structural defects each decreased precision.ConclusionAll bone densitometry centers must determine precision using a sample representative of their served populations. Failure to do so may lead to incorrect determination of least significant change. Population heterogeneity, vertebral body exclusion and presence of focal structural defects each decreases precision.

Densitometric Diagnosis of Osteoporosis in Men: Effect of Measurement Site and Normative Database

Controversy exists regarding which sites to measure, and the appropriate reference database to use, for densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis in men. While hip and spine bone mineral density (BMD) measurement is routine, spinal osteoarthritis often elevates measured BMD in older men. Additionally, the use of male reference data is standard practice; however, recent reports suggest that a female database may be more appropriate. This study evaluated the effect of sites measured, and normative database utilized, on the densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis in men. Spine, femur, and ultradistal radial BMD T-scores were determined in 595 male veterans using the GE Lunar male normative database. Subsequently, World Health Organization diagnostic criteria were applied, identifying 282 men with osteoporosis (T-score </= 2.5). The combination of femoral (lowest of neck or total) with the ultradistal radius site was more sensitive (p < 0.0001) for diagnosing osteoporosis than femur plus lumbar spine. When scans from 129 subjects with documented fractures were analyzed using female normative data, fewer (p < 0.0001) met an arbitrary threshold for receiving pharmacologic osteoporosis therapy. In conclusion, BMD measurement at only the spine and hip leads to underdiagnosis of osteoporosis in men. This situation will be exacerbated by utilization of a female normative database; more men with prior fracture may be categorized as not meeting a pharmaceutical intervention threshold.

Use of the lowest vertebral body T-score to diagnose lumbar osteoporosis in men: is "cherry picking" appropriate?

In this study, we hypothesized that use of the lowest T-score among four lumbar vertebral bodies would lessen the impact of degenerative arthritis and other artifacts on diagnostic categorization at this site and increase study sensitivity, classifying more men with prior fracture as osteoporotic than the other two methods of lumbar spine analysis. Bone density studies of 533 male veterans measured between January and October 2002 were reviewed to determine diagnostic classification using the L1-L4 average, International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD)-determined, and lowest lumbar vertebral body T-score. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of the three methods of spine analysis, using spine osteoporosis to indicate a positive test and prior fracture as the true indicator of osteoporosis. The lowest lumbar T-score performed with similar sensitivity and specificity to that of the lowest hip or wrist T-score in the ability to classify men with prior fracture as osteoporotic, whereas the average L1-L4 and ISCD-determined T-scores performed with lower sensitivity, but better specificity. In conclusion, this retrospective study suggests that use of the lowest vertebral body T-score among men increases diagnostic sensitivity of lumbar spine bone mass measurement. Prospective studies are needed to determine which of these three methods of lumbar spine analysis best predicts future fragility fracture in men and women.

Does the Precision of Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry for Bone Mineral Density Differ by Sex?

Given larger bone size in men, bone mineral density (BMD) precision might differ between sexes. This study compared dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry BMD precision of 3 International Society for Clinical Densitometry-certified technologists in older men and women. Each technologist scanned a cohort of 30 men and 30 women (total n = 180) by using a Lunar iDXA densitometer (GE Healthcare, Madison, WI). Each volunteer had 2 lumbar spine and bilateral hip scans with repositioning between examinations. BMD least significant change was calculated. Age and body mass index did not differ between men and women. Mean height and weight were greater in men, 174.6 cm ± 6.9 and 81.6 kg ± 11.1 respectively, (p < 0.0001) than in women, 161.5 cm ± 5.9/69.1 kg ± 14.2, respectively. Bone area was greater in men (p < 0.0001) at all sites. BMD least significant change was statistically better (p < 0.05) in women at the mean total femur (0.014 vs 0.018 g/cm(2)) and left femoral neck (0.025 vs 0.038 g/cm(2)), but not different at either total femur, the right femoral neck, or lumbar spine (all p > 0.05). In conclusion, statistically significant male/female differences in BMD precision were observed at the mean total femur and left femoral neck. Given the small magnitude of difference in g/cm(2) and inconsistent pattern, that is, no right femoral neck difference, there is virtually no clinical difference in BMD precision between sexes. These data do not support a need for sex-specific precision analyses.