Journal of Clinical Densitometry
Volume 9, Issue 3 , Pages 287-294, July 2006

Cross Calibration of DXA as Part of an Equipment Replacement Program

  • Derek Pearson

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Physics, Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, United Kingdom
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: Derek Pearson, PhD, Clinical Director, Medical Physics Directorate, Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, United Kingdom.
  • ,
  • Barbara Horton

      Affiliations

    • Radiology, Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, United Kingdom
  • ,
  • Desmond J. Green

      Affiliations

    • Radiology, Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, United Kingdom

Received 26 December 2005; received in revised form 7 February 2006; accepted 7 February 2006.

Abstract 

The purpose of this study was to develop cross calibrations when replacing three dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers (GE Lunar DPXL [Madison, WI], DPXL, GE Lunar Expert [Madison, WI], Expert, Hologic QDR2000 [Waltham, MA]) with two new GE Lunar Prodigy instruments. Subjects previously scanned on the Expert or QDR2000 were transferred to Prodigy 1 and those previously scanned on the DPXL to Prodigy 2. A cohort of subjects was recalled for each old instrument, and approximately 20 subjects had lumbar spine and hip scans on each old instrument and the appropriate new instrument. An in vitro calibration was carried out using a Bona Fide Phantom (Bio-Imaging Technologies, Inc., Newtown, PA). Calibrations were fitted using a standardized principal components method. A Bland and Altman plot was used to calculate the mean difference and limits of agreement between instruments. Standardized bone mineral density (BMD) was also used to calibrate the Hologic to Prodigy 1. There was good agreement between instruments from the same manufacturer. As expected, BMD measured on the Prodigy was about 15% higher than the Hologic. Using standardized BMD to cross calibrate gave a mean difference of 3% at the lumbar spine. The limits of agreement following calibration are clinically significant, so it is not possible to apply a calibration to an individual subject for trending purposes, as the error is similar to the expected annual change in BMD, but can be used for cross calibration in clinical trials. The in vivo calibration gave better agreement than using standardized BMD. The phantom calibration was close to the in vivo calibrations at the spine, but not in some hip regions. When introducing a new instrument, a new baseline BMD has to be obtained for each subject.

Key Words: Bone density, calibration, DXA

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1094-6950(06)00037-0

doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2006.02.006

Journal of Clinical Densitometry
Volume 9, Issue 3 , Pages 287-294, July 2006