A comparison of phantoms for cross-calibration of lumbar spine DXA

被引:22
作者
Pearson, D
Cawte, SA
Green, DJ
机构
[1] City Hosp Nottingham, NHS Trust, Clin Director Med Phys, Nottingham NG5 1PB, England
[2] City Hosp Nottingham, NHS Trust, Dept Med Phys, Nottingham NG5 1PB, England
[3] City Hosp Nottingham, NHS Trust, Dept Radiol, Nottingham NG5 1PB, England
关键词
bone mineral density; cross-calibration; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; phantom;
D O I
10.1007/s001980200132
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 [临床医学]; 100201 [内科学];
摘要
The aim of this project was to compare three phantoms used for cross-calibration of dual-energy Xray absorptiometers with an in vivo cross-calibration. The phantoms used were the Bona Fide Phantom (BFP), the European Spine Phantom (ESP) and the GE Lunar Aluminum Spine Phantom (ASP). The cross calibration was for L2-L4 lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) on a GE Lunar DPX-L and Hologic QDR 2000. The in vivo cross-calibration was obtained using 72 subjects (61 female, I I male; mean age 49 years, range 14-84 years), The phantoms were measured 10 times without repositioning on both instruments. A further, long-term cross-calibration was obtained with the BFP over a 9 month period. The true linear relationship between the two instruments was calculated used a standardized principal components method. The mean residuals were calculated between each phantom cross-calibration line and the in vivo data to obtain a measure of the goodness of fit between the phantom cross-calibration and the in vivo data. There was no significant difference between the in vitro and in vivo cross-calibrations. The long-term BFP cross-calibration gave an in vitro cross-calibration that is closest to the in vivo cross-calibration in this group of subjects. When calculating Hologic QDR BMD from results on the GE Lunar DPX-L, the ASP underestimates Hologic QDR 2000 BMD by 4% at high BMD and overestimates by 4% at low BMD. The ESP cross-calibration overestimates Hologic QDR2000 BMD by 1% at high BMD and 4% at low BMD. The, BFP performs best, overestimating Hologic QDR2000 BMD by between 1.2% and 1.8%, whilst the difference between the long-term BFP cross-calibration and the in vivo data is less than 1% over the range of BMD covered..
引用
收藏
页码:948 / 954
页数:7
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]
ARMITAGE P, 1971, STATISTICAL METHODS, P281
[2]
Comparison of two Hologic DXA systems (QDR 1000 and QDR 4500/A) [J].
Barthe, N ;
Braillon, P ;
Ducassou, D ;
BasseCathalinat, B .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1997, 70 (835) :728-739
[3]
Replacing DXA scanners: Cross-calibration with phantoms may be misleading [J].
Blake, GM .
CALCIFIED TISSUE INTERNATIONAL, 1996, 59 (01) :1-5
[4]
Cross-calibration, precision and patient dose measurements in preparation for clinical trials using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine [J].
Cawte, SA ;
Pearson, D ;
Green, DJ ;
Maslanka, WB ;
Miller, CG ;
Rogers, AT .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1999, 72 (856) :354-362
[5]
FELDMANN U, 1981, J CLIN CHEM CLIN BIO, V19, P121
[6]
GENANT HK, 1994, J BONE MINER RES, V9, P1503
[7]
QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR BONE DENSITOMETRY RESEARCH STUDIES - CONCEPT AND IMPACT [J].
GLUER, CC ;
FAULKNER, KG ;
ESTILO, MJ ;
ENGELKE, K ;
ROSIN, J ;
GENANT, HK .
OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 1993, 3 (05) :227-235
[8]
COMPARISON OF THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT REFERENCE DATA ON LUNAR-DPX AND HOLOGIC-QDR-1000 DUAL-ENERGY X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETERS [J].
LASKEY, MA ;
CRISP, AJ ;
COLE, TJ ;
COMPSTON, JE .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1992, 65 (780) :1124-1129
[9]
Evaluation of the European spine phantom in a multi-centre clinical trial [J].
Lees, B ;
Garland, SW ;
Walton, C ;
Stevenson, JC .
OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 1997, 7 (06) :570-574
[10]
Standardization of bone mineral density at femoral neck, trochanter and Ward's triangle [J].
Lu, Y ;
Fuerst, T ;
Hui, S ;
Genant, HK .
OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2001, 12 (06) :438-444