Bone mineral density measurement with DXA.

Principle of DXA scanning

As with many other diagnostic examinations, DXA scans should be critically assessed by the interpreting physician and densitometrist for abnormalities that may affect BMD measurements. In clinical practice, recognition of diverse artifacts and disease processes that may influence BMD results can be of major importance in the optimal interpretation of DXA scans¹⁰. Physicians not directly involved in the performance and interpretation of DXA should be familiar enough to detect common positioning and scanning problems, to know what should appear on a report, what questions to ask if the necessary information is not on the report, how to apply the results in patient management, and when to do and how to interpret a second measurement to monitor treatment ¹¹.

Several different types of DXA systems are available, but they all operate on similar principles. A radiation source is aimed at a radiation detector placed directly opposite the site to be measured. The patient is placed on a table in the path of the radiation beam. The source/detector assembly is then scanned across the measurement region. The attenuation of the radiation beam is determined and is related to the BMD ^12-14.

DXA technology can measure virtually any skeletal site, but clinical use has been concentrated on the lumbar spine, proximal femur, forearm, and total body ³. DXA systems are available as either full table systems (capable of multiple skeletal measurements, including the spine and hip) or as peripheral systems (limited to measuring the peripheral skeleton). Because of their versatility, and the ability to measure the skeletal sites of greatest clinical interest, full table DXA systems are the current clinical choice for osteoporosis assessment. Peripheral DXA systems, portable and less expensive than full table systems, are more frequently used as screening and early risk assessment tools; they cannot be used for treatments follow-up. Spine and proximal femur scans represent the majority of the clinical measurements performed using DXA. Most full table DXA systems are able to perform additional scans, including lateral spine BMD measurements, body composition study,  assessment of vertebral fractures, assessment of bone around prosthetic implants, measurements of children and infants, small-animal studies and measurements of excised bone specimens. Early DXA systems used a pencil beam geometry and a single detector, which was scanned across the measurement region. Modern full table DXA scanners use a fan-beam source and multiple detectors, which are swept across the measurement region. Fan beam provides the advantage of decreased scan times compared to single-beam systems, but these machines typically cost more because of the need for multiple X-ray detectors. Fan-beam systems use either a single-view or multiview mode to image the skeleton ⁴.

In clinical practice, BMD measurements are widely used to diagnose osteoporosis and  measurement in bone mass are commonly used as a surrogate for fracture risk ¹⁵. BMD is the measured parameter, and allows the calculation of the bone mineral content (BMC) in grams and the two-dimensional projected area in cm² of the bone(s) being measured; thus the units of BMD are g/cm². The BMD values (in g/cm²) are not used for diagnosing osteoporosis. Instead, a working group of the WHO proposed to define osteoporosis on the basis of the T-score (which is the difference between the measured BMD and the mean value of young adults, expressed in standard deviations (SD) for a  normal population of the same ethnicity) ¹⁶. Despite its limitations; this definition is currently applied worldwide. Thus, the WHO diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis define osteoporosis in terms of a T-score below −2.5 and osteopenia when T-score is between -2.5 and -1.

The T-score is calculated using the formula: (patient’s BMD - young normal mean)/SD of young normal. For example, if a patient has a BMD of 0.700 g/cm², the young normal mean is 1.000 g/cm², and the young normal standard deviation is 0.100 g/cm², then this patient’s T-score would be (0.700 - 1.000)/0.100, or –0.300/0.100, or –3.0¹⁷. A T-score of 0 is equal to the young normal mean value, -1.0 is 1 SD low, -2.0 is 2 SD low, etc⁸. Although the WHO classification was not intended to be applied to individual patients, it works well to define ‘‘normal’’ (T-score –1.0 and above) and ‘‘osteoporosis’’ (T-score –2.5 and below). Several large studies have shown an unacceptably high risk of fracture in post-menopausal women who have T-scores of –2.5 and below. Thus, this threshold is the cornerstone of the patient’s assessment. For the therapeutic decisions, however, other risk factors are considered such as prevalent fractures, age and low body mass index.

Who should have a DXA measurement?

Most official groups recommend screening healthy women for osteoporosis at age 65, and testing higher-risk women earlier^18,19. In Europe the recommendations are to screen for risk factors of osteoporosis and to perform BMD measurement in women with such risks. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) recommends screening men without risk factors for osteoporosis at age 70, and screening higher-risk men earlier. Risk factors include dementia, poor health, recent falls, prolonged immobilization, smoking, alcohol abuse, low body weight, history of fragility fracture in a first-degree relative, estrogen deficiency at an early age (<45 years), and steroid use for more than 3 months. Of course, BMD testing is an appropriate tool in the evaluation of patients who have diseases (e.g. hyperthyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, celiac disease, etc.) or use medications (e.g. glucocorticoids, GnRH agonists, aromatase inhibitors etc.) that might cause bone loss. Another indication is radiographic evidence of ‘‘osteopenia’’ or a vertebral fracture).

Recently, many epidemiological studies have validated risk assessment indices for osteoporosis in women. The purpose of the risk assessment indices is not to diagnose osteoporosis or low BMD, but to identify women who are more likely to have low BMD ²⁰. Such indices, while not identifying all cases of osteoporosis, increase the efficiency of BMD measurement by focusing on subjects who are at increased risk ^21-23. The easiest to use in clinical practice is certainly the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool (OST). The calculated risk index is based on self-reported age and weight: [(weight in kilograms – age in years) × 0.2, truncated to an integer]. It was developed and validated in several studies in Asian and White women^24-26 and men ²⁷.

Site of measurement of BMD

The ISCD recommends obtaining BMD measurements of the posteroanterior spine and hip²⁸. The lateral spine and Ward's triangle region of the hip should not be used for diagnosis, because these sites overestimate osteoporosis and results can be false-positive. Evidence suggests that the femur (neck or total hip) is the optimum site for predicting the risk of hip fracture²⁹ and the spine is the optimum site for monitoring response to treatment ^30-33. Thus, many authors recommend hip measure alone for the fracture risk assessment^33,34. In very obese patients, those with primary hyperparathyroidism, or those in whom the hip or the spine, or both, cannot be measured or interpreted, BMD may be measured in the forearm, using a 33% radius on the nondominant forearm.

Interpreting a DXA scan

The most important informations to check are the correct identification of the patient, and also the date of birth, sex, and ethnicity, all of which being mandatory to calculate T-scores. Sex is used by all manufacturers to calculate T-scores (i.e. T-scores for women are calculated using a female normative database, while T-scores for men are calculated using a male normative database). Although all manufacturers use race in calculating Z-scores, there is inconsistency in the way race is handled when calculating T-scores. Norland and Hologic are using race in calculating T-scores (i.e. T-scores for Caucasians are calculated using a Caucasian normative database, T-scores for Blacks are calculated using a normative database for Blacks); however, GE Lunar uses the database for young-normal Caucasians to calculate T-scores, regardless of the race of the subject. The ISCD recommends the latter approach for use in North America ³⁵ because using race-adjusted T-scores results in a similar prevalence of ‘‘osteoporosis’’ in every racial group, despite the fact that age-specific fracture rates can be very different.

Positioning

The main purpose of the DXA scan image is to check if the patient is positioned correctly, something that the technologist must determine before the patient leaves the testing centre. Positioning should also be doublechecked by the clinician who interprets the test¹⁰. There is many available resources for BMD technologists and physicians training, such as ISCD or International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) courses.

DXA scan analysis

The software marks regions of interest in the spine and hip, but the technologist can and should make adjustments if needed. The spine region of interest consists of the L1 through L4 vertebrae (Fig. 1a). Correct placement of the top and bottom of the spine ‘‘box’’ is critical. The intervertebral lines can be moved or angled, if necessary. There must be sufficient soft tissue on both sides of the spine; otherwise BMD will be under estimated. The hip regions of interest include the femoral neck, trochanter, and total hip (Fig. 1b). Ward’s region and the intertrochanteric region are not relevant (and can be deleted from the results reports. The default hip analysis includes a midline that must be placed correctly for the other sites to be identified correctly. The preferred position for the rectangular femoral neck box differs for the different manufacturers. For GE Lunar, the femoral neck box is located by the analysis program at the narrowest and lowest density section of the neck; typically this will be about half way between the femoral head and the trochanter (Fig. 1b). For Hologic the box is on the distal part of the femoral neck (Fig. 1c). This induces a large difference among these 2 measurements, because of a gradient of BMD all along the femoral neck (the proximal being the highest, the distal being the lowest). Thus careful checking of the femoral neck box is mandatory.

The image should be evaluated for artifacts (e.g. surgical clips, navel rings, barium sulphate, metal from zipper, coin, clip, or other metallic object) or local structural change (e.g. osteophytes, syndesmophytes, compression fractures, aortic calcification). Almost all artifacts and local structural change will spuriously elevate BMD³⁹. This is especially true for spinal degenerative change, which can elevate spine BMD by 2, 3, or more T-score. In the spine, absent bone (laminectomy or spina bifida) will spuriously lower BMD. All evaluable vertebrae should be used, but vertebrae that are affected by local structural change should be deleted from the analysis. Most agree that decisions can be based on two vertebrae; the use of a single vertebra is not recommended. If all vertebrae are affected, the spine should be reported as ‘‘invalid,’’ with no BMD or T-score results given. Figure 2 and 3 show examples from common spine and hips scanning problems.

Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA)

 For assessing vertebral heights (also called vertebral morphometry), a special software is used to determine vertebral body dimensions. The computer (with the help of the technologist) places points on the superior and inferior endplates of each vertebra. The vertebral heights are calculated and compared to each other as well as to the expected normal dimensions. With the advent of higher-resolution DXA systems, visual assessment of fractures is also possible from DXA-based lateral spine images (Figure 3). In this situation, the DXA system essentially functions as a digital X-ray imaging device. Visual assessment is performed from a computer monitor or high-resolution printout. To optimize the assessment, the use of high-definition dual-energy images has been recommended ^40-42. Using a DXA system for assessing vertebral fracture status has several advantages. The evaluation of spine fractures can be performed without a conventional lateral spine X-ray. This can be done at the same time and at the same place as the BMD measurement, with much less radiation than a conventional spine X-ray. Moreover, VFA is a technology for diagnosing vertebral fractures that may alter diagnostic classification, improve fracture risk stratification, and identify patients likely to benefit from pharmacological therapy who otherwise might not be treated^40,43. Despite the apparent advantages, the future of VFA using DXA remains unclear. Skeletal radiologists have criticized the technique for being insensitive and inaccurate for detecting vertebral fractures in particular at the upper thoracic spine. A DXA image is of lower resolution than a conventional X-ray and might fail to identify other potential problems or diseases that would be apparent on a spine film. However, VFA allows ruling out vertebral fracture at levels where vertebral fracture is most common, i.e. the lumbar and the mid and lower thoracic levels, and the pencil beam mode of assessment eliminates parallax errors in viewing the vertebral body, which can sometimes make a normal vertebral body appear to have been compressed in a routine  spine x-ray^42,44-46.

Concordance between measurement sites

It is recommended to measure the PA lumbar spine and proximal femur and classifying the patient based on the lowest T-score from four sites (lumbar spine, femoral neck, trochanter, and total hip).

Although the BMDs at different anatomic regions are correlated, the agreement between sites is low when it comes to classifying individual subjects as osteoporotic or not. Thus, T-score discordance between the lumbar spine and hip testing sites is a commonly observed phenomenon in densitometery. T-score discordance is the observation that the T-score of an individual patient varies from one key measurement site to another. Actually, as the presence of discordance can affect the diagnosis and therapeutic plan in an individual person, it is highly recommended to measure BMD in several sites⁴⁷.

Prevalence and risk factors of T-score discordance

Various studies have analyzed the prevalence and impact of T-score discordance on the management of osteoporosis^48-51. Only two studies focused on risk factors of this commonly observed discordance ^47,48,52. Five different causes for occurrence of discordance between the spine and the hip sites have been described⁴⁹.

1.                  Physiologic discordance is related to the skeleton's natural adaptive reaction to normal external and internal factors and forces. Mechanical strain especially related to weight bearing plays a key role in this kind of discordance. An example of this type of discordance is the difference observed between the dominant and non-dominant total hip³⁸. The explanation is that weight bearing can cause rise in bone density especially in the hip and femur regions. Moreover, the spine and hips usually start out with different T-scores (the spine is said to reach peak at least 5 yrs before the hip)⁵³. And finally, bone loss observed with age in an individual may be more rapid and important in trabecular than cortical bone is another explanation⁵. Trabecular bones (typical of lumbar area) are known to have a more rapid rate of deprivation in early post-menopausal state in comparison to cortical bone (typical of proximal femur).

2.                  The second type of discordance described as pathophysiologic discordance is seen secondary to a disease. Common examples observed in the elderly include vertebral osteophytosis, vertebral end plate and facet sclerosis, osteochondrosis, and aortic calcification^54,55. Another important cause in younger patients is ankylosing spondylitis syndesmophytes^39,56-59. The abnormal calcium deposition within the field of the DXA region of interest (ROI) leads to the falsely elevated spine T-score. A second subtype is a true discordance resulting from a more decreased BMD in the lumbar spine than the hips. Indeed, most of the aetiologies of the secondary osteoporosis (such as glucocorticoid excess, hyperthyroidism, malabsorption, liver disease, rheumatoid arthritis) first affect spinal column^60,61. This will lead to higher prevalence of lumbar osteoporosis.

3.                  Anatomic discordance is owing to differences in the composition of bone envelopes tested. An example is the difference in T-scores found for the posteroanterior lumbar spine and the supine lateral lumbar spine in the same patient.

4.                  Artifactual discordance occurs when dense synthetic manmade substances are within the field of ROI of the test: e.g. barium sulphate, metal from zipper, coin, clip, or other metallic object.

5.                  And finally, technical discordance occurs because of device errors, technician variability, patients’ movements, and variation due to other unpredictable sources. With respect to positioning error, some studies showed that either excessive internal or external rotation of the femur during test acquisition resulted in a BMD difference of as much as 10% compared with correct positioning. We demonstrated in a previous study that DXA in vivo reproducibility is two-fold better in the hips than the spine especially when measuring both hips⁶². Finally, technical discordance can occur due to the normative reference data used by the device software to analyze the test^4,16,63. This type of discordance occurs when the average BMD of the normative group used to calculate the T-score is significantly different from the average value found for the whole population.

Consequences of T-score discordance on osteoporosis management

The high prevalence of T-score discordance could induce some problems for the physicians in decision-making regarding these patients. In general, high prevalence of discordance between lumbar spine and hip T-scores suggests some defects in the cut-off values for definition of osteoporosis and osteopenia proposed with the WHO. The international societies interested in osteoporosis management recommend using DXA to measure BMD in both the hip and spine and classifying the patient based on the lowest T-score of these measurements. The inconsistencies in the diagnostic classification of osteoporosis between skeletal sites lend credence to the notion that BMD should be used as only one of the factors in making therapeutic decisions when evaluating patients with osteoporosis. An international team convened by the WHO is trying to develop a globally applicable measure of absolute fracture risk based upon multiple risk factors including BMD. This could silence much of the controversy regarding the choice of reference data for T-score calculation and usefulness of relatively arbitrary densitometric categorizations.

Monitoring of DXA  

It has become more and more common to perform a second DXA measurement to monitor BMD status or the effect of therapeutic intervention. When a second measurement is performed on a patient, the clinician needs to distinguish between a true change in BMD and a random fluctuation related to variability in the measurement procedure. The reproducibility of DXA measurements is claimed to be good. Such variability is due to multiple causes, such as device errors, technician variability, patients’ movements, changing in the area of interest and variation due to other unpredictable sources^64-68. Under ideal conditions, the same technologist should perform DXA scans on the same densitometer and under similar circumstances⁶⁹.

The precision error is usually expressed as the coefficient of variation (CV), which is the ratio of the standard deviation (SD) to the mean of the measurements, although several other statistics to express reproducibility exist such as the smallest detectable difference (SDD) or the least significant change (LSC). The SDD represents a cut-off that can be measured in an individual and is usually considered more useful than the CV in clinical practice.

Methods of bone mineral density reproducibility measurement

Precision errors are evaluated by performing repeated scans on a representative set of individuals to characterize the reproducibility of the technique⁷⁰. Most published studies examine the short-term precision error, based on repeated measurements of each subject performed over a time period of no more than 2 weeks. Over such a short period, no true change in BMD is expected.

·                    The coefficient of variation (CV)

The CV, the most commonly presented measure for BMD variability, is the SD corrected for the mean of paired measurements. CV, expressed as a percentage, is calculated as CV (%) = (Ö((å(a-b)²)/2n))/((Ma+Mb)/2)x100 where a and b are the first and the second measurement, Ma and Mb are the mean values for the two groups, and n is the number of paired observations.

Reproducibility is far better for BMD measurement than for most laboratory tests. Reproducibility expressed by the CV is usually 1–2% at the spine on anteroposterior images and 2–3% at the proximal femur in individuals with normal BMD values; the difference between the two sites is ascribable to greater difficulties with repositioning and examining the femur, as compared to the spine. However, these data obtained under nearly experimental conditions may not apply to everyday clinical practice. Reproducibility depends heavily on quality assurance factors, including tests to control the quality and performance of the machine, as well as the experience of the operator. Assessment of machine performance requires daily scanning of a phantom (which may be anthropomorphic or not), followed by calculation of the in vitro coefficient of variation (CV), which serves to evaluate short-term and longterm performance and to detect drift in measurement accuracy. These in vitro data, however, do not necessarily reflect in vivo reproducibility, which should be evaluated at each measurement centre. Measurements are obtained either three times in each of 15 patients or twice in each of 30 patients, and the CV (m/r) is calculated from the mean (m) and standard deviation (r) of these repeated measurements. The CV is expressed as a percentage and depends on mean BMD values. The standard deviation reflects measurement error, which is a characteristic of machine performance and is independent from the value measured.

·                    The least significant change (LSC)

For two point measurements in time, a BMD change exceeding 2Ö2 times the precision error (PE) of a technique is considered a significant change (with 95% confidence): the corresponding change criterion has been termed "least significant change" or LSC. LSC = 2.8 x PE; where PE is the largest precision error of the technique used (or more easily the CV expressed in percentage). This smallest change that is considered statistically significant is also expressed in percentage.

·                    The smallest detectable difference (SDD)

The measurement error can be calculated using Bland and Altman’s 95% limits of agreement method⁷¹. Precision expressed by this method gives an absolute and metric estimate of random measurement error, also called SDD. In this case, where there are two observations for each subject, the standard deviation of the differences (SD_diff) estimates the within variability of the measurements. Most disagreements between measurements are expected to be between limits called ‘‘limits of agreement’’ defined as d±z_(1-a/2) SD_diff where d is the mean difference between the pairs of measurements and z_(1-a/2) is the 100(1-a/2)th centile of the normal distribution. The value d is an estimate of the mean systematic bias of measurement 1 to measurement 2. d is expected to be 0 because a true change in BMD is not assumed to occur during the interval between the two BMD measurements. Defining a to be 5%, the limits of agreement are +1.96SD_diff and -1.96SD_diff. Thus, about twice the standard deviation (SD) of the difference scores gives the 95% limits of agreement for the two measurements by the machine. A test is considered to be capable of detecting a difference, in absolute units, of at least the magnitude of the limits of agreement.

Clinical implications of bone mineral density reproducibility measurement

In clinical practice, two absolute values (g/cm²) have to be compared, rather than two percentages (T-scores). When serial measurements are obtained in a patient, only changes greater than the LSC (in %) or the SDD (in g/cm²) can be ascribed to treatment effects. Smaller changes may be related to measurement error.

We studied recently the in vivo short term variability of BMD measurement by DXA in three groups of subjects with a wide range of BMD values: healthy young volunteers, postmenopausal women and patients with chronic rheumatic diseases (most of them taking corticosteroids). In all studied subjects, reproducibility expressed by different means was good and independent from clinical and BMD status. Thus, the clinician interpreting a repeated DXA scan of a subject should be aware that a BMD change exceeding the LSC is significant, in our centre arising from a BMD change of at least 3.56% at the total hip and 5.60% at the spine. Expressed as SDD, a BMD change should exceed 0.02 g/cm² at the total hip and 0.04 g/cm² at the spine before it can be considered a significant change ⁶². Indeed, it has become usual to perform repeated DXA measurement: in postmenopausal women to monitor efficacy of treatment and in patients with chronic rheumatic diseases where high prevalence of bone loss has been demonstrated especially when long term corticosteroid therapy is used. It has been shown that reproducibility expressed using the SDD is independent of the BMD value whereas reproducibility expressed using the CV or the derived LSC depend on the BMD value. Influence of age on BMD reproducibility is controversial. Previous studies have suggested that BMD measurement errors were independent of age even some studies suggested that SDD may vary in extreme ages (children and elderly) probably because of age-related factors other than BMD. However, a few data exist for reproducibility of  DXA in women over 70. Ravaud et al.⁷² data, as well as those of Fuleihan⁶⁷, show that the measurement error is greater in older osteoporotic subjects. Several factors such as difficulties in repositioning could explain the increase of measurement error in this kind of patients. Therefore, the use of the SDD in the evaluation of an apparent BMD change gives a more conservative approach than the use of the CV at low BMD. Because of its independence from the BMD level and its expression in absolute units, the SDD is a preferable measure for use in daily clinical practice as compared with the CV and the derived LSC.

In contrast with all previous publications about DXA reproducibility, we found in our centre better results for the hip BMD variability than the lumbar spine. This is due to the fact that our study was the first to use the mean measure of the two femurs (dual femur). In this study, we showed in a group of young healthy volunteers that the SDD was ±0.0218 g/cm² when both femurs were measured whereas it was ±0.0339 g/cm² when only one femur was measured. Thus, these results enhance to encourage the use of the measurement of both hips to improve the reproducibility of DXA at this site ^62,73.

In summary, reproducibility of BMD measurement by DXA in different kinds of patients (postmenopausal women, patients with chronic rheumatic diseases, elderly…) expressed by different means is good at a group level. However, the clinician must remain aware that an apparent BMD change in an individual patient may represent a precision error. At each measurement centre, the SDD should be calculated from in vivo reproducibility data. In clinical practice, the SDD should be used to estimate the significance of observed changes, in absolute values.

Other factors influencing DXA monitoring

The first factor is the time interval between two measurements in the same patient which must be long enough to allow occurrence of a change greater than the SDD or the LSC. Therefore, it depends on the expected rate of change in BMD measurement (which varies according to whether the measurement site is composed predominantly of trabecular or of cortical bone) and the reproducibility of BMD measurement at that site. Thus, in clinical practice, a treatment-induced BMD increase can only be detected in general after 2 years³⁵. However, in patients receiving long term steroid therapy, the changes in BMD may be so important that they can be detected after 1 year. Thus, although the spine may not be the best site for the diagnosis of osteoporosis given the high prevalence of spinal degenerative disease, it is the most sensitive site for detecting changes over time. However, our study showed that measurement of both femurs (called “dual femur” in Lunar machines) increases the reproducibility at this site.

The changes in BMD measurements are influenced by the ability of osteoporosis treatments to increase the BMD at the different skeletal sites⁷⁴. For some treatments such as teriparatide and strontium ranelate, significant changes in spine BMD occur on time scales of 1 to 2 years in the majority of patients⁷⁵, although for other treatments, the changes are often not large enough to be statistically significant. Thus, with the exception of HRT, treatment dosages cannot be adjusted on the basis of BMD changes. Moreover, there is no proof that repeating BMD measurements improves compliance to treatment, as most patients discontinue antiresorptive medications after a few months because of administration constraints, side effects, cost of medications or lack of interest.

Above all, BMD is used as a surrogate marker for the fracture risk, although BMD increases do not reliably reflect a reduction in the fracture risk³³. Although bisphosphonates, raloxifene, and HRT have not been compared in the same study, they seem to produce comparable reductions in the risk of vertebral fractures, of about 30–50%, whereas BMD changes differ markedly across medications. Studies have shown that BMD gains explain only a small proportion of the vertebral fracture risk reduction: 28% with risedronate⁷⁶, 16% with alendronate, and 4% with raloxifene⁷⁷. It has been suggested that the percentage of BMD change may be related to the change in the relative risk of fracture. In one study, a linear relationship was found between these two parameters, but a 1% increase in spinal BMD was associated with an only 3% decrease in the relative risk of vertebral fracture⁷⁸. The only exception for peripheral fractures, in contrast, the risk reduction is clearly related to the BMD gain⁷⁹. Common sense indicates that a BMD increase during treatment should be preferable over a BMD decrease. However, recent data showing that the fracture risk may decrease despite a slight decrease in BMD under treatment have been reported^80,81. It has also been shown that the fracture risk was more heavily dependent on BMD at baseline than on BMD changes during treatment^2,82. A significant BMD decrease while taking a treatment indicates either a compliance problem or a lack of efficacy⁸³. The measurement of bone markers may be more helpful in monitoring treatment besides BMD⁷⁰.

Conclusions

Correct performance of BMD measurements using DXA requires rigorous attention to detail in positioning and analysis. When DXA studies are performed incorrectly, it can lead to major mistakes in diagnosis and therapy. Measurement error must be considered when evaluating serial assessments. A clear understanding of the interpretation of serial measurements and the statistical principles impacting upon their interpretation is necessary to determine whether a change is real and not simply random fluctuation. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that fracture-protection benefit may be realized before BMD gains are detected. Physicians interested in osteoporosis management, even if not directly involved in the performance and interpretation of DXA, should be familiar with the principles outlined here to minimize serious errors and allow proper use of bone densitometry.

References

1.         Blake GM, Fogelman I. The role of DXA bone density scans in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. Postgrad Med J. 2007;83:509-517.

2.         Kanis JA. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: synopsis of a WHO report. WHO Study Group. Osteoporos Int. 1994;4:368-381.

3.         Hans D, Downs RW, Jr., Duboeuf F, et al. Skeletal sites for osteoporosis diagnosis: the 2005 ISCD Official Positions. J Clin Densitom. 2006;9:15-21.

4.         Lewiecki EM, Binkley N, Petak SM. DXA quality matters. J Clin Densitom. 2006;9:388-392.

5.         Streeten EA, McBride DJ, Lodge AL, et al. Reduced incidence of hip fracture in the Old Order Amish. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:308-313.

6.         Jensen T, Hansen M, Jensen KE, Podenphant J, Hansen TM, Hyldstrup L. Comparison of dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), digital X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR), and conventional radiographs in the evaluation of osteoporosis and bone erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol. 2005;34:27-33.

7.         Blake GM, Fogelman I. Bone densitometry and fracture risk prediction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:785-786.

8.         Nomenclature and decimal places in bone densitometry. J Clin Densitom. 2004;7:45-50.

9.         Shagam JY. Bone densitometry: an update. Radiol Technol. 2003;74:321-338; quiz 339-341, 351.

10.       Roux C. [Bone densitometry and osteoporosis]. J Radiol. 1998;79:821-823.

11.       Indications and reporting for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Clin Densitom. 2004;7:37-44.

12.       Blake GM, Fogelman I. DXA scanning and its interpretation in osteoporosis. Hosp Med. 2003;64:521-525.

13.       Blake GM, Fogelman I. Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry and its clinical applications. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2002;6:207-218.

14.       Roux C. [Methods for measuring bone density and clinical applications for evaluating osteoporosis risk]. Ann Med Interne (Paris). 2000;151:385-391.

15.       Gutteridge DH, Holzherr ML, Retallack RW, et al. A randomized trial comparing hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and HRT plus calcitriol in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with vertebral fractures: benefit of the combination on total body and hip density. Calcif Tissue Int. 2003;73:33-43.

16.       Liao JM, Li QN, Wu T, et al. Effects of prednisone on bone mineral density and biomechanical characteristics of the femora and lumbar vertebras in rats. Di Yi Jun Yi Da Xue Xue Bao. 2003;23:97-100.

17.       Watts NB. Fundamentals and pitfalls of bone densitometry using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Osteoporos Int. 2004;15:847-854.

18.       Baddoura R, Awada H, Okais J, et al. An audit of bone densitometry practice with reference to ISCD, IOF and NOF guidelines. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:1111-1115.

19.       Hochberg MC. Recommendations for measurement of bone mineral density and identifying persons to be treated for osteoporosis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2006;32:681-689.

20.       Rud B, Hilden J, Hyldstrup L, Hrobjartsson A. Performance of the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool in ruling out low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int. 2007.

21.       Salaffi F, Silveri F, Stancati A, Grassi W. Development and validation of the osteoporosis prescreening risk assessment (OPERA) tool to facilitate identification of women likely to have low bone density. Clin Rheumatol. 2005;24:203-211.

22.       Jaglal SB, McIsaac WJ, Hawker G, Jaakkimainen L, Cadarette SM, Chan BT. Patterns of use of the bone mineral density test in Ontario, 1992-1998. Cmaj. 2000;163:1139-1143.

23.       Gnudi S, Sitta E. Clinical risk factor evaluation to defer postmenopausal women from bone mineral density measurement: an Italian study. J Clin Densitom. 2005;8:199-205.

24.       El Maghraoui A, Habbassi A, Ghazi M, et al. Validation and comparative evaluation of four osteoporosis risk indexes in Moroccan menopausal women. Arch Osteop. 2007;(in press).

25.       Richy F, Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Reginster JY. Efficacy of alphacalcidol and calcitriol in primary and corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis: a meta-analysis of their effects on bone mineral density and fracture rate. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15:301-310.

26.       Adler RA, Tran MT, Petkov VI. Performance of the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Screening Tool for osteoporosis in American men. Mayo Clin Proc. 2003;78:723-727.

27.       Ghazi M, Mounach A, Nouijai A, et al. Performance of the osteoporosis risk assessment tool in Moroccan men. Clin Rheumatol. 2007.

28.       Solomon DH, Connelly MT, Rosen CJ, et al. Factors related to the use of bone densitometry: survey responses of 494 primary care physicians in New England. Osteoporos Int. 2003;14:123-129.

29.       Leslie WD, Tsang JF, Caetano PA, Lix LM. Effectiveness of bone density measurement for predicting osteoporotic fractures in clinical practice. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92:77-81.

30.       Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Jonsson B, De Laet C, Dawson A. Risk of hip fracture according to the World Health Organization criteria for osteopenia and osteoporosis. Bone. 2000;27:585-590.

31.       Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Dawson A, De Laet C, Jonsson B. Ten year probabilities of osteoporotic fractures according to BMD and diagnostic thresholds. Osteoporos Int. 2001;12:989-995.

32.       Kanis JA. Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet. 2002;359:1929-1936.

33.       Kanis JA, Borgstrom F, De Laet C, et al. Assessment of fracture risk. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:581-589.

34.       Arabi A, Baddoura R, Awada H, et al. Discriminative ability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry site selection in identifying patients with osteoporotic fractures. Bone. 2007;40:1060-1065.

35.       Baim S, Wilson CR, Lewiecki EM, Luckey MM, Downs RW, Jr., Lentle BC. Precision assessment and radiation safety for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: position paper of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. J Clin Densitom. 2005;8:371-378.

36.       Technical standardization for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Clin Densitom. 2004;7:27-36.

37.       Lekamwasam S, Lenora RS. Effect of leg rotation on hip bone mineral density measurements. J Clin Densitom. 2003;6:331-336.

38.       Hamdy R, Kiebzak GM, Seier E, Watts NB. The prevalence of significant left-right differences in hip bone mineral density. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:1772-1780.

39.       El Maghraoui A. Osteoporosis and ankylosing spondylitis. Joint Bone Spine. 2004;71:291-295.

40.       Olenginski TP, Newman ED, Hummel JL, Hummer M. Development and evaluation of a vertebral fracture assessment program using IVA and its integration with mobile DXA. J Clin Densitom. 2006;9:72-77.

41.       Rea JA, Li J, Blake GM, Steiger P, Genant HK, Fogelman I. Visual assessment of vertebral deformity by X-ray absorptiometry: a highly predictive method to exclude vertebral deformity. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:660-668.

42.       Chapurlat RD, Duboeuf F, Marion-Audibert HO, Kalpakcioglu B, Mitlak BH, Delmas PD. Effectiveness of instant vertebral assessment to detect prevalent vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:1189-1195.

43.       Roux C, Fechtenbaum J, Kolta S, Briot K, Girard M. Mild prevalent and incident vertebral fractures are risk factors for new fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2007.

44.       Damiano J, Kolta S, Porcher R, Tournoux C, Dougados M, Roux C. Diagnosis of vertebral fractures by vertebral fracture assessment. J Clin Densitom. 2006;9:66-71.

45.       Jacobs-Kosmin D, Sandorfi N, Murray H, Abruzzo JL. Vertebral deformities identified by vertebral fracture assessment: associations with clinical characteristics and bone mineral density. J Clin Densitom. 2005;8:267-272.

46.       Szulc P, Munoz F, Duboeuf F, Marchand F, Delmas PD. Bone mineral density predicts osteoporotic fractures in elderly men: the MINOS study. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:1184-1192.

47.       El Maghraoui A, Mouinga Abayi DA, H. R, Mounach A. Discordance in diagnosis of osteoporosis using spine and hip bone densitometry. J Clin Densitom. 2007;(in press).

48.       Moayyeri A, Ahmadi-Abhari S, Hossein-nezhad A, Larijani B, Soltani A. Bone mineral density and estimated height loss based on patients' recalls. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:834-840.

49.       Watts NB, Harris ST, Genant HK, et al. Intermittent cyclical etidronate treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:73-79.

50.       Faulkner KG, von Stetten E, Miller P. Discordance in patient classification using T-scores. J Clin Densitom. 1999;2:343-350.

51.       O'Gradaigh D, Debiram I, Love S, Richards HK, Compston JE. A prospective study of discordance in diagnosis of osteoporosis using spine and proximal femur bone densitometry. Osteoporos Int. 2003;14:13-18.

52.       El Maghraoui A, Mouinga Abayi DA, Ghozlani I, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of discordance in diagnosis of osteoporosis using spine and hip bone densitometry. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:271-272.

53.       Buist DS, LaCroix AZ, Black DM, et al. Inclusion of older women in randomized clinical trials: factors associated with taking study medication in the fracture intervention trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:1126-1131.

54.       Theodorou DJ, Theodorou SJ. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in clinical practice: application and interpretation of scans beyond the numbers. Clin Imaging. 2002;26:43-49.

55.       Bolotin HH. Inaccuracies inherent in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in vivo bone mineral densitometry may flaw osteopenic/osteoporotic interpretations and mislead assessment of antiresorptive therapy effectiveness. Bone. 2001;28:548-555.

56.       El Maghraoui A, Tellal S, Chaouir S, et al. Bone turnover markers, anterior pituitary and gonadal hormones, and bone mass evaluation using quantitative computed tomography in ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Rheumatol. 2005;24:346-351.

57.       El Maghraoui A. [Ankylosing spondylitis.]. Presse Med. 2004;33:1459-1464.

58.       El Maghraoui A, Borderie D, Cherruau B, Edouard R, Dougados M, Roux C. Osteoporosis, body composition, and bone turnover in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol. 1999;26:2205-2209.

59.       Maillefert JF, Aho LS, El Maghraoui A, Dougados M, Roux C. Changes in bone density in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a two-year follow-up study. Osteoporos Int. 2001;12:605-609.

60.       El Maghraoui A. [Corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis]. Presse Med. 2004;33:1213-1217.

61.       Khan AA, Hanley DA, Bilezikian JP, et al. Standards for performing DXA in individuals with secondary causes of osteoporosis. J Clin Densitom. 2006;9:47-57.

62.       El Maghraoui A, Do Santos Zounon AA, Jroundi I, et al. Reproducibility of bone mineral density measurements using dual X-ray absorptiometry in daily clinical practice. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:1742-1748.

63.       Shane E, Addesso V, Namerow PB, et al. Alendronate versus calcitriol for the prevention of bone loss after cardiac transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:767-776.

64.       Lenchik L, Kiebzak GM, Blunt BA. What is the role of serial bone mineral density measurements in patient management? J Clin Densitom. 2002;5 Suppl:S29-38.

65.       Phillipov G, Seaborn CJ, Phillips PJ. Reproducibility of DXA: potential impact on serial measurements and misclassification of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2001;12:49-54.

66.       Maggio D, McCloskey EV, Camilli L, et al. Short-term reproducibility of proximal femur bone mineral density in the elderly. Calcif Tissue Int. 1998;63:296-299.

67.       Fuleihan GE, Testa MA, Angell JE, Porrino N, Leboff MS. Reproducibility of DXA absorptiometry: a model for bone loss estimates. J Bone Miner Res. 1995;10:1004-1014.

68.       Kline GA, Hanley DA. Differences of vertebral area in serial bone density measurements: a common source of potential error in interpretation of BMD change. J Clin Densitom. 2006;9:419-424.

69.       Kolta S, Ravaud P, Fechtenbaum J, Dougados M, Roux C. Follow-up of individual patients on two DXA scanners of the same manufacturer. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:709-713.

70.       Roux C, Garnero P, Thomas T, Sabatier JP, Orcel P, Audran M. Recommendations for monitoring antiresorptive therapies in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Joint Bone Spine. 2005;72:26-31.

71.       Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.

72.       Ravaud P, Reny JL, Giraudeau B, Porcher R, Dougados M, Roux C. Individual smallest detectable difference in bone mineral density measurements. J Bone Miner Res. 1999;14:1449-1456.

73.       El Maghraoui A, Achemlal L, Bezza A. Monitoring of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurement in clinical practice. J Clin Densitom. 2006;9:281-286.

74.       Ryder KM, Shorr RI, Tylavsky FA, et al. Correlates of use of antifracture therapy in older women with low bone mineral density. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:636-641.

75.       Bruyere O, Roux C, Detilleux J, et al. Relationship between Bone Mineral Density Changes and Fracture Risk Reduction in Patients Treated with Strontium Ranelate. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92:3076-3081.

76.       Delaney MF. Strategies for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis during early postmenopause. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:S12-23.

77.       Recker RR, Kendler D, Recknor CP, et al. Comparative effects of raloxifene and alendronate on fracture outcomes in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Bone. 2007;40:843-851.

78.       Cummings SR, Karpf DB, Harris F, et al. Improvement in spine bone density and reduction in risk of vertebral fractures during treatment with antiresorptive drugs. Am J Med. 2002;112:281-289.

79.       Hochberg MC, Greenspan S, Wasnich RD, Miller P, Thompson DE, Ross PD. Changes in bone density and turnover explain the reductions in incidence of nonvertebral fractures that occur during treatment with antiresorptive agents. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002;87:1586-1592.

80.       Chesnut CH, Ettinger MP, Miller PD, et al. Ibandronate produces significant, similar antifracture efficacy in North American and European women: new clinical findings from BONE. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21:391-401.

81.       Watts NB, Cooper C, Lindsay R, et al. Relationship between changes in bone mineral density and vertebral fracture risk associated with risedronate: greater increases in bone mineral density do not relate to greater decreases in fracture risk. J Clin Densitom. 2004;7:255-261.

82.       Hillier TA, Stone KL, Bauer DC, et al. Evaluating the value of repeat bone mineral density measurement and prediction of fractures in older women: the study of osteoporotic fractures. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:155-160.

83.       Seeman E. Is a change in bone mineral density a sensitive and specific surrogate of anti-fracture efficacy? Bone. 2007.