Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pediatric in vivo cross-calibration between the GE Lunar Prodigy and DPX-L bone densitometers

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) machine cross-calibration is an important consideration when upgrading from old to new technology. In a recent cross-calibration study using adult subjects, close agreement between GE Lunar DPX-L and GE Lunar Prodigy scanners was reported. The aim of this work was to cross-calibrate the two machines for bone and body composition parameters for pediatrics from age 5 years onwards. One-hundred ten healthy volunteers aged 5–20 years had total body and lumbar spine densitometry performed on DPX-L and Prodigy densitometers. Cross-calibration was achieved using linear regression and Bland–Altman analysis. There was close agreement between the machines, with r2 ranging from 0.85 to 0.99 for bone and body composition parameters. Paired t-tests demonstrated significant differences between machines that were dependent on scan acquisition mode, with the greatest differences reported for the smallest children. At the lumbar spine, Prodigy bone mineral density (BMD) values were on average 1.6% higher compared with DPX-L. For the total body, there were no significant differences in BMD; however, there were significant differences in bone mineral content (BMC) and bone area. For small children, the Prodigy measured lower BMC (9.4%) and bone area (5.8%), whereas for larger children the Prodigy measured both higher BMC (3.1%) and bone area (3.0%). A similar contrasting pattern was also observed for the body composition parameters. Prodigy values for lean body mass were higher (3.0%) for small children and lower (0.5%) for larger children, while fat body mass was lower (16.4%) for small children and higher (2.0%) for large children. Cross-calibration coefficients ranged from 0.84 to 1.12 and were significantly different from 1 (p<0.0001) for BMC and bone area. Bland–Altman plots showed that within the same scan acquisition modes, the magnitude of the difference increased with body weight. The results from this study suggest that the differences between machines are mainly due to differences in bone detection algorithms and that they vary with body weight and scan mode. In general, for population studies the differences are not clinically significant. However, for individual children being measured longitudinally, cross-over scanning may be required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kelly TL, Slovik D, Schoenfeld DA, Neer RM (1988) Quantitative digital radiography versus dual photon absorptiometry of the lumbar spine. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 67(4):839–844

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Eiken P, Barenholdt O, Bjorn J, Gram J, Pors Neilsen S (1994) Switching between DXA pencil-beam to fan-beam I: studies in vitro at four centres. Bone 15:671–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Griffiths MR, Noakes KA, Pocock NA (1997) Correcting the magnification error of a fan beam densitometer. J Bone Miner Res 12(1):119–123

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mazess RB, Hanson JA, Payne R, Nord RH, Wilson M (2000) Axial and total body bone densitometry using a narrow-angle fan-beam. Osteoporos Int. 11:158–166

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cawkwell GD (1998) Movement artifact and dual x-ray absorptiometry. J Clin Densitom 1(2):141–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Oldroyd B, Smith AH, Truscott JG (2003) Cross-calibration of GE/Lunar pencil and fan-beam dual energy densitometers-bone mineral and body composition studies. Eur J Clin Nutr 57:977–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mazess RB, Barden HS (2000) Evaluation of differences between fan-beam and pencil-beam densitometers. Calcif Tissue Int 67:291–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Blake GM, Harrison EJ, Adams JE (2004) Dual x-ray absorptiometry: cross-calibration of a new fan-beam system. Calcif Tissue Int 75:7–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ellis KJ, Shypailo RJ (1998) Bone mineral and body composition measurements: cross-calibration of pencil-beam and fan-beam dual-energy x-ray absorptiometers. J Bone Miner Res 13(10):1613–1618

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Laskey MA, Prentice A (1999) Comparison of adult and paediatric spine and whole body software for the lunar dual energy x-ray absorptiometer. Br J Radiol 72:967–976

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang J, Thorton J, Horlick M, Formica C, Wang W, Rahn M, Pierson RN (1999) Dual-x-ray absorptiometry in pediatric studies. J Clin Densitom 2(2):135–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Molgaard C, Thomsen BiL, Prentice A, Cole TJ, Michaelsen KF (1997) Whole body bone mineral content in healthy children and adolescents. Arch Dis Child 76:9–15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Crabtree NJ, Kibirige MS, Fordham JN, Banks LM, Muntoni F, Chinn D, Boivin CM, Shaw NJ (2004) The relationship between lean body mass and bone mineral content in paediatric health and disease. Bone 35:965–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ellis KJ, Shypailo RJ, Hardin DS, Perez MD, Motil KJ, Wong WW, Abrams SA (2001) Z score prediction model for assessment of bone mineral content in pediatric diseases. J Bone Miner Res 16(9):1658–1664

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Horlick M, Wang J, Peirson RN, Thorton J (2004) Prediction models for evaluation of total-body bone mass with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry among children and adolescents. Pediatrics 114(3):337–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Njeh CF, Samat SB, Nightingale A, A ME, Boivin CM (1997) Radiation dose and in vitro precision in paediatric bone mineral density measurement using dual x-ray absorptiometry. Br J Radiol 70:719–727

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hart D, Wall BF (2002) NRPB-W4 radiation exposure of the UK population from medical and dental x-ray examinations. Oxon, National Radiological Protection Board

  18. Bass S, Dalmas PD, Pearce G, Hendrich E, Tabensky A, Seeman E (1999) The differing tempo of growth in bone size, mass and density in girls is region-specific. J Clin Invest 104:795–804

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tothill P, Avenell A, Love J, Reid DM (1994) Comparison between Hologic, Lunar and Norland dual-energy x-ray absorptiometers and other techniques for whole body soft tissue measurements. Eur J Clin Nutr 48(11):781–794

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pocock NA, Sambrook P, Nguyen TV, Kelly P, Freund J, Eisman JA (1992) Assessment of spinal and femoral bone density by dual x-ray absorptiometry: comparison of lunar and hologic instruments. J Bone Miner Res 7(9):1081–1084

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tothill P, Hannan WJ (2000) Comparisons between Hologic QDR 1000 W, QDR4500A, and Lunar Expert dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanners used for measuring total body bone and soft tissue. Ann NY Acad Sci 904:63–71

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tothill P, Hannan WJ, Wilkinson S (2001) Comparisons between a pencil beam and two fan beam dual energy x-ray absorptiometer for measuring total body bone and soft tissue. Br J Radiol 74:166–176

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gillette-Guyonnet S, Andrieu S, Nourhashemi F, Cantet C, Grandjean H, Vellas B (2003) Comparison of bone mineral density and body composition measurements in women obtained from two DXA instruments. Mech Ageing Dev 124:317–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cawte SA, Pearson D, Green DJ, Maslanka WB, Miller CG, Rogers AT (1999) Cross-calibration, precision and patient dose measurements in preparation for clinical trials using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine. Br J Radiol 72:354–362

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ioannidou E, Padilla J, Wang J, Heymsfield SB, Thornton J, Horlick M, Gallagher D, Pierson RN (2003) Pencil-beam versus fan-beam dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry comparisons across four systems: appendicular lean soft tissue. Acta Diabetology Suppl 1:S83–S85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Soriano J, Ioannidou E, Wang J, Thornton J, Horlick M, Gallagher D, Heymsfield SB, Pierson RN (2004) Pencil-beam vs fan-beam dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry comparisons across four systems: body composition and bone mineral. J Clin Densitom 7(3):281–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang J, Thornton JC, Ioannidou E, Soriano JM, Gallagher D, Heymsfield SB, Horlick M, Pierson RN, Allen LR (2005) Four commonly used dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanners do not identically classify subjects for osteopenia by T-score in four bone regions. J Clin Densitom 8(2):191–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Laskey MA, Flaxman M, Barber RW, Trafford S, Hayball M, Lyttle K, Crisp AJ, Compston JE (1991) Comparative performance in vitro and in vivo of DPX and Hologic QDR-1000 dual energy x-ray absorptiometers. Br J Radiol 64:1023–1029

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pearson D, Cawte SA, Green DJ (2002) A comparison of phantoms for cross-calibration of lumbar spine DXA. Osteoporos Int 13:948–954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tothill P, Avenell A, Reid DM (1994) Precision and accuracy of measurement of whole-body bone mineral: comparisons between Hologic, Lunar and Norland dual-energy x-ray absorptiometers. Br J Radiol 67:1210–1217

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Blake GM (1996) Replacing DXA scanners: cross-calibration with phantoms may be misleading. Calcif Tissue Int 59(1):1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Koo WWK, Walters J, Bush AJ (1995) Technical considerations of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry-based bone mineral measurements for paediatric studies. J Bone Miner Res 10:1998–2004

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the children and parents who participated in this study and Gail Couser for her tireless efforts in recruitment. We also thank D. Chapman and J. Dudley for DXA scanning.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Metchley Park Road, Birmingham, B15 2TH , UK

    Nicola J. Crabtree & C. M. Boivin

  2. Department of Endocrinology, Birmingham Children’s Hospital, Birmingham, UK

    Nicola J. Crabtree & N. J. Shaw

  3. Centre for Bone and Body Composition Research, University of Leeds, UK

    B. Oldroyd & J. G. Truscott

Authors
  1. Nicola J. Crabtree
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. J. Shaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. M. Boivin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. Oldroyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. G. Truscott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola J. Crabtree.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Crabtree, N.J., Shaw, N.J., Boivin, C.M. et al. Pediatric in vivo cross-calibration between the GE Lunar Prodigy and DPX-L bone densitometers. Osteoporos Int 16, 2157–2167 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-2021-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-2021-2

Keyword

Search

Navigation