Journal of Clinical Densitometry最新文献

Interventional studies offer strong evidence for exercise's osteogenic impact on bone particularly during growth. With rising osteoporosis rates in older women, enhancing bone strength early in life is crucial. Thus, investigating the osteogenic effects of different types of physical activities in young females is crucial. Despite varied findings, only two systematic reviews tried to explore this topic without examining how different types of exercise may affect bone health in adolescent girls. The first aim of this systematic review was to assess the impact of exercise training on bone health parameters in adolescent girls, and the second aim was to investigate whether the type of exercise training can modulate this effect. A systematic literature search was conducted using common electronic databases from inception - January 2023. Seven studies (355 participants) were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Two studies dealt with resistance training, 3 studies applied plyometric training, 1 study used team sports, and 1 study used dancing. Results indicate that plyometric training increases lumbar spine bone mass in adolescent girls. Well-designed randomized controlled trials with a proper training period (> 12 weeks) are needed to advocate a specific type of training which has the highest osteogenic effect.

Objective Hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism are endocrinopathies that cause a decrease in bone mineral density. The aim of this study is to investigate possible bone changes in the mandible caused by hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism using fractal analysis (FA) on panoramic radiographs.

Material and Methods Panoramic radiographs of a total of 180 patients, including 120 patient groups (60 hyperthyroid, 60 hypothyroid) and 60 healthy control groups, were used. Five regions of interests (ROI) were determined from panoramic radiographs and FA was performed. ROI1: geometric midpoint of mandibular notch and mandibular foramen, ROI2: geometric midpoint of mandibular angle, ROI3: anterior of mental foramen, ROI4: basal cortical area from distal mental foramen to distal root of first molar, ROI5: geometric center of mandibular foramen and mandibular ramus.

Results While a significant difference was observed between the patient and control groups regarding ROI1 and ROI2 (p < 0.05); there was no significant difference between the groups in relation to ROI3, ROI4, and ROI5. All FA values were lower in the hyperthyroid group than in the hypothyroid group.

Conclusion Fractal analysis proves to be an effective method for early detection of bone mass changes. In the present study, it was concluded that while the mandibular cortical bone was intact, trabecular rich regions were affected by osteoporosis caused by thyroid hormones. Necessary precautions should be taken against the risk of osteoporosis in patients with thyroid hormone disorders.

Introduction: This study aims to investigate association between glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with bone mineral density (BMD) and osteoporosis-risk in postmenopausal female with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methodology: HbA1c values, BMD of L3 vertebra and basic clinical data of 152 postmenopausal females with T2DM and 326 postmenopausal females without T2DM were retrospectively analyzed. The propensity score matching was used to match the T2DM and the non-T2DM group at a ratio of 1:1. Restricted cubic spline (RCS) analysis and piecewise linear regression were used to evaluate the relationship between HbA1c and BMD. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were utilized to evaluate the effect of HbA1c on the risk of osteoporosis in matched diabetes population. Results: After matching, the BMD (66.60 (46.58, 93.23) vs. 63.50 (36.70, 83.33), P < 0.05), HbA1c value (7.50 (6.72, 8.80) vs 5.30 (5.14, 5.50), P  <  0.05) in the T2DM group were significantly higher than that of non-T2DM group. We found a nonlinear relation between HbA1c value and BMD, which showing a U-shaped curve with the cutoff value around 7.5 % (P_overall < 0.001, P_nonliearity < 0.05). The prevalence of osteoporosis in T2DM group was similar to that in controls (64.9 % vs 73.6 %, P = 0.102). Age-adjusted HbA1c value was not risk factor of osteoporosis in postmenopausal females with T2DM. Conclusion: In postmenopausal females with T2DM, high BMD and similar risk of osteoporosis were confirmed; HbA1c was a contributing factor to BMD when values exceed 7.5 %. However, HbA1c does not seem to be associated with osteoporosis risk.

Purpose: Osteoporosis is under-diagnosed and often co-exists with other diseases. Very low bone mineral density (BMD) indicates risk of osteoporosis and opportunistic screening for low BMD in CT-scans has been suggested. In a non-contrast enhanced thoracic CT scan, the scan-field-of-view includes vertebrae enabling BMD estimation. However, many CT scans are obtained by administration of contrast material. If the impact of contrast enhancement on BMD measurements could be quantified, considerably more patients are eligible for screening. Methods: This study investigated the impact of intravenous contrast on thoracic BMD measurements in cardiac CT scans pre- and post-contrast, including different contrast trigger levels of 130 and 180 Hounsfield units (HU). BMD was measured using quantitative CT with asynchronous calibration. Results: In 195 participants undergoing cardiac CT (mean age 57±9 years, 37 % females) contrast increased mean thoracic BMD from 116±33 mg/cm³ (non-enhanced CT) to 130±38 mg/cm³ (contrast-enhanced CT) (p<0.001). Using clinical cut-off values for very low (<80 mg/cm³) and low BMD (<120 mg/cm³) showed that 24 % (47/195 participants) were misclassified when BMD was measured on contrast-enhanced CT-scans. Of the misclassified patients, 6 % (12/195 participants) were categorized as having low BMD despite having very low BMD on the non-enhanced images. Contrast-CT using a higher contrast trigger level showed a significant increase in BMD compared to the lower trigger level (119±32 vs. 135±40 mg/cm³, p<0.01). Conclusion: For patients undergoing cardiac CT, using contrast-enhanced images to assess BMD entails substantial overestimation. Contrast protocol trigger levels also affect BMD measurements. Adjusting for these factors is needed before contrast-enhanced images can be used clinically. Mini abstract: Osteoporosis is under-diagnosed. Contrast-enhanced CT made to examine other diseases might be utilized simultaneously for bone mineral density (BMD) screening. These scans, however, likely entails overestimation of BMD due to the effect of contrast. Adjusting for this effect is needed before contrast-enhanced images can be implemented clinically for BMD screening.

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard method for measuring bone mineral density (BMD) which is most strongly associated with fracture risk. BMD is therefore the basis for the World Health Organization's densitometric definition of osteoporosis. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) promotes best densitometry practices and its official positions reflect critical review of current evidence by domain experts. This document reports new official positions regarding follow-up DXA examinations based on a systematic review of literature published through December 2022. Adoption of official positions requires consensus agreement from an expert panel following a modified RAND protocol. Unless explicitly altered by the new position statements, prior ISCD official positions remain in force. This update reflects increased consideration of the clinical context prompting repeat examination. Follow-up DXA should be performed with pre-defined objectives when the results would have an impact on patient management. Testing intervals should be individualized according to the patient's age, sex, fracture risk and treatment history. Incident fractures and therapeutic approach are key considerations. Appropriately ordered and interpreted follow-up DXA examinations support diagnostic and therapeutic decision making, thereby contributing to excellent clinical care. Future research should address the complementary roles of clinical findings, imaging and laboratory testing to guide management.

Introduction: Professional guidance and standards assist radiologic interpreters in generating high quality reports. Initially DXA reporting Official Positions were provided by the ISCD in 2003; however, as the field has progressed, some of the current recommendations require revision and updating. This manuscript details the research approach and provides updated DXA reporting guidance. Methods: Key Questions were proposed by ISCD established protocols and approved by the Position Development Conference Steering Committee. Literature related to each question was accumulated by searching PubMed, and existing guidelines from other organizations were extracted from websites. Modifications and additions to the ISCD Official Positions were determined by an expert panel after reviewing the Task Force proposals and position papers. Results: Since most DXA is now performed in radiology departments, an approach was endorsed that better aligns with standard radiologic reports. To achieve this, reporting elements were divided into required minimum or optional. Collectively, required components comprise a standard diagnostic report and are considered the minimum necessary to generate an acceptable report. Additional elements were retained and categorized as optional. These optional components were considered relevant but tailored to a consultative, clinically oriented report. Although this information is beneficial, not all interpreters have access to sufficient clinical information, or may not have the clinical expertise to expand beyond a diagnostic report. Consequently, these are not required for an acceptable report. Conclusion: These updated ISCD positions conform with the DXA field's evolution over the past 20 years. Specifically, a basic diagnostic report better aligns with radiology standards, and additional elements (which are valued by treating clinicians) remain acceptable but are optional and not required. Additionally, reporting guidance for newer elements such as fracture risk assessment are incorporated. It is our expectation that these updated Official Positions will improve compliance with required standards and generate high quality DXA reports that are valuable to the recipient clinician and contribute to best patient care.

The objective of the study was to assess the agreement between the Stratos (DMS) and QDR 4500A (Hologic) DXAs in determining whole body and regional aBMD, as well as whole body composition.

Fifty-five individuals (46 women: 84%) with a mean age of 41 ± 13.0 years (range: 20 to 64) and a mean BMI of 31.9 ± 10 kg/m² (range: 12.2 to 49.5) were consecutively scanned on the same day using the two devices. Predictive equations for areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and whole body composition (WBC) were derived from linear regression of the data.

The two DXAs were highly correlated (p<0.001 for all parameters) with a correlation coefficient (r) ranging from 0.89 to 0.99 for aBMD (r=0.89 for whole body, r=0.92 for radius, r=0.95 for femoral neck, r=0.96 for total hip, and r=0.99 for L1-L4). For WBC, the r value was 0.98 for lean tissue mass (LTM) and 1.0 for fat mass (FM). Paired t-tests indicated a statistically significant bias between the two DXAs for the majority of measurements, requiring the determination of specific cross-calibration equations. Compared to QDR 4500A, Stratos underestimated whole body aBMD and LTM and overestimated neck and hip aBMD and whole body FM. Conversely, no significant bias was demonstrated for mean aBMD at L1-L4 and radius. For whole body aBMD and FM, the concordance between the two DXAs was influenced by BMI.

Despite a high concordance between the two DXAs, the systematic bias for aBMD and WBC measurements illustrates the need to define cross-calibration equations to compare data across systems.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to correlate the mandibular bone quality through radiomorphometric indices in panoramic radiograph with bone quality of non-dominant hand phalanges by radiographic absorptiometry phalanx (RA). Methods: The sample consisted of 167 patients (128 women and 39 men) with a mean age of 52.09 (± 11.5) divided into four groups according to RA test: (A) 92; (B) 36; (C) 25 and (D) with 14.9. A panoramic radiograph was taken of each patient and one observer made measurements of cortical thickness at the mental foramen (mental index, MI) and gonion (goniac index, GI) regions and fractal dimension (FD) analyze in mandibular ramus. In phalangeal radiograph was made measurements of cortical thickness at the intermediate (medial phalange index, MPI) and proximal (proximal phalange index, PPI) phalangeal. Results: The results showed correlation (p < 0.00037) between Klemetti index with RA. Variance analysis MI, GI, MPI, PPI shown significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two groups (normal and low bone mineral density - BMD). Area under the ROC curve was 0.74 (sensitivity = 97.4%, specificity = 78%) for MI, 0.79 (sensitivity = 94, specificity = 54%) for GI, 0.77 (sensitivity = 94.8%, specificity = 64%) for MPI, 0.76 (sensitivity = 93.1%, specificity = 62%) for PPI, 0.71 (sensitivity = 96.5%, specificity = 86%) for FD. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the analysis of radiomorphometric indices showed moderate accuracy for detecting changes in mandibular bone quality according to AR.

Lumbar spine trabecular bone score (TBS) used in conjunction with FRAX® improves 10-year fracture prediction. The derived FRAX risk adjustment is based upon TBS measured from L1-L4, designated TBS_L1-L4-FRAX. In prior studies, TBS measurements that include L1 and exclude L4 give better fracture stratification than L1-L4. We compared risk stratification from TBS-adjusted FRAX using TBS derived from different combinations of upper lumbar vertebral levels renormalized for level-specific differences in individuals from the Manitoba Bone Density Program aged >40 years with baseline assessment of TBS and FRAX. TBS measurements for L1-L3, L1-L2 and L1 alone were calculated after renormalization for level-specific differences. Corresponding TBS-adjusted FRAX scores designated TBS_L1-L3-FRAX, TBS_L1-L2-FRAX and TBS_L1-FRAX were compared with TBS_L1-L4-FRAX for fracture risk stratification. Incident major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) and hip fractures were assessed. The primary outcome was incremental change in area under the curve (ΔAUC). The study population included 71,209 individuals (mean age 64 years, 89.8% female). Before renormalization, mean TBS for L1-3, L1-L2 and L1 was significantly lower and TBS-adjusted FRAX significantly higher than from using TBS_L1-L4. These differences were largely eliminated when TBS was renormalized for level-specific differences. During mean follow-up of 8.7 years 6745 individuals sustained incident MOF and 2039 sustained incident hip fractures. Compared with TBS_L1-L4-FRAX, use of FRAX without TBS was associated with lower stratification (ΔAUC = −0.009, p < 0.001). There was progressive improvement in MOF stratification using TBSL_1-L3-FRAX (ΔAUC = +0.001, p < 0.001), TBS_L1-L2-FRAX (ΔAUC = +0.004, p < 0.001) and TBS_L1-FRAX (ΔAUC = +0.005, p < 0.001). TBS_L1-FRAX was significantly better than all other combinations for MOF prediction (p < 0.001). Incremental improvement in AUC for hip fracture prediction showed a similar but smaller trend. In conclusion, this single large cohort study found that TBS-adjusted FRAX performance for fracture prediction was improved when limited to the upper lumbar vertebral levels and was best using L1 alone.

Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a FRAX®-independent risk factor for fracture prediction. TBS values increase from cranial to caudal, with the following mean differences between TBS_L1-L4 and individual lumbar vertebrae: L1 −0.093, L2 −0.008, L3 +0.055 and L4 +0.046. Excluding vertebral levels can affect FRAX-based treatment recommendations close to the intervention threshold. We examined the effect of adjusting for level-specific TBS differences in individuals with vertebral exclusions due to structural artifact on TBS-adjusted FRAX-based treatment recommendations. We identified 71,209 individuals aged ≥40 years with TBS and FRAX calculations through the Manitoba Bone Density Program. In the 24,428 individuals with vertebral exclusions, adjusting TBS using these level-specific factors agreed with TBS_L1-L4 (mean difference −0.001). We compared FRAX-based treatment recommendations for TBS_L1-L4 and for non-excluded vertebral levels before and after adjusting for level-specific TBS differences. Among those with baseline major osteoporotic fracture risk ≥15 %, TBS with vertebral exclusions reclassified FRAX-based treatment in 10.6 % of individuals compared with TBS_L1-L4, and was reduced to 7.2 % after adjusting for level-specific differences. In 11,131 patients where L1–L2 was used for BMD reporting (the most common exclusion pattern with the largest TBS effect), treatment reclassification was reduced from 13.9 % to 2.4 %, respectively. Among individuals with baseline hip fracture risk ≥2 %, TBS vertebral exclusions reclassified 7.1 % compared with TBS_L1-L4, but only 4.5 % after adjusting for level-specific differences. When L1–L2 was used for BMD reporting, treatment reclassification from hip fracture risk was reduced from 9.2 % to 5.2 %. In conclusion, TBS and TBS-adjusted FRAX-based treatment recommendations are affected by vertebral level exclusions for structural artifact. Adjusting for level-specific differences in TBS reduces reclassification in FRAX-based treatment recommendations.