Journal of Clinical Densitometry最新文献

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.

Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a bone mineral density (BMD)-independent risk factor for fracture. During DXA analysis and BMD reporting, it is standard practice to exclude lumbar vertebral levels affected by structural artifact. Although TBS is relatively insensitive to degenerative artifact, it is uncertain whether TBS is still useful in the presence extreme structural artifact that precludes reliable spine BMD measurement even after vertebral exclusions. Among individuals aged 40 years and older undergoing baseline DXA assessment from September 2012 to March 2018 we identified three mutually exclusive groups: spine BMD reporting performed without exclusions (Group 1, N=12,865), spine BMD reporting performed with vertebral exclusions (Group 2, N=4867), and spine BMD reporting not performed due to severe structural artifact (Group 3, N=1541). No significant TBS difference was seen for Group 2 versus Group 1 (referent), whereas TBS was significantly greater in Group 3 (+0.041 partially adjusted, +0.043 fully adjusted). When analyzed by the reason for vertebral exclusion, multilevel degenerative changes significantly increased TBS (+0.041 partially adjusted, +0.042 fully adjusted), while instrumentation significantly reduced TBS (-0.059 partially adjusted, -0.051 fully adjusted). Similar results were seen when analyses were restricted to those in Group 3 with a single reason for vertebral exclusions, and when follow up scans were also included. During mean follow-up of 2.5 years there were 802 (4.2 %) individuals with one or more incident fractures. L1-L4 TBS showed significant fracture risk stratification in all groups including Group 3 (P-interaction >0.4). In conclusion, lumbar spine TBS can be reliably measured in the majority of lumbar spine DXA scans, including those with artifact affecting up to two vertebral levels. However, TBS is significantly affected by the presence of extreme structural artifact in the lumbar spine, especially those with multilevel degenerative disc changes and/or instrumentation that precludes reliable BMD reporting.

Introduction/Background: The monocyte-to-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) ratio (MHR) and carotid intima media thickness may be used as a marker of inflammation and oxidative stres. This study is aimed to investigate the role of MHR in etiopathogenesis and to determine the association between MHR and carotid intima media thickness, fracture risk, and quality of life (QoL) in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients without comorbidities. Methodology: Sixty osteoporosis, sixty osteopenia and sixty control groups were included in the prospective study evaluating postmenapausal women. The monocyte, HDL, and MHR values of all patients were evaluated. The bone mineral density of the participants was determined using the dual energy X-ray absorptiometry device. The fracture risk was assessed using the Turkish model of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool. The QoL was determined using the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO-41) scale, and carotid intima media thickness ultrasonography was used. Results: The age, body mass index, duration of menopause, monocyte, HDL, and MHR were similar in all three groups. carotid intima media thickness was higher in the osteoporosis group than in the normal group (p=0.015). A positive correlation was found between L1-4 total T score and monocytes, major osteoporotic fracture risk and physical function from QUALEFFO-41 sub-headings, MHR and QUALEFFO-41 total score (p<0.05). When all participants were evaluated, a positive correlation was found between femoral neck T score and MHR, L1-4 total T score and monocytes, while a negative correlation was found between L1-4 total T score and CIMT (p<0.05). Conclusion: Among postmenopausal women without comorbidities, MHR in the osteoporosis group was similar to that of the osteopenia and normal groups. Monocyte and MHR correlate with femoral neck T score and L1-4 total T score. CIMT was associated with a decreased L1–4 total T-score and an increased fracture risk, but not with MHR.

The Santa Fe Bone Symposium (SFBS) held its 23rd annual event on August 5-6, 2023, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Attendees participated in-person and remotely, representing many states and countries. The program included plenary presentations, panel discussions, satellite symposia, a Project ECHO workshop, and a session on healthcare policy and reimbursement for fracture liaison programs. A broad range of topics were addressed, including transitions of osteoporosis treatments over a lifetime; controversies in vitamin D; update on Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry; spine surgery and bone health; clinical applications of bone turnover markers; basic bone biology for clinicians; premenopausal-, pregnancy-, and lactation-associated osteoporosis; cancer treatment induced bone loss in patients with breast cancer and prostate cancer; genetic testing for skeletal diseases; and an update on nutrition and bone health. There were also sessions on rare bone diseases, including managing patients with hypophosphatasia; treatment of X-linked hypophosphatemia; and assessment and treatment of patients with hypoparathyroidism. There were oral presentations of abstracts by endocrinology fellows selected from those who participated in the Santa Fe Fellows Workshop on Metabolic Bone Diseases, held the 2 days prior to the SFBS. These proceedings of the 2023 SFBS present the clinical highlights and insights generated from many formal and informal discussions in Santa Fe.