Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2016; 20(03): 246-253
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1592370
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Adult Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry in Clinical Practice: How I Report it

Carmelo Messina
1   Scuola di Specializzazione in Radiodiagnostica, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy
,
Luca Maria Sconfienza
2   Radiologia/Diagnostica per Immagini con Servizio di Radiologia Interventistica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milano, Italy
3   Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy
,
Michele Bandirali
4   Servizio di Radiologia, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy
,
Giuseppe Guglielmi
5   Department of Radiology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
6   Department of Radiology, Scientific Institute “Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza” Hospital, San Giovanni Rotondo, Foggia, Italy
,
Fabio Massimo Ulivieri
7   Mineralometria Ossea Computerizzata e Ambulatorio Malattie Metabolismo Minerale e Osseo, Servizio di Medicina Nucleare, IRCCS Fondazione Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 October 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Several imaging methods for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis exist. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely available and commonly used for measuring bone mineral density (BMD). Central DXA has several advantages: It has very good reproducibility, administers a negligible radiation dose to the patient, and BMD values obtained by DXA relate to fracture risk. Nevertheless, DXA has some technical limitations that should be recognized by those physicians who interpret and report this examination. We provide recommendations for optimal DXA scan reporting in adults, including indications, skeletal sites to be measured, serial BMD measurements, and fracture risk assessment. In conclusion, DXA is the standard of reference in evaluating BMD and is effective in following up patients over time. Adequate reporting and analysis of previous DXA examinations is crucial to manage patients correctly.

Keywords

dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry - osteoporosis - bone mineral density - report
 

  • References

  • 1 Consensus development conference: diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 1993; 94 (6) 646-650
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rachner TD, Khosla S, Hofbauer LC. Osteoporosis: now and the future. Lancet 2011; 377 (9773) 1276-1287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Adams JE. Advances in bone imaging for osteoporosis. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2013; 9 (1) 28-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H. Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 1996; 312 (7041) 1254-1259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Link TM. Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging. Radiology 2012; 263 (1) 3-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bandirali M, Lanza E, Messina C , et al. Dose absorption in lumbar and femoral dual energy X-ray absorptiometry examinations using three different scan modalities: an anthropomorphic phantom study. J Clin Densitom 2013; 16 (3) 279-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bandirali M, Sconfienza LM, Aliprandi A , et al. In vivo differences among scan modes in bone mineral density measurement at dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Radiol Med (Torino) 2014; 119 (4) 257-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Guglielmi G, Muscarella S, Bazzocchi A. Integrated imaging approach to osteoporosis: state-of-the-art review and update. Radiographics 2011; 31 (5) 1343-1364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster J-Y ; Scientific Advisory Board of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) and the Committee of Scientific Advisors of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF). European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2013; 24 (1) 23-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Messina C, Bandirali M, Sconfienza LM , et al. Prevalence and type of errors in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Eur Radiol 2015; 25 (5) 1504-1511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Watts NB. Fundamentals and pitfalls of bone densitometry using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Osteoporos Int 2004; 15 (11) 847-854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cosman F, de Beur SJ, LeBoff MS , et al; National Osteoporosis Foundation. Clinician's Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2014; 25 (10) 2359-2381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) Skeletal Health. 2015 . http://www.iscd.org/official-positions/2015-iscd-official-positions-adult/ . Accessed June 20, 2003
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Writing Group for the ISCD Position Development Conference. Indications and reporting for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Clin Densitom 2004; 7 (1) 37-44 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14742886 . Accessed March 8, 2016
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hamdy RC, Petak SM, Lenchik L ; International Society for Clinical Densitometry Position Development Panel and Scientific Advisory Committee. Which central dual X-ray absorptiometry skeletal sites and regions of interest should be used to determine the diagnosis of osteoporosis?. J Clin Densitom 2002; 5 (Suppl): S11-S18 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12464707 . Accessed March 11, 2016
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bandirali M, Messina C, Di Leo G , et al. Bone mineral density differences between femurs of scoliotic patients undergoing dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Clin Radiol 2013; 68 (9) e511-e515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Siminoski K, Leslie WD, Frame H , et al; Canadian Association of Radiologists. Recommendations for bone mineral density reporting in Canada. Can Assoc Radiol J 2005; 56 (3) 178-188 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16144280 . Accessed March 8, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M , et al. Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 2013; 8: 136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lewiecki EM, Gordon CM, Baim S , et al. International Society for Clinical Densitometry 2007 Adult and Pediatric Official Positions. Bone 2008; 43 (6) 1115-1121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Johansson H, McCloskey E. FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int 2008; 19 (4) 385-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O , et al. The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Osteoporos Int 2007; 18 (8) 1033-1046
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C , et al; National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG). Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men from the age of 50 years in the UK. Maturitas 2009; 62 (2) 105-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bonnick SL, Johnston Jr CC, Kleerekoper M , et al. Importance of precision in bone density measurements. J Clin Densitom 2001; 4 (2) 105-110 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11477303 . Accessed March 14, 2016
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Nguyen TV, Center JR, Eisman JA. Femoral neck bone loss predicts fracture risk independent of baseline BMD. J Bone Miner Res 2005; 20 (7) 1195-1201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lewiecki EM. Nonresponders to osteoporosis therapy. J Clin Densitom 2003; 6 (4) 307-314 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14716042 . Accessed March 14, 2016
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar