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

Carmelo Messina; Luca Maria Sconfienza; Michele Bandirali; Giuseppe Guglielmi; Fabio Massimo Ulivieri

doi:10.1055/s-0036-1592370

Seminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology, Inhaltsverzeichnis

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

¹Scuola di Specializzazione in Radiodiagnostica, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy

,

Luca Maria Sconfienza

²Radiologia/Diagnostica per Immagini con Servizio di Radiologia Interventistica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milano, Italy

³Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy

,

Michele Bandirali

⁴Servizio di Radiologia, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy

,

Giuseppe Guglielmi

⁵Department of Radiology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy

⁶Department of Radiology, Scientific Institute “Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza” Hospital, San Giovanni Rotondo, Foggia, Italy

,

Fabio Massimo Ulivieri

⁷Mineralometria Ossea Computerizzata e Ambulatorio Malattie Metabolismo Minerale e Osseo, Servizio di Medicina Nucleare, IRCCS Fondazione Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy

› Institutsangaben

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

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Consensus development conference: diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 1993; 94 (6) 646-650
2 Rachner TD, Khosla S, Hofbauer LC. Osteoporosis: now and the future. Lancet 2011; 377 (9773) 1276-1287
3 Adams JE. Advances in bone imaging for osteoporosis. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2013; 9 (1) 28-42
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
5 Link TM. Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging. Radiology 2012; 263 (1) 3-17
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
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
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
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
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
11 Watts NB. Fundamentals and pitfalls of bone densitometry using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Osteoporos Int 2004; 15 (11) 847-854
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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