Williams E D, Daymond T J
Regional Medical Physics Department, Sunderland Royal Hospital and University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK.
Br J Radiol. 2003 Feb;76(902):123-8. doi: 10.1259/bjr/56105358.
Dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is now widely available as a method for assessing bone density. However, the place of peripheral bone densitometry in clinical practice for diagnosis of osteoporosis is not yet clear. To examine the potential use in our district general hospital setting, we compared calcaneus measurements with conventional DXA of the hip and spine in 100 patients referred for assessment following identification of risk factors for osteoporosis. Measurements were made on both heels and the results were found to be similar but not completely interchangeable. Use of receiver operating characteristic curves confirmed that a threshold T-score of -1.6 could be used to identify many of the high risk subjects. However, there was only moderate agreement between fracture risk classifications derived from heel T-scores, and diagnostic classification (osteoporosis/osteopenia/normal) derived from axial DXA. The specificity of heel measurements was high, but sensitivity was poorer. Heel measurements could therefore be valuable in some circumstances for finding patients for whom treatment of osteoporosis would be appropriate, such as in a population with a low prevalence of osteoporosis. They may also be of value in a population with a high prevalence of disease, particularly if there were no alternative means of bone densitometry. However, with an intermediate prevalence, the relatively high risk of false negative values would mean that false reassurance could be given to many of those classed as "low risk". This could be a major drawback in clinical practice if heel densitometry were used as the initial investigation and axial measurements were also available, since they would give conflicting results for a substantial proportion of these patients.
双能X线吸收法(DXA)作为一种评估骨密度的方法现已广泛应用。然而,外周骨密度测定在骨质疏松症临床诊断中的作用尚不清楚。为了研究其在我们地区综合医院环境中的潜在用途,我们对100例因骨质疏松症风险因素而被转诊进行评估的患者,将跟骨测量结果与髋部和脊柱的传统DXA测量结果进行了比较。对双侧足跟进行了测量,结果发现两者相似但并非完全可互换。通过使用受试者工作特征曲线证实,-1.6的阈值T分数可用于识别许多高风险受试者。然而,从足跟T分数得出的骨折风险分类与从轴向DXA得出的诊断分类(骨质疏松症/骨质减少/正常)之间只有中度一致性。足跟测量的特异性较高,但敏感性较差。因此,足跟测量在某些情况下对于找出适合进行骨质疏松症治疗的患者可能是有价值的,例如在骨质疏松症患病率较低的人群中。它们在疾病患病率较高的人群中也可能有价值,特别是如果没有其他骨密度测量方法的话。然而,在患病率中等的情况下,相对较高的假阴性值风险意味着可能会让许多被归类为“低风险”的人得到错误的安心。如果将足跟骨密度测量用作初始检查且也可进行轴向测量,这在临床实践中可能是一个主要缺点,因为对于相当一部分患者,它们会给出相互矛盾的结果。