Pearson J, Dequeker J, Henley M, Bright J, Reeve J, Kalender W, Laval-Jeantet A M, Rüegsegger P, Felsenberg D, Adams J
MRC Clinical Research Centre, Harrow, UK.
Osteoporos Int. 1995 May;5(3):174-84. doi: 10.1007/BF02106097.
Up to now it has not been possible to reliably cross-calibrate dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) densitometry equipment made by different manufacturers so that a measurement made on an individual subject can be expressed in the units used with a different type of machine. Manufacturers have adopted various procedures for edge detection and calibration, producing various normal ranges which are specific to each individual manufacturer's brand of machine. In this study we have used the recently described European Spine Phantom (ESP, prototype version), which contains three semi-anthropomorphic "vertebrae" of different densities made of stimulated cortical and trabecular bone, to calibrate a range of DXA densitometers and quantitative computed tomography (QCT) equipment used in the measurement of trabecular bone density of the lumbar vertebrae. Three brands of QCT equipment and three brands of DXA equipment were assessed. Repeat measurements were made to assess machine stability. With the large majority of machines which proved stable, mean values were obtained for the measured low, medium and high density vertebrae respectively. In the case of the QCT equipment these means were for the trabecular bone density, and in the case of the DXA equipment for vertebral body bone density in the posteroanterior projection. All DXA machines overestimated the projected area of the vertebral bodies by incorporating variable amounts of transverse process. In general, the QCT equipment gave measured values which were close to the specified values for trabecular density, but there were substantial differences from the specified values in the results provided by the three DXA brands. For the QCT and Norland DXA machines (posteroanterior view), the relationships between specified densities and observed densities were found to be linear, whereas for the other DXA equipment (posteroanterior view), slightly curvilinear, exponential fits were found to be necessary to fit the plots of observed versus specified densities. From these plots, individual calibration equations were derived for each machine studied. For optimal cross-calibration, it was found to be necessary to use an individual calibration equation for each machine. This study has shown that it is possible to cross-calibrate DXA as well as QCT equipment for the measurement of axial bone density. This will be of considerable benefit for large-scale epidemiological studies as well as for multi-site clinical studies depending on bone densitometry.
到目前为止,还无法可靠地对不同制造商生产的双能X线吸收法(DXA)骨密度测量设备进行交叉校准,以便在个体受试者身上进行的测量能够用不同类型机器所使用的单位来表示。制造商采用了各种边缘检测和校准程序,产生了各种特定于每个制造商品牌机器的正常范围。在本研究中,我们使用了最近描述的欧洲脊柱体模(ESP,原型版本),它包含由模拟皮质骨和小梁骨制成的三个不同密度的半人体“椎骨”,来校准一系列用于测量腰椎小梁骨密度的DXA骨密度仪和定量计算机断层扫描(QCT)设备。评估了三个品牌的QCT设备和三个品牌的DXA设备。进行重复测量以评估机器稳定性。对于绝大多数证明稳定的机器,分别获得了测量的低密度、中密度和高密度椎骨的平均值。对于QCT设备,这些平均值是针对小梁骨密度,对于DXA设备,是针对前后位投影中的椎体骨密度。所有DXA机器都通过纳入不同量的横突高估了椎体的投影面积。一般来说,QCT设备给出的测量值接近小梁密度的指定值,但三个DXA品牌提供的结果与指定值有很大差异。对于QCT和Norland DXA机器(前后位视图),发现指定密度与观察到的密度之间的关系是线性的,而对于其他DXA设备(前后位视图),发现需要稍微曲线的指数拟合来拟合观察到的密度与指定密度的图。从这些图中,为每个研究的机器推导了单独的校准方程。为了实现最佳交叉校准,发现有必要为每台机器使用单独的校准方程。这项研究表明,对用于测量轴向骨密度的DXA以及QCT设备进行交叉校准是可行的。这对于大规模流行病学研究以及依赖骨密度测量的多中心临床研究将有相当大的益处。