Elsevier

Journal of Clinical Densitometry

Volume 11, Issue 1, January–March 2008, Pages 188-206
Journal of Clinical Densitometry

Position Statement
Peripheral Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry in the Management of Osteoporosis: The 2007 ISCD Official Positions

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2007.12.012Get rights and content

Abstract

Peripheral assessment of bone density using photon absorptiometry techniques has been available for over 40 yr. The initial use of radio-isotopes as the photon source has been replaced by the use of X-ray technology. A wide variety of models of single- or dual-energy X-ray measurement tools have been made available for purchase, although not all are still commercially available. The Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) have been developed following a systematic review of the literature by an ISCD task force and a subsequent Position Development Conference. These cover the technological diversity among peripheral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (pDXA) devices; define whether pDXA can be used for fracture risk assessment and/or to diagnose osteoporosis; examine whether pDXA can be used to initiate treatment and/or monitor treatment; provide recommendations for pDXA reporting; and review quality assurance and quality control necessary for effective use of pDXA.

Introduction

In 1963, Cameron and Sorensen developed a new method for testing bone density in vivo by passing a monochromatic one single energy phantom beam through bone and soft tissue (1) at a peripheral skeletal site. Since that time, approximately 20,000 central and 15,000 peripheral densitometers have been sold (K. Faulkner, personal communication) and utilized to measure human bone density both clinically and in research studies. Since 2001, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) has reviewed various aspects of peripheral densitometry 2, 3 including the use of forearm dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for diagnosis of osteoporosis and for serial monitoring (4).

The proliferation of bone densitometers using different technologies for measuring BMD at different skeletal sites, along with the absence of technology-specific guidelines, has created great uncertainty in applying the results to the management of patients in clinical practice. The acronym pDXA (peripheral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) is used to describe dedicated devices that are specifically designed to measure the BMD of peripheral skeletal sites using DXA. There is no fundamental difference in technology between peripheral and central DXA. pDXA is used to measure bone mineral density (BMD) at the forearm, finger phalanges and calcaneus. Radiographic absorptiometry (RA) and quantitative ultrasound (QUS) are other technologies for assessing skeletal health at peripheral skeletal sites. Radiographic absorptiometry and QUS will not be considered in this document.

Some advantages of pDXA compared to central DXA are that the instruments are smaller and more portable, requiring minimal space to operate, and they are less expensive. Also, since the measurement sites are a significant distance from radiation-sensitive organs, radiation doses are extremely small and even lower than the doses associated with central DXA of the hip and spine. Nevertheless, pDXA may be subject to radiation protection regulation in many countries.

Various pDXA devices have been shown to predict forearm, spine, hip and any osteoporotic fractures in elderly women. However, the body of evidence evaluating the ability of pDXA (or its precursors single-energy photon absorptiometry [SPA] in 1963, single-energy X-ray absorptiometry [SXA], and peripheral dual-energy photon absorptiometry [pDPA]) to predict fracture risk is not as substantial as might be expected for a methodology older than central DXA. The use of pDXA in clinical practice continues to be poorly defined. Peripheral BMD measurement technologies were extensively studied at the beginning of the era of quantitative evaluation of BMD, but their evaluation has diminished over the last 20 yr with the rise of central DXA measurements. Furthermore, many devices that were used in the past are no longer commercially available and those that remain have not been evaluated by well standardized methods (e.g., population based, cross-sectional studies, prospective studies).

The role of peripheral densitometry in clinical practice remains poorly defined. The ISCD pDXA Task Force reviewed the medical literature and proposed a set of operational recommendations for the clinical use of pDXA for the following five major topics:

  • 1

    pDXA and fracture risk assessment

  • 2

    pDXA and diagnosis of osteoporosis

  • 3

    pDXA and treatment initiation

  • 4

    pDXA and treatment monitoring

  • 5

    pDXA and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)

The task force did not consider other peripheral X-ray technologies such as RA and radiogrammetry to avoid any confusion with forearm, heel, or finger measurements assessed by pDXA.

Section snippets

Methodology

The ISCD pDXA Task Force reviewed the peer-reviewed medical literature using Medline and PubMed from 1960 to date. A bibliography of 174 papers was initially prepared by the pDXA Task Force and papers were added as required to enable review of specific topics. Only bibliographies in English language were considered.

The methods used to develop, and grading system applied to the ISCD Official Positions, are presented in the Executive Summary that accompanies this paper. In brief, all Official

ISCD Official Position

  • For pDXA, bone density measurements from different devices cannot be directly compared.

    Grade: Good-A-W-Necessary

ISCD Official Positions

  • Measurement by validated pDXA devices can be used to assess vertebral and global fragility fracture risk in postmenopausal women, however its vertebral fracture predictive ability is weaker than central DXA and heel QUS. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to support this position for men.

    Grade: Fair-B-W-Necessary

  • For pDXA, different devices should be independently validated for fracture risk prediction by prospective trials or by demonstration of equivalence to a clinically validated device.

ISCD Official Position

  • The WHO diagnostic classification can only be applied to DXA at the femur neck, total femur, lumbar spine, and the one-third (33%) radius region of interest measured by DXA or pDXA devices utilizing a validated young-adult reference database.

    Grade: Good-A-W-Necessary

ISCD Official Positions

  • Central DXA measurements at the spine and femur are the preferred method for making therapeutic decisions and should be used if possible. However, if central DXA cannot be done, pharmacologic treatment can be initiated if the fracture probability, as assessed by radius pDXA (or DXA) using device specific thresholds and in conjunction with clinical risk factors, is sufficiently high.

    Grade: Fair-B-W-Necessary

  • Radius pDXA in conjunction with clinical risk factors can be used to identify a

ISCD Official Position

  • pDXA devices are not clinically useful in monitoring the skeletal effects of presently available medical treatments for osteoporosis.

    Good-A-W-Necessary

ISCD Official Positions

  • For pDXA, the report should combine the following standard elements:

    • Date of test

    • Demographics (name, date of birth or age, sex, race or ethnicity)

    • Requesting provider

    • Names of those receiving a copy of report

    • Indications for test

    • Manufacturer, and model of instrument and software version

    • Measurement value(s)

    • Reference database

    • Skeletal site/region of interest

    • Quality of test

    • Limitations of the test including a statement that the WHO diagnostic classification cannot be applied to T-scores obtained from

ISCD Official Positions

  • For pDXA, device-specific education and training should be given to the operators and interpreters prior to clinical use.

    Grade: Good-A-W-Necessary

  • Quality control procedures should be performed regularly.

    Grade: Good-A-W-Necessary

Summary

Although pDXA technology was developed many years ago, its use in the clinical setting is confused and discordant. The ISCD Official Positions described herein reflects the current state of knowledge regarding pDXA.

The clinical use and utility of pDXA to diagnose osteoporosis is justified particularly in situations where central DXA is unavailable. Peripheral DXA measures are related to global fracture risk with similar relative risk as other central bone density ROI for postmenopausal women.

References (91)

  • G.M. Blake et al.

    Absolute fracture risk varies with bone densitometry technique used. A theoretical and in vivo study of fracture cases

    J Clin Densitom

    (2002)
  • M. Boyanov

    Forearm single X-ray absorptiometry in the identification of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at the hip and spine: a correlation study

    J Clin Densitom

    (2005)
  • S. Goemaere et al.

    Ability of peripheral bone assessments to predict areal bone mineral density at hip in community-dwelling elderly men

    J Clin Densitom

    (2002)
  • J.E. Mulder et al.

    Comparison of bone mineral density of the phalanges, lumbar spine, hip, and forearm for the assessment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

    J Clin Densitom

    (2000)
  • D. Picard et al.

    Ability of peripheral DXA measurement to diagnose osteoporosis as assessed by central DXA measurement

    J Clin Densitom

    (2004)
  • C. Durosier et al.

    Prediction and discrimination of osteoporotic hip fracture in postmenopausal women

    J Clin Densitom

    (2006)
  • D.M. Black et al.

    Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group

    Lancet

    (1996)
  • L. Bahamondes et al.

    Forearm bone density in users of Depo-Provera as a contraceptive method

    Fertil Steril

    (1999)
  • D.B. Petitti et al.

    Steroid hormone contraception and bone mineral density: a cross-sectional study in an international population. The WHO Study of Hormonal Contraception and Bone Health

    Obstet Gynecol

    (2000)
  • The writing Group for the ISCD Position Development Conference

    Indications and reporting for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry

    J Clin Densitom

    (2004)
  • J.R. Cameron et al.

    Measurement of Bone Mineral in Vivo: an Improved Method

    Science

    (1963)
  • R.C. Hamdy et al.

    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)
  • P.D. Miller et al.

    What are the standards by which bone mass measurement at peripheral skeletal sites should be used in the diagnosis of osteoporosis?

    J Clin Densitom

    (2002)
  • J.A. Shepherd et al.

    Universal standardization of forearm bone densitometry

    J Bone Miner Res

    (2002)
  • M. Grigorian et al.

    Does osteoporosis classification using heel BMD agree across manufacturers?

    Osteoporos Int

    (2002)
  • S.E. Bouyoucef et al.

    Cross-calibration of a fan-beam X-ray densitometer with a pencil-beam system

    Br J Radiol

    (1996)
  • S. Hagiwara et al.

    Dual x-ray absorptiometry forearm software: accuracy and intermachine relationship

    J Bone Miner Res

    (1994)
  • K.G. Faulkner et al.

    Densitometry of the radius using single and dual energy absorptiometry

    Calcif Tissue Int

    (1994)
  • L. Nilas et al.

    Bone composition in the distal forearm

    Scand J Clin Lab Invest

    (1987)
  • S. Prevrhal et al.

    Towards standardization of dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at the forearm: a common region of interest (ROI) improves the comparability among DXA devices

    Calcif Tissue Int

    (2005)
  • D. Marshall et al.

    Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures

    BMJ

    (1996)
  • D.G. Seeley et al.

    Which fractures are associated with low appendicular bone mass in elderly women? The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group

    Ann Intern Med

    (1991)
  • K.L. Stone et al.

    BMD at multiple sites and risk of fracture of multiple types: long-term results from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures

    J Bone Miner Res

    (2003)
  • E. Sornay-Rendu et al.

    Rate of forearm bone loss is associated with an increased risk of fracture independently of bone mass in postmenopausal women: the OFELY study

    J Bone Miner Res

    (2005)
  • P.D. Miller et al.

    Prediction of fracture risk in postmenopausal white women with peripheral bone densitometry: evidence from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment

    J Bone Miner Res

    (2002)
  • E.S. Siris et al.

    The effect of age and bone mineral density on the absolute, excess, and relative risk of fracture in postmenopausal women aged 50-99: results from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment (NORA)

    Osteoporos Int

    (2006)
  • P. Gardsell et al.

    The predictive value of bone loss for fragility fractures in women: a longitudinal study over 15 years

    Calcif Tissue Int

    (1991)
  • P.D. Ross et al.

    Serum bone alkaline phosphatase and calcaneus bone density predict fractures: a prospective study

    Osteoporos Int

    (2000)
  • C. Huang et al.

    Short-term and long-term fracture prediction by bone mass measurements: a prospective study

    J Bone Miner Res

    (1998)
  • R.J. Barr et al.

    Can peripheral DXA measurements be used to predict fractures in elderly women living in the community?

    Osteoporos Int

    (2005)
  • G.M. Blake et al.

    A list of device-specific thresholds for the clinical interpretation of peripheral x-ray absorptiometry examinations

    Osteoporos Int

    (2005)
  • N. Hongsdusit et al.

    A comparison between peripheral BMD and central BMD measurements in the prediction of spine fractures in men

    Osteoporos Int

    (2006)
  • E. Barrett-Connor et al.

    Osteoporosis and fracture risk in women of different ethnic groups

    J Bone Miner Res

    (2005)
  • J.A. Clowes et al.

    The discriminative ability of peripheral and axial bone measurements to identify proximal femoral, vertebral, distal forearm and proximal humeral fractures: a case control study

    Osteoporos Int

    (2005)
  • D.M. Black et al.

    Axial and appendicular bone density predict fractures in older women

    J Bone Miner Res

    (1992)
  • Cited by (0)

    a

    Task Force Chair.

    b

    Task Force Member.

    c

    Task Force Liaison.

    View full text