Radiation Exposure in Bone Densitometry

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the literature regarding the magnitude of radiation exposure associated with the current radiologic methods used in patients with suspected osteoporosis. The use of X-ray–based techniques for the detection and monitoring of osteoporosis has increased over the last few decades. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry is the most common method, used worldwide for the assessment of osteoporosis, and it may be applied at several skeletal sites. Quantitative computed tomography comprises an alternative validated technique, increasingly used for skeleton assessment. Although radiation doses from methods applied for the management of osteoporosis are low, compared with other radiologic methods, special attention should be paid to justify and optimize each procedure, taking into consideration all radiation protection measures. Dose optimization, including dose reduction techniques and low-dose protocols, is of paramount importance, even for low-dose examinations, to achieve the minimum radiation burden to the exposed patients and personnel.

• References

• 1 Casciaro S, Conversano F, Pisani P, Muratore M. New perspectives in echographic diagnosis of osteoporosis on hip and spine. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 2015; 12 (2) 142-150
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Bernabei R, Martone AM, Ortolani E, Landi F, Marzetti E. Screening, diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis: a brief review. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 2014; 11 (3) 201-207
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Damilakis J, Maris TG, Karantanas AH. An update on the assessment of osteoporosis using radiologic techniques. Eur Radiol 2007; 17 (6) 1591-1602
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Pisani P, Renna MD, Conversano F , et al. Screening and early diagnosis of osteoporosis through X-ray and ultrasound based techniques. World J Radiol 2013; 5 (11) 398-410
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Baim S, Leslie WD. Assessment of fracture risk. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2012; 10 (1) 28-41
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Link TM. Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging. Radiology 2012; 263 (1) 3-17
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Schnitzer TJ, Wysocki N, Barkema D , et al. Calcaneal quantitative ultrasound compared with hip and femoral neck dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in people with a spinal cord injury. PM R 2012; 4 (10) 748-755
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Raum K, Grimal Q, Varga P, Barkmann R, Glüer CC, Laugier P. Ultrasound to assess bone quality. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2014; 12 (2) 154-162
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Link TM, Majumdar S, Grampp S , et al. Imaging of trabecular bone structure in osteoporosis. Eur Radiol 1999; 9 (9) 1781-1788
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Maris TG, Damilakis J, Sideri L , et al. Assessment of the skeletal status by MR relaxometry techniques of the lumbar spine: comparison with dual X-ray absorptiometry. Eur J Radiol 2004; 50 (3) 245-256
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Williams JE, Wells JC, Wilson CM, Haroun D, Lucas A, Fewtrell MS. Evaluation of Lunar Prodigy dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for assessing body composition in healthy persons and patients by comparison with the criterion 4-component model. Am J Clin Nutr 2006; 83 (5) 1047-1054
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Garg MK, Kharb S. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: pitfalls in measurement and interpretation of bone mineral density. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2013; 17 (2) 203-210
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Kanis JA ; WHO Study Group. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: synopsis of a WHO report. Osteoporos Int 1994; 4 (6) 368-381
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Gourtsoyiannis N. Imaging ultrasonometry of the calcaneus: optimum T-score thresholds for the identification of osteoporotic subjects. Calcif Tissue Int 2001; 68 (4) 219-224
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Bouxsein ML, Palermo L, Yeung C, Black DM. Digital X-ray radiogrammetry predicts hip, wrist and vertebral fracture risk in elderly women: a prospective analysis from the study of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2002; 13 (5) 358-365
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Tenne M, McGuigan F, Besjakov J, Gerdhem P, Åkesson K. Degenerative changes at the lumbar spine—implications for bone mineral density measurement in elderly women. Osteoporos Int 2013; 24 (4) 1419-1428
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Kanis JA. Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet 2002; 359 (9321) 1929-1936
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Adams JE. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. In: Grampp S, ed. Radiology of Osteoporosis. New York, NY: Springer; 2003
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 19 Glüer CC, Blake G, Lu Y, Blunt BA, Jergas M, Genant HK. Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporos Int 1995; 5 (4) 262-270
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Grampp S, Jergas M, Glüer CC, Lang P, Brastow P, Genant HK. Radiologic diagnosis of osteoporosis. Current methods and perspectives. Radiol Clin North Am 1993; 31 (5) 1133-1145
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Patel R, Blake GM, Rymer J, Fogelman I. Long-term precision of DXA scanning assessed over seven years in forty postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2000; 11 (1) 68-75
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Glüer CC. Monitoring skeletal changes by radiological techniques. J Bone Miner Res 1999; 14 (11) 1952-1962
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Huda W, Morin RL. Patient doses in bone mineral densitometry. Br J Radiol 1996; 69 (821) 422-425
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Njeh CF, Samat SB, Nightingale A, McNeil EA, Boivin CM. Radiation dose and in vitro precision in paediatric bone mineral density measurement using dual X-ray absorptiometry. Br J Radiol 1997; 70 (835) 719-727
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Lewis MK, Blake GM, Fogelman I. Patient dose in dual x-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int 1994; 4 (1) 11-15
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Blake GM, Naeem M, Boutros M. Comparison of effective dose to children and adults from dual X-ray absorptiometry examinations. Bone 2006; 38 (6) 935-942
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Damilakis J, Solomou G, Manios GE, Karantanas A. Pediatric radiation dose and risk from bone density measurements using a GE Lunar Prodigy scanner. Osteoporos Int 2013; 24 (7) 2025-2031
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Larkin A, Sheahan N, O'Connor U , et al. QA/acceptance testing of DEXA X-ray systems used in bone mineral densitometry. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 129 (1–3) 279-283
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357 (22) 2277-2284
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Mettler Jr FA, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 2008; 248 (1) 254-263
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Report no. 93: Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States. Bethesda, MD: NCRP; 1987
  Google Scholar
• 32 Damilakis J, Adams JE, Guglielmi G, Link TM. Radiation exposure in X-ray-based imaging techniques used in osteoporosis. Eur Radiol 2010; 20 (11) 2707-2714
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Vrahoriti H, Kontakis G, Varveris H, Gourtsoyiannis N. Embryo/fetus radiation dose and risk from dual X-ray absorptiometry examinations. Osteoporos Int 2002; 13 (9) 716-722
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Pregnancy and medical radiation. ICRP publication 84. Ann ICRP 2000; 30: 1-43
  Google Scholar
• 35 Njeh CF, Fuerst T, Hans D, Blake GM, Genant HK. Radiation exposure in bone mineral density assessment. Appl Radiat Isot 1999; 50 (1) 215-236
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Steel SA, Baker AJ, Saunderson JR. An assessment of the radiation dose to patients and staff from a Lunar Expert-XL fan beam densitometer. Physiol Meas 1998; 19 (1) 17-26
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Damilakis J, Solomou G. Radiation protection and quality assurance in bone densitometry. In: Guglielmi G, ed. Osteoporosis and Bone Densitometry Measurements. New York, NY: Springer; 2012
  Google Scholar
• 38 Papadakis AE, Karantanas AH, Papadokostakis G, Petinellis E, Damilakis J. Can abdominal multi-detector CT diagnose spinal osteoporosis?. Eur Radiol 2009; 19 (1) 172-176
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Adams JE. Quantitative computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 2009; 71 (3) 415-424
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Damilakis J, Guglielmi G. Quality assurance and dosimetry in bone densitometry. Radiol Clin North Am 2010; 48 (3) 629-640
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Engelke K, Adams JE, Armbrecht G , et al. Clinical use of quantitative computed tomography and peripheral quantitative computed tomography in the management of osteoporosis in adults: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions. J Clin Densitom 2008; 11 (1) 123-162
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR–SSR practice guideline for the performance of quantitative computed tomography (QCT) bone densitometry. Available at: http://www.acr.org/∼/media/DE78D218C7A64526A821A9E8645AB46D.pdf . Updated 2013 (Resolution 32). Accessed August 18, 2013
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 43 Witchmann JL, Booz C, Wesarg S , et al. Dual-energy CT-based phantomless in vivo threedimensional bone mineral density assessment of the lumbar spine. Radiology 2014; 271: 778-784
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 44 Lang TF, Guglielmi G, van Kuijk C, De Serio A, Cammisa M, Genant HK. Measurement of bone mineral density at the spine and proximal femur by volumetric quantitative computed tomography and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in elderly women with and without vertebral fractures. Bone 2002; 30 (1) 247-250
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 45 Issever AS, Link TM, Kentenich M , et al. Assessment of trabecular bone structure using MDCT: comparison of 64- and 320-slice CT using HR-pQCT as the reference standard. Eur Radiol 2010; 20 (2) 458-468
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 46 Kalender WA, Buchenau S, Deak P , et al. Technical approaches to the optimisation of CT. Phys Med 2008; 24 (2) 71-79
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 47 Burrows M, Liu D, McKay H. High-resolution peripheral QCT imaging of bone micro-structure in adolescents. Osteoporos Int 2010; 21 (3) 515-520
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 48 Guglielmi G, Damilakis J, Solomou G, Bazzocchi A. Quality assurance of imaging techniques used in the clinical management of osteoporosis. Radiol Med (Torino) 2012; 117 (8) 1347-1354
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 49 Tzedakis A, Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Stratakis J, Gourtsoyiannis N. The effect of z overscanning on patient effective dose from multidetector helical computed tomography examinations. Med Phys 2005; 32 (6) 1621-1629
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 50 Papadakis AE, Perisinakis K, Damilakis J. Automatic exposure control in pediatric and adult multidetector CT examinations: a phantom study on dose reduction and image quality. Med Phys 2008; 35 (10) 4567-4576
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 51 De Cecco CN, Darnell A, Macías N , et al. Second-generation dual-energy computed tomography of the abdomen: radiation dose comparison with 64- and 128-row single-energy acquisition. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013; 37 (4) 543-546
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar