Assessing Change in Spine Bone Density from Different Numbers and Combinations of Lumbar Vertebrae: The Manitoba BMD Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Change in bone mineral density (BMD) is considered significant when it exceeds the 95 % least significant change (LSC) derived from that facility's precision study. The lumbar spine is often affected by structural artifact such that not all four lumbar vertebrae are evaluable. Guidelines suggest using a site-matched LSC when omitting vertebrae from the BMD measurement. The current study describes significant BMD change related to intervening anti-osteoporosis treatment for different numbers and combinations of lumbar vertebrae using site-matched LSC values. METHODOLOGY: We identified 10,526 untreated adult women mean age 59.6 years with baseline and repeat spine BMD testing (mean interval 4.7 years) where all 4 lumbar vertebrae were evaluable. Change in spine BMD for different combinations of lumbar vertebrae was assessed in relation to intervening anti-resorptive treatment, contrasting women with high treatment exposure (medication possession ratio, MPR ≥ 0.8) versus women who remained untreated. Site-matched LSC values were derived from 879 test-retest precision measurements. RESULTS: There was consistent linear trend between increasing MPR and BMD change exceeding the LSC for all lumbar vertebral combinations, positive with BMD increase and negative with BMD decrease (all p-trend <0.001). In the high treatment exposure group, mean percent increases in spine BMD were similar for all vertebral combinations, from L1-4 to a single vertebra. In untreated women, mean percent decreases in spine BMD were also similar for all vertebral combinations. The net treatment response (proportion of women with treatment-concordant changes minus proportion with treatment-discordant changes exceeding the LSC) was 29.7 % for 4 vertebrae, 27.5-30.0 % for 3 vertebrae, 22.4-28.5 % for 2 vertebrae, and 18.1-21.9 % for a single vertebra. CONCLUSIONS: All numbers and combinations of lumbar vertebrae, when used in conjunction with site-matched LSC values, can provide clinically meaningful follow-up in treated and untreated patients, even when spine BMD is based on a single vertebral body.

Estimating Lumbar Spine Least Significant Change for Fewer than Four Vertebrae: The Manitoba BMD Registry.

INTRODUCTION: The International Society of Clinical Densitometry recommends omitting lumbar vertebrae affected by structural artifact from spine BMD measurement. Since reporting fewer than 4 vertebrae reduces spine BMD precision, least significant change (LSC) needs to be adjusted upwards when reporting spine BMD change based on fewer than 4 vertebrae. METHODOLOGY: In order to simplify estimating LSC from combinations of vertebrae other than L1-L4 (denoted LSCL1-4 ), we analyzed 879 DXA spine scan-pairs from the Manitoba BMD Program's ongoing precision evaluation. The additional impact on the LSC of performing the second scan on the same day vs different day was also assessed. RESULTS: LSC progressively increased when fewer vertebrae were included, and also increased when the scans were performed on different days. We estimated that the LSCL1-4 should be adjusted upwards by 7 %, 24 % and 65 % to approximate the LSC for 3, 2, or 1 vertebral body, respectively. To additionally capture the greater LSC when the precision study was done on different days, LSCL1-4 derived from a precision study where scans were done on the same day should be adjusted upwards by 39 %, 60 % and 112 % for 3, 2, or 1 vertebral body, respectively. CONCLUSION: LSCL1-4 derived from a precision study where scans are performed on the same day can be used to estimate LSC for fewer than 4 vertebrae and for scans performed on different days.

Reporting of Full-Length Femur Imaging to Detect Incomplete Atypical Femur Fractures: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

Incomplete atypical femur fractures (iAFFs) are associated with the long-term use of anti-resorptive therapies. Although X-rays are typically used to screen for iAFFs, images from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) offer an alternate method for detecting iAFFs. Although a previous 2019 ISCD Official Position on this subject exists, our task force aimed to update the literature review and to propose recommendations on reporting findings related to iAFFs that may be observed on DXA images. The task force recommended that full-length femur imaging (FFI) from DXA can be used as a screening tool for iAFFs. The presence of focal lateral cortical thickening and transverse lucencies should be reported, if identified on the FFI. This task force proposed a classification system to determine the likelihood of an iAFF, based on radiographic features seen on the FFI. Lastly, the task force recommended that the clinical assessment of prodromal symptoms (pain) is not required for the assessment of FFI.

DXA Reporting Updates: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

INTRODUCTION: Professional guidance and standards assist radiologic interpreters in generating high quality reports. Initially DXA reporting Official Positions were provided by the ISCD in 2003; however, as the field has progressed, some of the current recommendations require revision and updating. This manuscript details the research approach and provides updated DXA reporting guidance. METHODS: Key Questions were proposed by ISCD established protocols and approved by the Position Development Conference Steering Committee. Literature related to each question was accumulated by searching PubMed, and existing guidelines from other organizations were extracted from websites. Modifications and additions to the ISCD Official Positions were determined by an expert panel after reviewing the Task Force proposals and position papers. RESULTS: Since most DXA is now performed in radiology departments, an approach was endorsed that better aligns with standard radiologic reports. To achieve this, reporting elements were divided into required minimum or optional. Collectively, required components comprise a standard diagnostic report and are considered the minimum necessary to generate an acceptable report. Additional elements were retained and categorized as optional. These optional components were considered relevant but tailored to a consultative, clinically oriented report. Although this information is beneficial, not all interpreters have access to sufficient clinical information, or may not have the clinical expertise to expand beyond a diagnostic report. Consequently, these are not required for an acceptable report. CONCLUSION: These updated ISCD positions conform with the DXA field's evolution over the past 20 years. Specifically, a basic diagnostic report better aligns with radiology standards, and additional elements (which are valued by treating clinicians) remain acceptable but are optional and not required. Additionally, reporting guidance for newer elements such as fracture risk assessment are incorporated. It is our expectation that these updated Official Positions will improve compliance with required standards and generate high quality DXA reports that are valuable to the recipient clinician and contribute to best patient care.

Reporting Fewer Than Four Vertebrae: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

The precision for spine bone mineral density (BMD) worsens as vertebrae are excluded, so recommendations are needed for least significant change (LSC) for spine BMDs based on fewer than 4 vertebrae. The task force recommends re-analysis of each facility's L1-L4 in-house precision study to determine the precision in order to calculate the LSC for each combination of 2 or 3 reported vertebrae. The task force recommended not reporting spine BMDs based on single vertebral bodies for either the diagnosis or monitoring of osteoporosis. Specific data for studies assessing the precision of two non-contiguous vertebrae are mixed, but ultimately the task force recommended that spine BMD based on 2 non-contiguous vertebrae can be used for the diagnosis and monitoring of osteoporosis.

Bilateral hip DXA Reporting: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

INTRODUCTION: This position development conference (PDC) Task Force examined the use and reporting of bilateral hip bone mineral density (BMD) measurements. This was deemed appropriate as increased availability of Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) technology offering bilateral hip measurement resulted in more routine clinical use. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry Official Positions accept bilateral hip BMD measurement for clinical use but currently do not include recommendations for reporting those studies. METHODS: Four key questions regarding bilateral hip reporting were proposed by the PDC Steering Committee. Relevant literature was identified using PubMed. Questions included whether bilateral hip measurements are appropriate for diagnostic classification or monitoring, as well as which bilateral hip regions of interest should be reported for diagnosis and monitoring. Additionally, the appropriate nomenclature for bilateral hip acquisition was defined. RESULTS: The literature review demonstrated that bilateral hip measurement is appropriate and diagnostic classification should be based on the lowest T-score at the right or left side femoral neck or total hip; the mean T-score should not be used for diagnostic purposes. Mean bilateral total hip is preferred for BMD monitoring. The terms hip, or total hip were deemed appropriate nomenclature instead of femur or total proximal femur. CONCLUSION: Bilateral hip acquisition is clinically appropriate and reporting and nomenclature standards are offered herein when a bilateral hip study is acquired. In terms of future research, the impact of discordant hips on diagnosis and monitoring was identified as a significant knowledge gap.

Effect of Positioning of the Region of Interest on Bone Density of the Hip.

BACKGROUND: Large changes in positioning of the global region of interest (ROI) influence the measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) in the hip and forearm regions. However, it is unknown whether minor shifts in the positioning of the bottom of the global hip ROI affect the measurement of total hip BMD. METHODS: The hip BMDs of 40 clinical densitometry patients were analyzed at baseline with the bottom of the global hip ROI positioned as usual, 10 mm distal to the base of the lesser trochanter (position 0). Then the hip was reanalyzed by shifting the bottom of the global hip ROI 1 mm proximally 10 times (positions +1 through +10) and then by shifting the bottom of the global hip ROI 1 mm distally 10 times (positions -1 through -10). The significance of the differences between mean values at the various distances from baseline was assessed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: The mean total hip area, bone mineral content and BMD decreased as the bottom of the global hip ROI was shifted proximally; the decrease was significant when shifted by even 1 mm (p < 0.001). The mean total hip area, bone mineral content and BMD increased as the bottom of the global hip ROI was shifted distally; the increase was significant when shifted by even 1 mm (p < 0.001). The change in BMD with each 1 mm shift was uniform across the range studied from positions +10 through -10, and was approx 0.54%/mm. When the least significant change was based on 40 pairs of measurements, where each pair was comprised of the baseline scan and the same scan at -1 position, the least significant change was 0.01 g/cm2. CONCLUSIONS: The BMD of the total hip is sensitive to even minor changes in the positioning of the bottom of the global hip ROI. Although a 1 mm change in the bottom of the global hip ROI positioning would make little difference in the reported T-score, it could easily affect the determination of significance in changes in BMD over time.

Executive Summary of the 2019 ISCD Position Development Conference on Monitoring Treatment, DXA Cross-calibration and Least Significant Change, Spinal Cord Injury, Peri-prosthetic and Orthopedic Bone Health, Transgender Medicine, and Pediatrics.

To answer important questions in the fields of monitoring with densitometry, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry machine cross-calibration, monitoring, spinal cord injury, periprosthetic and orthopedic bone health, transgender medicine, and pediatric bone health, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) held a Position Development Conference from March 20 to 23, 2019. Potential topics requiring guidance were solicited from ISCD members in 2017. Following that, a steering committee selected, prioritized, and grouped topics into Task Forces. Chairs for each Task Force were appointed and the members were co-opted from suggestions by the Steering Committee and Task Force Chairs. The Task Forces developed key questions, performed literature searches, and came up with proposed initial positions with substantiating draft publications, with support from the Steering Committee. An invited Panel of Experts first performed a review of draft positions using a modified RAND Appropriateness Method with voting for appropriateness. Draft positions deemed appropriate were further edited and presented at the Position Development Conference meeting in an open forum. A second round of voting occurred after discussions to approve or reject the positions. Finally, a face-to-face closed session with experts and Task Force Chairs, and subsequent electronic follow-up resulted in 34 Official Positions of the ISCD approved by the ISCD Board on May 28, 2019. The Official Positions and the supporting evidence were submitted for publication on July 1, 2019. This paper provides a summary of the all the ISCD Adult and Pediatric Official Positions, with the new 2019 positions highlighted in bold.

Bone Densitometry in Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming (TGNC) Individuals: 2019 ISCD Official Position.

The indications for initial and follow-up bone mineral density (BMD) in transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) individuals are poorly defined, and the choice of which gender database to use to calculate Z-scores is unclear. Herein, the findings of the Task Force are presented after a detailed review of the literature. As long as a TGNC individual is on standard gender-affirming hormone treatment, BMD should remain stable to increasing, so there is no indication to monitor for bone loss or osteoporosis strictly on the basis of TGNC status. TGNC individuals who experience substantial periods of hypogonadism (>1 yr) might experience bone loss or failure of bone accrual during that time, and should be considered for baseline measurement of BMD. To the extent that this hypogonadism continues over time, follow-up measurements can be appropriate. TGNC individuals who have adequate levels of endogenous or exogenous sex steroids can, of course, suffer from other illnesses that can cause osteoporosis and bone loss, such as hyperparathyroidism and steroid use; they should have measurement of BMD as would be done in the cisgender population. There are no data that TGNC individuals have a fracture risk different from that of cisgender individuals, nor any data to suggest that BMD predicts their fracture risk less well than in the cisgender population. The Z-score in transgender individuals should be calculated using the reference data (mean and standard deviation) of the gender conforming with the individual's gender identity. In gender nonconforming individuals, the reference data for the sex recorded at birth should be used. If the referring provider or the individual requests, a set of "male" and "female" Z-scores can be provided, calculating the Z-score against male and female reference data, respectively.

How Would You Manage This Patient With Osteoporosis?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder characterized by reduced bone strength that increases the risk for fracture. Approximately 10 million men and women in the United States have osteoporosis, and more than 2 million osteoporosis-related fractures occur annually. In 2016, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists issued the "Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis," and in 2017, the American College of Physicians issued the guideline "Treatment of Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis to Prevent Fracture in Men and Women." Both guidelines agree that patients diagnosed with osteoporosis should be treated with an antiresorptive agent, such as alendronate, that has been shown to reduce hip and vertebral fractures. However, there is no consensus on how long patients with osteoporosis should be treated and whether bone density should be monitored during and after the treatment period. In this Beyond the Guidelines, 2 experts discuss management of osteoporosis in general and for a specific patient, the role of bone density monitoring during and after a 5-year course of alendronate, and treatment recommendations for a patient whose bone density decreases during or after a 5-year course of alendronate.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Use, H2-Receptor Antagonist Use, and Risk of Incident Clinical Vertebral Fracture in Women.

The few prospective studies examining the relation between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and risk of vertebral fracture (VF) suggest a higher risk, but the magnitude of the association has been inconsistent. Moreover, no prospective studies have examined the association between substantially longer duration of PPI use and VF risk. Our objective was to determine the association between PPI use, H2RA use, and incident clinical VF in women. We conducted a prospective study in 55,545 women participating in the Nurses' Health Study. PPI and H2RA use was assessed by questionnaire every 4 years. Self-reports of VF were confirmed by medical record. Our analysis included 547 incident VF cases (2002-2014). The multivariate adjusted relative risk (MVRR) of VF for women taking PPIs was 1.29 (95% CI 1.04-1.59) compared with non-users. Longer duration of PPI use was associated with higher VF risk (MVRR 1.16 [0.90-1.49] for < 4 years; 1.27 [0.93-1.73] for 4-7.9 years; 1.64 [1.02-2.64] for ≥ 8 years; ptrend = 0.01). The MVRR of VF for women taking H2RAs was 1.22 (0.90-1.67) compared with non-users. Longer duration of H2RA use was not associated with VF risk (MVRR 1.16 [0.88-1.53] for < 4 years; 0.98 [0.60-1.59] for ≥ 4 years; ptrend = 0.72). PPI use is independently associated with a modestly higher risk of VF and the risk increases with longer duration of use. There was no statistically significant association between H2RA use and VF risk. Our findings add to the growing evidence suggesting caution with PPI use, particularly with longer duration of use.

Enhanced Precision of the New Hologic Horizon Model Compared With the Old Discovery Model Is Less Evident When Fewer Vertebrae Are Included in the Analysis.

The International Society for Clinical Densitometry guidelines recommend using locally derived precision data for spine bone mineral densities (BMDs), but do not specify whether data derived from L1-L4 spines correctly reflect the precision for spines reporting fewer than 4 vertebrae. Our experience suggested that the decrease in precision with successively fewer vertebrae is progressive as more vertebrae are excluded and that the precision for the newer Horizon Hologic model might be better than that for the previous model, and we sought to quantify. Precision studies were performed on Hologic densitometers by acquiring spine BMD in fast array mode twice on 30 patients, according to International Society for Clinical Densitometry guidelines. This was done 10 different times on various Discovery densitometers, and once on a Horizon densitometer. When 1 vertebral body was excluded from analysis, there was no significant deterioration in precision. When 2 vertebrae were excluded, there was a nonsignificant trend to poorer precision, and when 3 vertebrae were excluded, there was significantly worse precision. When 3 or 4 vertebrae were reported, the precision of the spine BMD measurement was significantly better on the Hologic Horizon than on the Discovery, but the difference in precision between densitometers narrowed and was no longer significant when 1 or 2 vertebrae were reported. The results suggest that (1) the measurement of in vivo spine BMD on the new Hologic Horizon densitometer is significantly more precise than on the older Discovery model; (2) the difference in precision between the Horizon and Discovery models decreases as fewer vertebrae are included; (3) the measurement of spine BMD is less precise as more vertebrae are excluded, but still quite reasonable even when only 1 vertebral body is included; and (4) when 3 vertebrae are reported, L1-L4 precision data can reasonably be used to report significance of changes in BMD. When 1 or 2 vertebrae are reported, precision data for 1 or 2 vertebrae, respectively, should be used, because the exclusion of 2-3 vertebrae significantly worsens precision.

Direct Comparison of the Precision of the New Hologic Horizon Model With the Old Discovery Model.

Previous publications suggested that the precision of the new Hologic Horizon densitometer might be better than that of the previous Discovery model, but these observations were confounded by not using the same participants and technologists on both densitometers. We sought to study this issue methodically by measuring in vivo precision in both densitometers using the same patients and technologists. Precision studies for the Horizon and Discovery models were done by acquiring spine, hip, and forearm bone mineral density twice on 30 participants. The set of 4 scans on each participant (2 on the Discovery, 2 on the Horizon) was acquired by the same technologist using the same scanning mode. The pairs of data were used to calculate the least significant change according to the International Society for Clinical Densitometry guidelines. The significance of the difference between least significant changes was assessed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test of the difference between the mean square error of the absolute value of the differences between paired measurements on the Discovery (Δ-Discovery) and the mean square error of the absolute value of the differences between paired measurements on the Horizon (Δ-Horizon). At virtually all anatomic sites, there was a nonsignificant trend for the precision to be better for the Horizon than for the Discovery. As more vertebrae were excluded from analysis, the precision deteriorated on both densitometers. The precision between densitometers was almost identical when reporting only 1 vertebral body. (1) There was a nonsignificant trend for greater precision on the new Hologic Horizon compared with the older Discovery model. (2) The difference in precision of the spine bone mineral density between the Horizon and the Discovery models decreases as fewer vertebrae are included. (3) These findings are substantially similar to previously published results which had not controlled as well for confounding from using different subjects and technologists.

Effect of Positioning of the ROI on BMD of the Forearm and Its Subregions.

Inconsistent positioning of patients and region of interest (ROI) is known to influence the precision of bone mineral density (BMD) measurements in the spine and hip. However, it is unknown whether minor shifts in the positioning of the ROI along the shaft of the radius affect the measurement of forearm BMD and its subregions. The ultradistal (UD-), mid-, one-third, and total radius BMDs of 50 consecutive clinical densitometry patients were acquired. At baseline the distal end of the ROI was placed at the tip of the ulnar styloid as usual, and then the forearm was reanalyzed 10 more times, each time shifting the ROI 1 mm proximally. No corrections for multiple comparisons were necessary since the differences that were significant were significant at p < 0.001. The UD-radius BMD increased as the ROI was shifted proximally; the increase was significant when shifted even 1 mm proximally (p < 0.001). These same findings held true for the mid- and total radius bone density, though the percent increase with moving proximally was significantly greater for the UD radius than for the other subregions. However, there was no significant change in the one-third radius BMD when shifted proximally 1-10 mm. Minor proximal shifts of the forearm ROI substantially affect the BMD of the UD-, mid- and total radius, while having no effect on the one-third radius BMD. Since the one-third radius is the only forearm region usually reported, minor proximal shifts of the ROI should not influence forearm BMD results significantly.

Utility of Reviewing Radiology Studies in Electronic Medical Records When Preparing Bone Mineral Density Reports.

We quantitated how often review of recent radiology studies provides information useful to the densitometrist. While preparing bone mineral density (BMD) reports on 1012 consecutive patients, radiology reports in electronic medical records (EMRs) for the previous 5 years at potentially relevant sites (lumbar spine X-rays, abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans, and so forth) were reviewed. When a study was found, it received a grade according to how relevant findings were to the BMD report: "1" for studies that were irrelevant, "2" for those that confirmed the impression formed from review of the BMD images, "3" for those that clarified the impression that was unclear after reviewing the BMD images, and "4" for those that revealed new relevant data when no abnormality was noted on review of the BMD images. A total of 562 patients (55.5%) had a radiologic study at a site of potential interest within the past 5 years. Fifty-three patients (5.2% of all patients) had a grade 4 study, 88 patients (8.7% of all patients) had a grade 3 study, and 185 patients (18.3% of all patients) had a grade 2 study. Two hundred sixty-four patients (25.8%) had a grade 2 or 3 study, and 299 (29.5%) had a grade 2-4 study. The radiographic study that was most likely to be found in patients' EMR was chest X-ray (34.7% of all patients), but it was also the one that was least likely to have any relevance to the reader; only 10.5% of the total chest X-rays were graded 2-4. The next most likely studies to be found in patients' EMR were abdominal CT scans (18.0% of all patients) and lumbar spine X-rays (14.4% of all patients), but these studies were much more likely to be useful to the reader, as 62.6% of abdominal CT scans and 78.1% of lumbar spine X-rays were graded 2-4. The likelihood of a patient having radiologic examinations in the EMR at sites potentially relevant to the BMD reader is high, but the likelihood that these clarify abnormalities noted on BMD is only moderate. Review of the EMR is unlikely to be relevant when the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry images are normal.

Effect of Clothing on Measurement of Bone Mineral Density.

It is unknown whether allowing patients to have BMD (bone mineral density) studies acquired while wearing radiolucent clothing adlib contributes appreciably to the measurement error seen. To examine this question, a spine phantom was scanned 30 times without any clothing, while draped with a gown, and while draped with heavy winter clothing. The effect on mean BMD and on SD (standard deviation) was assessed. The effect of clothing on mean or SD of the area was not significant. The effect of clothing on mean and SD for BMD was small but significant and was around 1.6% for the mean. However, the effect on BMD precision was much more clinically important. Without clothing the spine phantom had an least significant change of 0.0077 gm/cm(2), while when introducing variability of clothing the least significant change rose as high as 0.0305 gm/cm(2). We conclude that, adding clothing to the spine phantom had a small but statistically significant effect on the mean BMD and on variance of the measurement. It is unlikely that the effect on mean BMD has any clinical significance, but the effect on the reproducibility (precision) of the result is likely clinically significant.

Lifting Disabled Patients onto the Densitometer with a Ceiling Lift: Effect of the Sling on Measurement of BMD.

OBJECTIVE: Lifting disabled patients onto a densitometer manually is dangerous for both the patient and the densitometry staff; using a ceiling lift is the preferred method of transfer. This system requires the use of a sling underneath the patient. Unless extra time is taken for its removal, the sling remains underneath the patient as bone mineral density (BMD) is measured. The aim of this study was to determine whether leaving this sling in place during scan acquisition affects the BMD measurement. METHODS: Measurements were taken of a spine phantom 30 times by itself, 30 times with a standard sling underneath the spine phantom, and 16 times with a disposable sling underneath the spine phantom. RESULTS: We found that mean BMD was significantly different versus the phantom alone when a sling was used, due to differences in area, bone mineral content, or both. The disposable sling affected the mean BMD to a much greater extent than did the standard sling (+1.9% vs. -0.41%; P for the difference between slings <.001). The standard sling did not increase the variance in the BMD measurement compared with the spine phantom alone, whereas the disposable sling did increase the variance in the BMD measurements. CONCLUSION: Commercially available ceiling-lift slings affect BMD measurements of spine phantoms. This effect is expected to persist when BMD is measured in patients and suggests that when lifting a patient onto the densitometer using these slings, it is best to take the time to remove the sling from under the patient after transfer and before scanning.

Inconsistency in filling in the bottom of the spine bone map affects reported spine bone mineral density.

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that variability from year to year in how much of the bone map was filled in at the bottom of the spine region of interest (ROI) contributes substantially to variability in measurement of spine bone mineral density (BMD). METHODS: A total of 110 spine BMDs with defects in the bone mapping at the bottom were reanalyzed, with the only change being manually drawing a straight line across the bottom of the ROI and filling in the bone map. RESULTS: The mean (SD) change in area, bone mineral content, and BMD for total spine when the bottom of the bone map was filled in was 0.919 (0.411) cm2, 0.201 (0.121) g, and -0.0098 (0.0043) g/cm2, respectively, and all changes were significant (P<.0001). The largest individual change in total spine BMD with reanalysis was 0.0238 g/cm2, close to the least significant change (LSC) of 0.026 g/cm2 in our center. To quantify variability due to this change in analysis, we calculated an LSC(fill), in which the pairs of scans consisted of the same scan before and after filling in the bottom of the spine bone map, without any other change. The LSC(fill) attributable just to the reanalysis of missing bone map at the bottom of the spine was 0.021 g/cm2, suggesting substantial variance due to variability in mapping the bottom of the spine. CONCLUSION: When there is a noticeable defect in the bottom of the spine bone map, filling this defect in consistently eliminates a significant source of variability in analysis of spine BMDs and might allow us to achieve smaller LSCs.

Simplified criteria for selecting patients for vertebral fracture assessment.

The 2013 Position Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) has adopted simplified indications for vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) based on an analysis of the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF). This showed that a simpler regression model, which included only age, bone mineral density (BMD), and height loss, was able to differentiate women with vertebral fractures from those without vertebral fractures almost as well as more complex models. We aimed to verify these findings in 1228 women referred for BMD testing and determine if the 2013 ISCD indications for VFA would perform as well the 2007 indications. The simple and complex SOF-based models were similar in terms of sensitivity (88.4% vs 89.4%), specificity (44.4% vs 45.5%), positive (25.9% vs 26.5%) and negative (94.5% vs 95.1%) predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) (0.664 vs 0.674). The 2013 and 2007 ISCD VFA indications did not differ significantly in terms of sensitivity (88.2% vs 91.3%), specificity (41.3% vs 37.5%), positive (25.3% vs 22.9%) and negative (93.9% vs 95.5%) predictive values, and AUROC (0.648 vs 0.644). Our study provides support for the use of the simplified 2013 ISCD VFA indications as a practical approach to VFA testing.