Empirical Functions for Conversion of Femur Areal and Volumetric Bone Mineral Density
Bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is areal and in the unit of g/cm2, while BMD measured by quantitative computed tomography (QCT) is volumetric and in the unit of g/cm3. There is often a need to convert them to each other, but a simple conversion method is not available. The objective of this study was to establish empirical functions for the conversion. QCT of left femur from 67 subjects were acquired from a local clinical centre. For each subject, volumetric BMD was extracted from QCT using QCT Pro; the corresponding areal BMD was measured by CTXA-Hip. Both QCT Pro and CTXA-Hip are commercial software. The paired volumetric and areal BMD datasets were randomly split into two groups, and used respectively in construction and validation of empirical functions. Correlation between volumetric and areal BMD was 0.9073 (p < 0.0001) without considering femoral neck width (FNW), and 0.9970 (p < 0.0001) with the consideration of FNW. In the validations, the best agreement between predicted and measured volumetric BMD was R2 = 0.9796, SSE = 0.0074, CV = 2.7%; the best agreement between predicted and measured areal BMD was R2 = 0.9713, SSE = 0.0072, CV = 2.8%. Femur size represented by FNW had substantial effect on correlation between areal and volumetric BMD. With the consideration of FNW, areal and volumetric BMD can be converted to each other using the empirical functions constructed in this study.
KeywordsAreal bone mineral density (aBMD) Volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) QCT Pro CTXA-Hip
The reported research has been supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and Research Manitoba in Canada, which are gratefully acknowledged.
- 3.Engelke, K., Lang, T., Khosla, S., Qin, L., Zysset, P., Leslie, W. D., et al. (2015). Clinical use of quantitative computed tomography (QCT) of the hip in the management of osteoporosis in adults: The 2015 iscd official positions-part I. Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 18, 338–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Linet, M. S., Slovis, T. L., Miller, D. L., Kleinerman, R., Lee, C., Rajaraman, P., et al. (2012). Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62, 75–100.Google Scholar
- 11.Luo, Y., Ferdous, Z., & Leslie, W. D. (2011). A preliminary dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-based finite element model for assessing osteoporotic hipfracture risk. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 225, 1188–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Helgason, B., Perilli, E., et al. (2008). Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: A literature review. Clinical Biomechanics, 23, 135–146.Google Scholar
- 18.Targownik, L., Luo, Y., Goertzen, A., Slotboom, A., Leslie, W. D. (2015). Comparing bone structure and bone metabolism between long-term proton pump inhibitor users and non-users. Gastroenterology, 148, S–153.Google Scholar
- 20.Cheng, X., Wang, L., Wang, Q., Ma, Y., Su, Y., & Li, K. (2014). Validation of quantitative computed tomography-derived areal bone mineral density with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in an elderly Chinese population. Chinese Medical Journal, 127, 1445–1449.Google Scholar
- 21.Khoo, B. C., Brown, K., Cann, C., et al. (2009). Comparison of QCT-derived and DXA-derived areal bone mineral density and t scores. Osteoporosis International, 20, 1539–1545.Google Scholar
- 23.Leslie, W. D., Kovacs, C. S., Olszynski, W. P., et al. (2011). Spine-hip T-score difference predicts major osteoporotic fracture risk independent of FRAX((R)): A population-based report from CAMOS. Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 14, 286–293.Google Scholar