Marta I Bracco, Jorge Malouf, Laurent Maïmoun, Xavier Nogues, Jean Paul Roux, François DuBoeuf, Ludovic Humbert
{"title":"3D–DXA cortical and trabecular parameters: agreement between hologic densitometers in clinical practice","authors":"Marta I Bracco, Jorge Malouf, Laurent Maïmoun, Xavier Nogues, Jean Paul Roux, François DuBoeuf, Ludovic Humbert","doi":"10.1016/j.jocd.2026.101749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div><em>Background:</em> Three–dimensional dual–energy X–ray absorptiometry (DXA) reconstructs three–dimensional maps of the proximal femur’s density distribution from standard hip DXA scans, enabling the estimation of trabecular and cortical bone parameters. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement of these three–dimensional cortical and trabecular femur parameters across different series and models of Hologic densitometers.</div><div><em>Methodology:</em> The study cohort was composed of 103 women and men recruited from four clinical centers in Spain and France. Subjects had duplicated hip DXA scans using different Hologic scanners from the Horizon, Discovery, and QDR 4500 series. Analyses were performed using 3D–Shaper software. Inter–scanner agreement was evaluated using Deming regression and Bland–Altman analysis. A multiple linear regression was used to investigate the impact of patients’ age and BMI on the magnitude of inter–scanner differences. Furthermore, the clinical impact of inter–scanner variability was assessed by evaluating the agreement in the classification of DXA and 3D–Shaper bone parameters as normal, low, or very low density.</div><div><em>Results:</em> The parameters demonstrated strong inter–device agreement across all clinical centers and scanner models, with coefficients of determination greater than 0.91. Absolute biases were less than 2.5 mg/cm<sup>3</sup> for integral volumetric (v) bone mineral density (BMD), less than 2.9 mg/cm<sup>3</sup> for trabecular vBMD, and less than 1.7 mg/cm<sup>2</sup> for cortical surface (s) BMD. No statistically significant bias was found between parameters obtained from different scanners. Furthermore, a high classification agreement was found for all parameters, with cortical sBMD reaching the agreement level of standard DXA areal (a) BMD.</div><div><em>Conclusions:</em> Standard and three–dimensional hip bone parameters showed excellent agreement across the evaluated Hologic scanners, with inter–scanner differences rarely affecting density classification. Further studies are needed to confirm generalizability to other Hologic devices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Densitometry","volume":"29 4","pages":"Article 101749"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Densitometry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094695026000831","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Three–dimensional dual–energy X–ray absorptiometry (DXA) reconstructs three–dimensional maps of the proximal femur’s density distribution from standard hip DXA scans, enabling the estimation of trabecular and cortical bone parameters. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement of these three–dimensional cortical and trabecular femur parameters across different series and models of Hologic densitometers.
Methodology: The study cohort was composed of 103 women and men recruited from four clinical centers in Spain and France. Subjects had duplicated hip DXA scans using different Hologic scanners from the Horizon, Discovery, and QDR 4500 series. Analyses were performed using 3D–Shaper software. Inter–scanner agreement was evaluated using Deming regression and Bland–Altman analysis. A multiple linear regression was used to investigate the impact of patients’ age and BMI on the magnitude of inter–scanner differences. Furthermore, the clinical impact of inter–scanner variability was assessed by evaluating the agreement in the classification of DXA and 3D–Shaper bone parameters as normal, low, or very low density.
Results: The parameters demonstrated strong inter–device agreement across all clinical centers and scanner models, with coefficients of determination greater than 0.91. Absolute biases were less than 2.5 mg/cm3 for integral volumetric (v) bone mineral density (BMD), less than 2.9 mg/cm3 for trabecular vBMD, and less than 1.7 mg/cm2 for cortical surface (s) BMD. No statistically significant bias was found between parameters obtained from different scanners. Furthermore, a high classification agreement was found for all parameters, with cortical sBMD reaching the agreement level of standard DXA areal (a) BMD.
Conclusions: Standard and three–dimensional hip bone parameters showed excellent agreement across the evaluated Hologic scanners, with inter–scanner differences rarely affecting density classification. Further studies are needed to confirm generalizability to other Hologic devices.
期刊介绍:
The Journal is committed to serving ISCD''s mission - the education of heterogenous physician specialties and technologists who are involved in the clinical assessment of skeletal health. The focus of JCD is bone mass measurement, including epidemiology of bone mass, how drugs and diseases alter bone mass, new techniques and quality assurance in bone mass imaging technologies, and bone mass health/economics.
Combining high quality research and review articles with sound, practice-oriented advice, JCD meets the diverse diagnostic and management needs of radiologists, endocrinologists, nephrologists, rheumatologists, gynecologists, family physicians, internists, and technologists whose patients require diagnostic clinical densitometry for therapeutic management.