Hologic QDR 2000 whole-body scans: a comparison of three combinations of scan modes and analysis software

This study reports on the short-term in vivo precision and absolute measurements of three combinations of whole-body scan modes and analysis software using a Hologic QDR 2000 dual-energy X-ray densitometer. A group of 21 normal, healthy volunteers (11 male and 10 female) were scanned six times, receiving one pencil-beam and one array whole-body scan on three occasions approximately 1 week apart. The following combinations of scan modes and analysis software were used: pencil-beam scans analyzed with Hologic's standard whole-body software (PB scans); the same pencil-beam analyzed with Hologic's newer "enhanced" software (EPB scans); and array scans analyzed with the enhanced software (EA scans). Precision values (% coefficient of variation, %CV) were calculated for whole-body and regional bone mineral content (BMC), bone mineral density (BMD), fat mass, lean mass, %fat and total mass. In general, there was no significant difference among the three scan types with respect to short-term precision of BMD and only slight differences in the precision of BMC. Precision of BMC and BMD for all three scan types was excellent: < 1% CV for whole-body values, with most regional values in the 1%-2% range. Pencil-beam scans demonstrated significantly better soft tissue precision than did array scans. Precision errors for whole-body lean mass were: 0.9% (PB), 1.1% (EPB) and 1.9% (EA). Precision errors for whole-body fat mass were: 1.7% (PB), 2.4% (EPB) and 5.6% (EA). EPB precision errors were slightly higher than PB precision errors for lean, fat and %fat measurements of all regions except the head, although these differences were significant only for the fat and % fat of the arms and legs. In addition EPB precision values exhibited greater individual variability than PB precision values. Finally, absolute values of bone and soft tissue were compared among the three combinations of scan and analysis modes. BMC, BMD, fat mass, %fat and lean mass were significantly different between PB scans and either of the EPB or EA scans. Differences were as large as 20%-25% for certain regional fat and BMD measurements. Additional work may be needed to examine the relative accuracy of the scan mode/software combinations and to identify reasons for the differences in soft tissue precision with the array whole-body scan mode.