• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.17-23
• /
• 2008

Purpose : Because there is a difference depending on the environment as for an inspection equipment the important part of bone density scan and the precision/accuracy of a tester, the management of quality must be made systematically. The equipment failure caused by overload effect due to the aged equipment and the increase of a patient was made frequently. Thus, the replacement of equipment and additional purchases of new bonedensity equipment caused a compatibility problem in tracking patients. This study wants to know whether the clinical changes of patient's bonedensity can be accurately and precisely reflected when used it compatiblly like the existing equipment after equipment replacement and expansion. Materials and methods : Two equipments of GE Lunar Prodigy Advance(P1 and P2) and the Phantom HOLOGIC Spine Road(HSP) were used to measure equipment precision. Each device scans 20 times so that precision data was acquired from the phantom(Group 1). The precision of a tester was measured by shooting twice the same patient, every 15 members from each of the target equipment in 120 women(average age 48.78, 20-60 years old)(Group 2). In addition, the measurement of the precision of a tester and the cross-calibration data were made by scanning 20 times in each of the equipment using HSP, based on the data obtained from the management of quality using phantom(ASP) every morning (Group 3). The same patient was shot only once in one equipment alternately to make the measurement of the precision of a tester and the cross-calibration data in 120 women(average age 48.78, 20-60 years old)(Group 4). Results : It is steady equipment according to daily Q.C Data with $0.996\;g/cm^2$, change value(%CV) 0.08. The mean${\pm}$SD and a %CV price are ALP in Group 1(P1 : $1.064{\pm}0.002\;g/cm^2$, $%CV=0.190\;g/cm^2$, P2 : $1.061{\pm}0.003\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.192). The mean${\pm}$SD and a %CV price are P1 : $1.187{\pm}0.002\;g/cm^2$, $%CV=0.164\;g/cm^2$, P2 : $1.198{\pm}0.002\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.163 in Group 2. The average error${\pm}$2SD and %CV are P1 - (spine: $0.001{\pm}0.03\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.94, Femur: $0.001{\pm}0.019\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.96), P2 - (spine: $0.002{\pm}0.018\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.55, Femur: $0.001{\pm}0.013\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.48) in Group 3. The average error${\pm}2SD$, %CV, and r value was spine : $0.006{\pm}0.024\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.86, r=0.995, Femur: $0{\pm}0.014\;g/cm^2$, %CV=0.54, r=0.998 in Group 4. Conclusion: Both LUNAR ASP CV% and HOLOGIC Spine Phantom are included in the normal range of error of ${\pm}2%$ defined in ISCD. BMD measurement keeps a relatively constant value, so showing excellent repeatability. The Phantom has homogeneous characteristics, but it has limitations to reflect the clinical part including variations in patient's body weight or body fat. As a result, it is believed that quality control using Phantom will be useful to check mis-calibration of the equipment used. A value measured a patient two times with one equipment, and that of double-crossed two equipment are all included within 2SD Value in the Bland - Altman Graph compared results of Group 3 with Group 4. The r value of 0.99 or higher in Linear regression analysis(Regression Analysis) indicated high precision and correlation. Therefore, it revealed that two compatible equipment did not affect in tracking the patients. Regular testing equipment and capabilities of a tester, then appropriate calibration will have to be achieved in order to calculate confidential BMD.