SpringerLink
Log in

Pediatric radiation dose and risk from bone density measurements using a GE Lunar Prodigy scanner

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

Effective radiation doses associated with bone mineral density examinations performed on children using a GE Lunar Prodigy fan-beam dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner were found to be comparable to doses from pencil-beam DXA devices, i.e., lower than 1 μSv. Cancer risks associated with acquisitions obtained in this study are negligible.

Introduction

No data were found in the literature on radiation doses and potential risks following pediatric DXA performed on GE Lunar DXA scanners. This study aimed to estimate effective doses and associated cancer risks involved in pediatric examinations performed on a GE Lunar Prodigy scanner.

Methods

Four physical anthropomorphic phantoms representing newborn, 1-, 5-, and 10-year-old patients were employed to simulate DXA exposures. All acquisitions were carried out using the Prodigy scanner. Dose measurements were performed for spine and dual femur using the phantoms simulating the 5- and 10-year-old child. Moreover, doses associated with whole-body examinations were measured for the four phantoms used in the current study.

Results

The gender-average effective dose for spine and hip examinations were 0.65 and 0.36 μSv, respectively, for the phantom representing the 5-year-old child and 0.93 and 0.205 μSv, respectively, for the phantom representing the 10-year-old child. Effective doses for whole-body examinations were 0.25, 0.22, 0.19, and 0.15 μSv for the neonate, 1-, 5-, and 10-year old child, respectively. The estimated lifetime cancer risks were negligible, i.e., 0.02–0.25 per million, depending on the sex, age, and type of DXA examination. A formula is presented for the estimation of effective dose from examinations performed on GE Lunar Prodigy scanners installed in other institutions.

Conclusions

The effective doses and potential cancer risks associated with pediatric DXA examinations performed on a GE Lunar Prodigy fan-beam scanner were found to be comparable to doses and risks reported from pencil-beam DXA devices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bachrach L, Levine M, Cowell C, Shaw N (2007) Clinical indications for the use of DXA in pediatrics. In: Sawyer A, Bachrach L, Fung E (eds) Bone densitometry in growing patients. Guidelines for clinical practice, 1st edn. Humana, Totowa, pp 59–72

  2. Janz K (2002) Physical activity and bone development during childhood and adolescence. Implications for the prevention of osteoporosis. Minerva Pediatr 54:93–104

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Binkley TL, Berry R, Specker BL (2008) Methods for measurement of pediatric bone. Rev Endocr Metab Dis 9:95–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Khosla S, Melton LJ 3rd, Dekutoski MB, Achenbach SJ, Oberg AL, Riggs BL (2003) Incidence of childhood distal forearm fractures over 30 years: a population-based study. J Am Med Assoc 290:1479–1485

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Damilakis J, Guglielmi G (2010) Quality assurance and dosimetry in bone densitometry. Radiol Clin North Am 48:629–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Damilakis J, Solomou G (2012) Radiation protection and quality assurance in bone densitometry. In: Guglielmi G (ed) Osteoporosis and bone densitometry measurements. Springer, New York. http://www.springer.com/medicine/radiology/book/978-3-642-27883-9

  7. Godang K, Qvigstad E, Voldner N, Isaksen GA, Frøslie KF, Nøtthellen J, Henriksen T, Bollerslev J (2010) Assessing body composition in healthy newborn infants: reliability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Clin Densitom 13:151–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Thomas S, Kalkwarf H, Buckley D, Heubi J (2005) Effective dose of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans in children as a function of age. J Clin Densitom 8:415–422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Blake G, Naeem M, Boutros M (2006) Comparison of effective dose to children and adults from dual X-ray absorptiometry examinations. Bone 38:935–942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mazess RB, Hanson JA, Payne R, Nord R, Wilson M (2000) Axial and total-body bone densitometry using a narrow-angle fan-beam. Osteoporos Int 11:158–166

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. GE Medical Systems Lunar (2004) enCORE user’s manual, software version 8.10.027

  12. Perisinakis K, Theocharopoulos N, Karkavitsas N, Damilakis J (2002) Patient effective radiation dose and associated risk from transmission scans using 153Gd line sources in cardiac SPECT studies. Health Phys 83:66–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37(2–4):1–332

    Google Scholar 

  14. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation; Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board (2006) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. National Academies, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  15. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD), Official Positions. Available at http://www.iscd.org/Visitors/positions/OfficialPositionsText.cfm#PEDIATRIC. Accessed 24 November 2012

  16. Papadakis AE, Karantanas AH, Papadokostakis G, Petinellis E, Damilakis J (2009) Can abdominal multi-detector CT diagnose spinal osteoporosis? Eur Radiol 19:172–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kalkwarf HJ, Laor T, Bean JA (2011) Fracture risk in children with a forearm injury is associated with volumetric bone density and cortical area (by peripheral QCT) and areal bone density (by DXA). Osteoporos Int 22:607–616

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Damilakis J, Adams JE, Guglielmi G, Link TM (2010) Radiation exposure in X-ray-based imaging techniques used in osteoporosis. Eur Radiol 20:2707–2714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Damilakis J, Papadokostakis G, Vrahoriti H, Tsagaraki I, Perisinakis K, Hadjipavlou A, Gourtsoyiannis N (2003) Ultrasound velocity through the cortex of phalanges, radius, and tibia in normal and osteoporotic postmenopausal women using a new multisite quantitative ultrasound device. Invest Radiol 38:207–211

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Damilakis J, Papadokostakis G, Perisinakis K, Hadjipavlou A, Gourtsoyiannis N (2003) Can radial bone mineral density and quantitative ultrasound measurements reduce the number of women who need axial density skeletal assessment? Osteoporos Int 14:688–693

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Njeh CF, Samat SB, Nightngale A, McNeil EA, Boivin CM (1997) Radiation dose and in vitro precision in pediatric bone mineral density measurements using dual X-ray absorptiometry. Brit J Radiol 70:719–727

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Koo WWK, Walters J, Bush AJ (1995) Technical considerations of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-based bone mineral measurements for pediatric studies. J Bone Miner Res 10:1998–2004

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) (1987) Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. NCRP report no. 93. NCRP, Bethesda, MD

    Google Scholar 

  24. National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), College of Radiographers, Royal College of Radiologists, Royal College of General Practitioners (2001) X-rays—how safe are they? An information leaflet for patients. Available at http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/NPRBArchive/NRPBEducationalPublications/radXrayshowsafearetheyleaflet/. Accessed 20 August 2012

Download references

Conflicts of interests

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    J. Damilakis, G. Solomou & G. E. Manios

  2. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, University of Crete, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    A. Karantanas

Authors
  1. J. Damilakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Solomou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. E. Manios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Karantanas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Damilakis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Damilakis, J., Solomou, G., Manios, G.E. et al. Pediatric radiation dose and risk from bone density measurements using a GE Lunar Prodigy scanner. Osteoporos Int 24, 2025–2031 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2261-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2261-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation