William D. Leslie , Neil Binkley , Heenam Goel , Eugene V. McCloskey , Didier Hans
{"title":"FRAX® adjustment using renormalized trabecular bone score (TBS) from L1 alone may be optimal for fracture prediction: The Manitoba BMD registry","authors":"William D. Leslie , Neil Binkley , Heenam Goel , Eugene V. McCloskey , Didier Hans","doi":"10.1016/j.jocd.2023.101430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Lumbar spine<span> trabecular bone<span> score (TBS) used in conjunction with FRAX® improves 10-year fracture prediction. The derived FRAX risk adjustment is based upon TBS measured from L1-L4, designated TBS</span></span></span><sub>L1-L4</sub><span>-FRAX. In prior studies, TBS measurements that include L1 and exclude L4 give better fracture stratification than L1-L4. We compared risk stratification from TBS-adjusted FRAX using TBS derived from different combinations of upper lumbar vertebral levels renormalized for level-specific differences in individuals from the Manitoba Bone Density Program aged >40 years with baseline assessment of TBS and FRAX. TBS measurements for L1-L3, L1-L2 and L1 alone were calculated after renormalization for level-specific differences. Corresponding TBS-adjusted FRAX scores designated TBS</span><sub>L1-L3</sub>-FRAX, TBS<sub>L1-L2</sub>-FRAX and TBS<sub>L1</sub>-FRAX were compared with TBS<sub>L1-L4</sub><span>-FRAX for fracture risk stratification. Incident major osteoporotic fractures<span> (MOF) and hip fractures were assessed. The primary outcome was incremental change in area under the curve (ΔAUC). The study population included 71,209 individuals (mean age 64 years, 89.8% female). Before renormalization, mean TBS for L1-3, L1-L2 and L1 was significantly lower and TBS-adjusted FRAX significantly higher than from using TBS</span></span><sub>L1-L4</sub>. These differences were largely eliminated when TBS was renormalized for level-specific differences. During mean follow-up of 8.7 years 6745 individuals sustained incident MOF and 2039 sustained incident hip fractures. Compared with TBS<sub>L1-L4</sub>-FRAX, use of FRAX without TBS was associated with lower stratification (ΔAUC = −0.009, <em>p</em> < 0.001). There was progressive improvement in MOF stratification using TBSL<sub>1-L3</sub>-FRAX (ΔAUC = +0.001, <em>p</em> < 0.001), TBS<sub>L1-L2</sub>-FRAX (ΔAUC = +0.004, <em>p</em> < 0.001) and TBS<sub>L1</sub>-FRAX (ΔAUC = +0.005, <em>p</em> < 0.001). TBS<sub>L1</sub>-FRAX was significantly better than all other combinations for MOF prediction (<em>p</em><span> < 0.001). Incremental improvement in AUC for hip fracture prediction showed a similar but smaller trend. In conclusion, this single large cohort study found that TBS-adjusted FRAX performance for fracture prediction was improved when limited to the upper lumbar vertebral levels and was best using L1 alone.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":50240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Densitometry","volume":"26 4","pages":"Article 101430"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","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/S109469502300080X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Lumbar spine trabecular bone score (TBS) used in conjunction with FRAX® improves 10-year fracture prediction. The derived FRAX risk adjustment is based upon TBS measured from L1-L4, designated TBSL1-L4-FRAX. In prior studies, TBS measurements that include L1 and exclude L4 give better fracture stratification than L1-L4. We compared risk stratification from TBS-adjusted FRAX using TBS derived from different combinations of upper lumbar vertebral levels renormalized for level-specific differences in individuals from the Manitoba Bone Density Program aged >40 years with baseline assessment of TBS and FRAX. TBS measurements for L1-L3, L1-L2 and L1 alone were calculated after renormalization for level-specific differences. Corresponding TBS-adjusted FRAX scores designated TBSL1-L3-FRAX, TBSL1-L2-FRAX and TBSL1-FRAX were compared with TBSL1-L4-FRAX for fracture risk stratification. Incident major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) and hip fractures were assessed. The primary outcome was incremental change in area under the curve (ΔAUC). The study population included 71,209 individuals (mean age 64 years, 89.8% female). Before renormalization, mean TBS for L1-3, L1-L2 and L1 was significantly lower and TBS-adjusted FRAX significantly higher than from using TBSL1-L4. These differences were largely eliminated when TBS was renormalized for level-specific differences. During mean follow-up of 8.7 years 6745 individuals sustained incident MOF and 2039 sustained incident hip fractures. Compared with TBSL1-L4-FRAX, use of FRAX without TBS was associated with lower stratification (ΔAUC = −0.009, p < 0.001). There was progressive improvement in MOF stratification using TBSL1-L3-FRAX (ΔAUC = +0.001, p < 0.001), TBSL1-L2-FRAX (ΔAUC = +0.004, p < 0.001) and TBSL1-FRAX (ΔAUC = +0.005, p < 0.001). TBSL1-FRAX was significantly better than all other combinations for MOF prediction (p < 0.001). Incremental improvement in AUC for hip fracture prediction showed a similar but smaller trend. In conclusion, this single large cohort study found that TBS-adjusted FRAX performance for fracture prediction was improved when limited to the upper lumbar vertebral levels and was best using L1 alone.
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.