Adjusting Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) for level-specific differences reduces FRAX®-based treatment reclassification in patients with vertebral exclusions: The Manitoba BMD Registry
William D. Leslie , Neil Binkley , Heenam Goel , Didier Hans , Eugene V. McCloskey
{"title":"Adjusting Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) for level-specific differences reduces FRAX®-based treatment reclassification in patients with vertebral exclusions: The Manitoba BMD Registry","authors":"William D. Leslie , Neil Binkley , Heenam Goel , Didier Hans , Eugene V. McCloskey","doi":"10.1016/j.jocd.2023.101429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a FRAX®-independent risk factor for fracture prediction. TBS values increase from cranial to caudal, with the following mean differences between TBS</span><sub>L1-L4</sub><span><span> and individual lumbar vertebrae: L1 −0.093, L2 −0.008, L3 +0.055 and L4 +0.046. Excluding vertebral levels can affect FRAX-based </span>treatment<span> recommendations close to the intervention threshold. We examined the effect of adjusting for level-specific TBS differences in individuals with vertebral exclusions due to structural artifact on TBS-adjusted FRAX-based treatment recommendations. We identified 71,209 individuals aged ≥40 years with TBS and FRAX calculations through the Manitoba Bone Density Program. In the 24,428 individuals with vertebral exclusions, adjusting TBS using these level-specific factors agreed with TBS</span></span><sub>L1-L4</sub> (mean difference −0.001). We compared FRAX-based treatment recommendations for TBS<sub>L1-L4</sub><span> and for non-excluded vertebral levels before and after adjusting for level-specific TBS differences. Among those with baseline major osteoporotic fracture risk ≥15 %, TBS with vertebral exclusions reclassified FRAX-based treatment in 10.6 % of individuals compared with TBS</span><sub>L1-L4</sub><span>, and was reduced to 7.2 % after adjusting for level-specific differences. In 11,131 patients where L1–L2 was used for BMD reporting (the most common exclusion pattern with the largest TBS effect), treatment reclassification was reduced from 13.9 % to 2.4 %, respectively. Among individuals with baseline hip fracture risk ≥2 %, TBS vertebral exclusions reclassified 7.1 % compared with TBS</span><sub>L1-L4</sub>, but only 4.5 % after adjusting for level-specific differences. When L1–L2 was used for BMD reporting, treatment reclassification from hip fracture risk was reduced from 9.2 % to 5.2 %. In conclusion, TBS and TBS-adjusted FRAX-based treatment recommendations are affected by vertebral level exclusions for structural artifact. Adjusting for level-specific differences in TBS reduces reclassification in FRAX-based treatment recommendations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Densitometry","volume":"26 4","pages":"Article 101429"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Densitometry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094695023000793","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: 2
Abstract
Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a FRAX®-independent risk factor for fracture prediction. TBS values increase from cranial to caudal, with the following mean differences between TBSL1-L4 and individual lumbar vertebrae: L1 −0.093, L2 −0.008, L3 +0.055 and L4 +0.046. Excluding vertebral levels can affect FRAX-based treatment recommendations close to the intervention threshold. We examined the effect of adjusting for level-specific TBS differences in individuals with vertebral exclusions due to structural artifact on TBS-adjusted FRAX-based treatment recommendations. We identified 71,209 individuals aged ≥40 years with TBS and FRAX calculations through the Manitoba Bone Density Program. In the 24,428 individuals with vertebral exclusions, adjusting TBS using these level-specific factors agreed with TBSL1-L4 (mean difference −0.001). We compared FRAX-based treatment recommendations for TBSL1-L4 and for non-excluded vertebral levels before and after adjusting for level-specific TBS differences. Among those with baseline major osteoporotic fracture risk ≥15 %, TBS with vertebral exclusions reclassified FRAX-based treatment in 10.6 % of individuals compared with TBSL1-L4, and was reduced to 7.2 % after adjusting for level-specific differences. In 11,131 patients where L1–L2 was used for BMD reporting (the most common exclusion pattern with the largest TBS effect), treatment reclassification was reduced from 13.9 % to 2.4 %, respectively. Among individuals with baseline hip fracture risk ≥2 %, TBS vertebral exclusions reclassified 7.1 % compared with TBSL1-L4, but only 4.5 % after adjusting for level-specific differences. When L1–L2 was used for BMD reporting, treatment reclassification from hip fracture risk was reduced from 9.2 % to 5.2 %. In conclusion, TBS and TBS-adjusted FRAX-based treatment recommendations are affected by vertebral level exclusions for structural artifact. Adjusting for level-specific differences in TBS reduces reclassification in FRAX-based treatment recommendations.
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.