Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lumbar spine texture enhances 10-year fracture probability assessment

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

Abstract

Summary

We found that lumbar spine texture analysis using trabecular bone score (TBS) is a risk factor for MOF and a risk factor for death in a retrospective cohort study from a large clinical registry for the province of Manitoba, Canada.

Introduction

FRAX® estimates the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) using clinical risk factors and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). Trabecular bone score (TBS), derived from texture in the spine dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) image, is related to bone microarchitecture and fracture risk independently of BMD. Our objective was to determine whether TBS provides information on MOF probability beyond that provided by the FRAX variables.

Methods

We included 33,352 women aged 40–100 years (mean 63 years) with baseline DXA measurements of lumbar spine TBS and femoral neck BMD. The association between TBS, the FRAX variables, and the risk of MOF or death was examined using an extension of the Poisson regression model.

Results

During the mean of 4.7 years, 1,754 women died and 1,872 sustained one or more MOF. For each standard deviation reduction in TBS, there was a 36 % increase in MOF risk (HR 1.36, 95 % CI 1.30–1.42, p < 0.001) and a 32 % increase in death (HR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.26–1.39, p < 0.001). When adjusted for significant clinical risk factors and femoral neck BMD, lumbar spine TBS was still a significant predictor of MOF (HR 1.18, 95 % CI 1.12–1.23) and death (HR 1.20, 95 % CI 1.14–1.26). Models for estimating MOF probability, accounting for competing mortality, showed that low TBS (10th percentile) increased risk by 1.5–1.6-fold compared with high TBS (90th percentile) across a broad range of ages and femoral neck T-scores.

Conclusions

Lumbar spine TBS is able to predict incident MOF independent of FRAX clinical risk factors and femoral neck BMD even after accounting for the increased death hazard.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Keen RW (2003) Burden of osteoporosis and fractures. Curr Osteoporos Rep 1:66–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lips P, van Schoor NM (2005) Quality of life in patients with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 16:447–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M et al (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 843:1–129

  5. Cranney A, Jamal SA, Tsang JF et al (2007) Low bone mineral density and fracture burden in postmenopausal women. CMAJ 177:575–580

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stone KL, Seeley DG, Lui LY et al (2003) BMD at multiple sites and risk of fracture of multiple types: long-term results from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. J Bone Miner Res 18:1947–1954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O et al (2007) The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Osteoporos Int 18:1033–1046

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H et al (2009) FRAX and its applications to clinical practice. Bone 44:734–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Griffith JF, Genant HK (2012) New advances in imaging osteoporosis and its complications. Endocrine 42:39–51

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Armas LA, Recker RR (2012) Pathophysiology of osteoporosis: new mechanistic insights. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 41:475–486

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bousson V, Bergot C, Sutter B et al (2011) Trabecular bone score (TBS): available knowledge, clinical relevance, and future prospects. Osteoporos Int 23:1489–1501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pothuaud L, Barthe N, Krieg MA et al (2009) Evaluation of the Potential Use of Trabecular Bone Score to Complement Bone Mineral Density in the Diagnosis of Osteoporosis: A Preliminary Spine BMD-Matched, Case-Control Study. J Clin Densitom 12:170–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hans D, Goertzen AL, Krieg MA et al (2011) Bone microarchitecture assessed by TBS predicts osteoporotic fractures independent of bone density: the Manitoba study. J Bone Miner Res 26:2762–2769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Iki M, Tamaki J, Kadowaki E et al (2013) Trabecular bone score (TBS) predicts vertebral fractures in Japanese women over 10 years independently of bone density and prevalent vertebral deformity: The Japanese population-based osteoporosis (JPOS) cohort study. J Bone Miner Res

  15. Boutroy S, Hans D, Sornay-Rendu E et al (2013) Trabecular bone score improves fracture risk prediction in non-osteoporotic women: the OFELY study. Osteoporos Int 24:77–85

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Leslie WD, Krieg MA, Hans D (2013) Clinical factors associated with trabecular bone score. J Clin Densitom

  17. Leslie WD, Metge C (2003) Establishing a regional bone density program: lessons from the Manitoba experience. J Clin Densitom 6:275–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Leslie WD, Caetano PA, MacWilliam LR et al (2005) Construction and validation of a population-based bone densitometry database. J Clin Densitom 8:25–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H et al (2012) Does osteoporosis therapy invalidate FRAX for fracture prediction? J Bone Miner Res 27:1243–1251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roos NP, Shapiro E (1999) Revisiting the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation and its population-based health information system. Med Care 37:JS10–JS14

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (eds) (2005) Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment. Oslo

  22. Kozyrskyj AL, Mustard CA (1998) Validation of an electronic, population-based prescription database. Ann Pharmacother 32:1152–1157

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Leslie WD, Tsang JF, Caetano PA et al (2007) Effectiveness of bone density measurement for predicting osteoporotic fractures in clinical practice. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92:77–81

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lix LM, Azimaee M, Osman BA et al (2012) Osteoporosis-related fracture case definitions for population-based administrative data. BMC Public Health 12:301

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fraser LA, Langsetmo L, Berger C et al (2011) Fracture prediction and calibration of a Canadian FRAX® tool: a population-based report from CaMos. Osteoporos Int 22:829–837

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Leslie WD, Lix LM, Johansson H et al (2010) Independent clinical validation of a Canadian FRAX tool: fracture prediction and model calibration. J Bone Miner Res 25:2350–2358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Breslow NE, Day NE (1987) Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume II–The design and analysis of cohort studies. IARC Sci Publ 131–135

  28. Krieg MA, Aubry-Rozier B, Hans D et al (2013) Effects of anti-resorptive agents on trabecular bone score (TBS) in older women. Osteoporos Int 24:1073–1078

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Popp AW, Guler S, Lamy O et al (2013) Effects of zoledronate versus placebo on spine bone mineral density and microarchitecture assessed by the trabecular bone score in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a three-year study. J Bone Miner Res 28:449–454

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to Manitoba Health for the provision of data (HIPC 2012/2013-18). The results and conclusions are those of the authors, and no official endorsement by Manitoba Health is intended or should be inferred. This article has been reviewed and approved by the members of the Manitoba Bone Density Program Committee.

Conflicts of interest

William D. Leslie: Speaker bureau: Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis. Research grants: Amgen, Genzyme. John A. Kanis: Nothing to declare for FRAX and the context of this paper, but numerous ad hoc consultancies for: Industry: Abiogen, Italy; Amgen, USA, Switzerland and Belgium; Bayer, Germany; Besins-Iscovesco, France; Biosintetica, Brazil; Boehringer Ingelheim, UK; Celtrix, USA; D3A, France; Gador, Argentina; General Electric, USA; GSK, UK, USA; Hologic, Belgium and USA; Kissei, Japan; Leiras, Finland; Leo Pharma, Denmark; Lilly, USA, Canada, Japan, Australia and UK; Merck Research Labs, USA; Merlin Ventures, UK; MRL, China; Novartis, Switzerland and USA; Novo Nordisk, Denmark; Nycomed, Norway; Ono, UK and Japan; Organon, Holland; Parke-Davis, USA; Pfizer USA; Pharmexa, Denmark; Procter and Gamble, UK, USA; ProStrakan, UK; Roche, Germany, Australia, Switzerland, USA; Rotta Research, Italy; Sanofi-Aventis, USA; Schering, Germany and Finland; Servier, France and UK; Shire, UK; Solvay, France and Germany; Strathmann, Germany; Tethys, USA; Teijin, Japan; Teva, Israel; UBS, Belgium; Unigene, USA; Warburg-Pincus, UK; Warner-Lambert, USA; Wyeth, USA Governmental and NGOs: National Institute for health and clinical Excellence (NICE), UK; International Osteoporosis Foundation; INSERM, France; Ministry of Public Health, China; Ministry of Health, Australia; National Osteoporosis Society (UK); WHO. Didier Hans: Co-ownership in the TBS patent. Stock options or royalties: Med-Imaps. Research grants: Amgen, Eli Lilly, Servier, Nycomed-Takeda. Eugene McCloskey: Nothing to declare for FRAX and the context of this paper, but numerous ad hoc consultancies/ speking honoraria and/or research funding from Amgen, Bayer, General Electric, GSK, Hologic, Lilly, Merck Research Labs, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Nycomed, Ono, Pfizer, ProStrakan, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Tethys, UBS and Warner-Chilcott. H. Johansson, O Lamy, A. Oden declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

    W. D. Leslie

  2. WHO Collaborating Center for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK

    H. Johansson, J. A. Kanis, A. Oden & E. V. McCloskey

  3. Bone and Joint Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland

    O. Lamy & D. Hans

  4. Department of Medicine (C5121), St. Boniface General Hospital, 409 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R2H 2A6

    W. D. Leslie

Authors
  1. W. D. Leslie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Johansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. A. Kanis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. O. Lamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Oden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. V. McCloskey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. D. Hans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. D. Leslie.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 113 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leslie, W.D., Johansson, H., Kanis, J.A. et al. Lumbar spine texture enhances 10-year fracture probability assessment. Osteoporos Int 25, 2271–2277 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2761-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2761-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation