FRAX Calculated without BMD Resulting in a Higher Fracture Risk Than That Calculated with BMD in Women with Early Breast Cancer

Fracture risk and assessment in adults with cancer

Individuals with cancer face unique risk factors for osteoporosis and fractures. Clinicians must consider the additive effects of cancer-specific factors, including treatment-induced bone loss, and premorbid fracture risk, utilizing FRAX score and bone mineral densitometry when available. Pharmacologic therapy should be offered as per cancer-specific guidelines, when available, or local general osteoporosis guidelines informed by clinical judgment and patient preferences. Our objective was to review and summarize the epidemiologic burden of osteoporotic fracture risk and fracture risk assessment in adults with cancer, and recommended treatment thresholds for cancer treatment-induced bone loss, with specific focus on breast, prostate, thyroid, gynecological, multiple myeloma, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. This narrative review was informed by PubMed searches to July 25, 2022, that combined terms for cancer, stem cell transplantation, fracture, bone mineral density (BMD), trabecular bone score, FRAX, Garvan nomogram or fracture risk calculator, QFracture, prediction, and risk factors. The literature informs that cancer can impact bone health in numerous ways, leading to both systemic and localized decreases in BMD. Many cancer treatments can have detrimental effects on bone health. In particular, hormone deprivation therapies for hormone-responsive cancers such as breast cancer and prostate cancer, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant for hematologic malignancies, adversely affect bone turnover, resulting in osteoporosis and fractures. Surgical treatments such as hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for gynecological cancers can also lead to deleterious effects on bone health. Radiation therapy is well documented to cause localized bone loss and fractures. Few studies have validated the use of fracture risk prediction tools in the cancer population. Guidelines on cancer-specific treatment thresholds are limited, and major knowledge gaps still exist in fracture risk and fracture risk assessment in patients with cancer. Despite the limitations of current knowledge on fracture risk assessment and treatment thresholds in patients with cancer, clinicians must consider the additive effects of bone damaging factors to which these patients are exposed and their premorbid fracture risk profile. Pharmacologic treatment should be offered as per cancer-specific guidelines when available, or per local general osteoporosis guidelines, in accordance with clinical judgment and patient preferences.

Race and Age Impact Osteoporosis Screening Rates in Women Prior to Hip Fracture

Bone mineral density screening and clinical risk factors are important to stratify individuals for increased risk of fracture. In a population with no history of fractures or baseline bone density measurement, black women were less likely to be screened than white counterparts prior to hip fracture.

PURPOSE

To evaluate overall BMD (bone mineral density) screening rates within two years of hip fracture and to identify any disparities for osteoporosis screening or treatment in a female cohort who were eligible for screening under insurance and national recommendations.

METHODS

Data were obtained from 1,109 female patients listed in the Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet) database, which consists of multiple health partner systems in Louisiana and Texas. Patients < 65 years old or with a history of hip fracture or osteoporosis diagnosis, screening or treatment more than 2 years before hip fracture were removed.

RESULTS

Only 223 (20.1%) females were screened within the two years prior to hip fracture. Additionally, only 23 (10%) of the screened patients received treatment, despite 187 (86.6%) patients being diagnosed with osteoporosis or osteopenia. Screening rates reached a maximum of 27.9% in the 75-80 age group, while the 90 + age group had the lowest screening rates of 12%. We found a quadratic relationship between age and screening rates, indicating that the screening rate increases in age until age 72 and then decreases starkly. After adjusting for potential confounders, we found that black patients had significantly decreased screening rates compared to white patients (adjusted OR = .454, 95% CI = .227-.908, p value = .026) which held in general and for patient ages 65-97.

CONCLUSION

Despite national recommendations, overall BMD screening rates among women prior to hip fracture are low. If individuals are not initially screened when eligible, they are less likely to ever be screened prior to fracture. Clinicians should address racial disparities by recommending more screening to otherwise healthy black patients above the age of 65. Lastly, treatment rates need to increase among those diagnosed with osteoporosis since all patients went on to hip fracture.

Updated guidance on the management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) in pre- and postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Adjuvant endocrine therapy induces bone loss and increases fracture risk in women with hormone-receptor positive, early-stage breast cancer (EBC). We aimed to update a previous position statement on the management of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) induced bone loss and now included premenopausal women.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of the medical databases from January 2017 to May 2020 and assessed 144 new studies.

RESULTS

Extended use of AIs beyond 5 years leads to persistent bone loss in breast cancer extended adjuvant trials and meta-analyses. In addition to bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) and trabecular bone score (TBS) were shown to independently predict fracture risk in real life prospective studies. FRAX® tool does not seem to be reliable for assessing fracture risk in CTIBL. In premenopausal women, there is strong evidence that intravenous zoledronate prevents bone loss but weak conflicting evidence on reducing disease recurrence from independent randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In postmenopausal women, the strongest evidence for fracture prevention is for denosumab based on a well-powered RCT while there is strong evidence for bisphosphonates (BPs) to prevent and reduce CTIBL but no convincing data on fractures. Adjuvant denosumab has failed to show anticancer benefits in a large, well-designed RCT.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Extended use of AIs and persistent bone loss from recent data reinforce the need to evaluate fracture risk in EBC women initiated on AIs. Fracture risk should be assessed with clinical risk factors and BMD along with VFA, but FRAX is not adapted to CTIBL. Anti-resorptive therapy should be considered in those with a BMD T-score < -2.0 SD or with ≥ 2 clinical risk factors including a BMD T-score < -1.0 SD. In premenopausal women, intravenous zoledronate is the only drug reported to prevent bone loss and may have additional anticancer benefits. In postmenopausal women, either denosumab or BPs can be prescribed for fracture prevention with pertinent attention to the rebound phenomenon after stopping denosumab. Adjuvant BPs, in contrast to denosumab, have shown high level evidence for reducing breast cancer recurrence in high-risk post-MP women which should be taken into account when choosing between these two.