Proceedings of the 2023 Santa Fe Bone Symposium: Progress and Controversies in the Management of Patients with Skeletal Diseases.

The Santa Fe Bone Symposium (SFBS) held its 23rd annual event on August 5-6, 2023, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Attendees participated in-person and remotely, representing many states and countries. The program included plenary presentations, panel discussions, satellite symposia, a Project ECHO workshop, and a session on healthcare policy and reimbursement for fracture liaison programs. A broad range of topics were addressed, including transitions of osteoporosis treatments over a lifetime; controversies in vitamin D; update on Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry; spine surgery and bone health; clinical applications of bone turnover markers; basic bone biology for clinicians; premenopausal-, pregnancy-, and lactation-associated osteoporosis; cancer treatment induced bone loss in patients with breast cancer and prostate cancer; genetic testing for skeletal diseases; and an update on nutrition and bone health. There were also sessions on rare bone diseases, including managing patients with hypophosphatasia; treatment of X-linked hypophosphatemia; and assessment and treatment of patients with hypoparathyroidism. There were oral presentations of abstracts by endocrinology fellows selected from those who participated in the Santa Fe Fellows Workshop on Metabolic Bone Diseases, held the 2 days prior to the SFBS. These proceedings of the 2023 SFBS present the clinical highlights and insights generated from many formal and informal discussions in Santa Fe.

Global biomarkers of oxidative stress and fractures: a matched case-control study.

Background: Evidence for a relationship between oxidative stress and osteoporotic fractures in humans is limited. Fluorescent oxidation products (FlOPs, excitation/emission wavelengths 320/420nm denoted FlOP_320; 360/420nm [FlOP_360]; and 400/475nm [FlOP_400]) are global biomarkers of oxidative stress, and reflect oxidative damage to proteins, phospholipids, and nucleic acids. We investigated the association between FlOPs and a recent osteoporotic fracture. Methods: We conducted a case-control study in a Chinese population aged 50 years or older. A recent osteoporotic fracture in the cases was confirmed by x-ray. Cases were matched with community-based non-fracture controls (1:2 ratio) for age (± 4 years) and sex. In addition, we conducted a sensitivity unmatched case-control study which included all fracture cases and all eligible non-fracture controls prior to matching. Plasma FlOPs were measured with a fluorescent microplate reader. We used unconditional logistic regression to analyze the association between FlOPs (per 1-SD increase in logarithmic scale) and fracture; odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were reported. Results: Forty-four cases and 88 matched controls (mean age: 68.2 years) were included. After covariate adjustment (i.e., body mass index, physical activity, and smoking), higher FlOP_360 (OR = 1.85; 95% CI = 1.03 - 3.34) and FlOP_400 (OR = 13.29; 95% CI = 3.48 - 50.69) levels, but not FlOP_320 (OR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.27 - 1.15), were associated with increased fracture risk. Subgroup analyses by fracture site and unmatched case-control study found comparable associations of FlOP_360 and FlOP_400 with hip and non-hip fractures. Conclusions: Higher FlOP_360 and FlOP_400 levels were associated with increased risk of fracture, and this association was comparable for hip and non-hip fractures. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm this finding.

Fracture rate increases after immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment: a potential new immune related adverse event.

INTRODUCTION: T cell activation can lead to osteoporosis and while there are several case reports of fractures occurring after immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) use, to date, there are no population level studies looking at fracture risk related to ICI use. METHODS: Using Alberta Cancer Registry data, we identified all individuals treated with ICI for cancer between September 29, 2010, and March 31, 2019. Linked records from Alberta's healthcare administrative databases were assessed for the presence of fracture diagnostic codes in the year prior to and up to two years after ICI initiation. Fracture rate was stratified based on the time-period before and after ICI initiation. Fracture rates after ICI were compared to baseline. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 1600 ICI users (mean age 65.7 years, 60% male). Most patients were treated with an anti-PD-1 agent (73.9%). ICIs were initiated on average 707.8 days after cancer diagnosis. 76 (4.8%) individuals had a remote history of a major fracture, and 141 (8.8%) had been treated with an osteoporosis medication prior to ICI treatment. The fracture rate in the year prior to ICI initiation was 11.3 per 1000 patient-years. The fracture rate in the year after ICI initiation was significantly higher at 27.3 per 1000 patient-years. The fracture rate dropped to 17.6 per 1000 patient-years in the second year after ICI initiation. The incidence rate ratio of sustaining a major fracture in the year after compared to the year prior to ICI initiation was 2.43 (95% CI 1.34-4.27). CONCLUSIONS: Fracture risk may be increased in cancer patients early after initiation of ICI, and this may represent a novel immune-related adverse event.

Performance of FRAX in Men With Prostate Cancer: A Registry-Based Cohort Study.

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) was created to predict major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) and hip fractures in the general population. Whether FRAX accurately predicts fractures in men with prostate cancer is unknown. Our objective was to assess the performance of FRAX for predicting incident fractures in men with prostate cancer. Men from the Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Registry (1996-2018) with prostate cancer diagnoses in the 3 years prior to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) were identified. FRAX scores with and without BMD were calculated. From population-based healthcare data we identified incident MOF, hip fracture, any osteoporotic fracture and death from the date of BMD testing to March 31, 2018. Cox regression was performed to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) per standard deviation increase in FRAX score. Observed 10-year probability (estimated with competing risk of mortality) was compared with 10-year FRAX-predicted fracture probability to assess calibration. The study population included 684 men with prostate cancer (mean age 74.6 years) and 8608 men without prostate cancer (mean age 65.5 years). FRAX stratified risk for MOF (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.48-2.45 with BMD; HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.43-2.69 without BMD) and hip fracture (HR 3.37, 95% CI 1.90-6.01 with BMD; HR 4.58, 95% CI 2.17-9.67 without BMD) in men with prostate cancer. There was no effect modification observed with prostate cancer status or current androgen deprivation therapy. Observed 10-year fracture probability in men with prostate cancer showed good agreement with FRAX with and without BMD included in the calculation (observed/predicted calibration ratios MOF 0.97, hip 1.00 with BMD; MOF 0.92, hip 0.93 with BMD). In conclusion, FRAX reliably predicts incident fractures in men with prostate cancer. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Variation in bone mineral density and fractures over 20 years among Canadians: a comparison of the Canadian Multicenter Osteoporosis Study and the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging.

International variations in osteoporosis and fracture rates have been reported, with temporal trends differing between populations. We observed higher BMD and lower fracture prevalence in a recently recruited cohort compared to that of a cohort recruited 20 years ago, even after adjusting for multiple covariates. PURPOSE: We explored sex-specific differences in femoral neck bone mineral density (FN-BMD) and in prevalent major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) using two Canadian cohorts recruited 20 years apart. METHODS: We included men and women aged 50-85 years from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos, N = 6,479; 1995-1997) and the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA, N = 19,534; 2012-2015). We created regression models to compare FN-BMD and fracture risk between cohorts, adjusting for important covariates. Among participants with prevalent MOF, we compared anti-osteoporosis medication use. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age in CaMos (65.4 years [8.6]) was higher than in CLSA (63.8 years [9.1]). CaMos participants had lower mean body mass index and higher prevalence of smoking (p < 0.001). Adjusted linear regression models (estimates [95%CI]) demonstrated lower FN-BMD in CaMos women (- 0.017 g/cm2 [- 0.021; - 0.014]) and men (- 0.006 g/cm2 [- 0.011; 0.000]), while adjusted odds ratios (95%CI) for prevalent MOF were higher in CaMos women (1.99 [1.71; 2.30]) and men (2.33 [1.82; 3.00]) compared to CLSA. In women with prevalent MOF, menopausal hormone therapy use was similar in both cohorts (43.3% vs 37.9%, p = 0.076), but supplements (32.0% vs 48.3%, p < 0.001) and bisphosphonate use (5.8% vs 17.3%, p < 0.001) were lower in CaMos. The proportion of men with MOF who received bisphosphonates was below 10% in both cohorts. CONCLUSION: Higher BMD and lower fracture prevalence were noted in the more recently recruited CLSA cohort compared to CaMos, even after adjusting for multiple covariates. We noted an increase in bisphosphonate use in the recent cohort, but it remained very low in men.

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.

Fractures and long-term mortality in cancer patients: a population-based cohort study.

We assessed post-fracture mortality in a population-based cohort of 122,045 individuals with cancers. Major fractures (hip, vertebrae, humerus, and forearm) were associated with early and long-term increased all-cause mortality. INTRODUCTION: Currently, there are no population-based data among cancer patients on post-fracture mortality risk across a broad range of cancer diagnoses. Our objective was to estimate the association of fracture with mortality in cancer survivors. METHODS: Using Manitoba Cancer Registry data from the province of Manitoba, Canada, we identified all women and men with cancer diagnosed between January 1, 1987, and March 31, 2014. We then linked cancer data to provincial healthcare administrative data and ascertained fractures after cancer diagnosis and mortality to March 31, 2015. Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in those with versus without fracture were estimated from time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for multiple covariates. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 122,045 cancer patients (median age 68 years, IQR 58-77, 49.2% female). During the median follow-up of 5.8 years from cancer diagnosis, we ascertained 7120 (5.8%) major fractures. All fracture sites, except for the forearm, were associated with increased mortality risk, even after multivariable adjustment. Excess mortality risk associated with a major fracture was greatest in the first year after fracture (HR 2.42, 95% CI 2.30-2.54) and remained significant > 5 years after fracture (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.50-1.70) and for fractures occurring > 10 years after cancer diagnosis (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.79-2.07). CONCLUSION: Fractures among cancer patients are associated with increased all-cause mortality. This excess risk is greatest in the first year and persists more than 5 years post-fracture; increased risk is also noted for fractures occurring up to and beyond 10 years after cancer diagnosis.

Association between prior cancer diagnosis and osteoporosis: a matched case-control study.

Epidemiological studies show an inconsistent association between cancer and osteoporosis. In this nationally representative population-based study, we found that a prior cancer diagnosis was not associated with osteoporosis. This finding may primarily apply to cancer survivors seen many years after their cancer diagnosis. BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies show an inconsistent association between cancer and osteoporosis. We examined the association between a prior cancer diagnosis and osteoporosis in population-based data. METHODS: We performed an age- and sex-matched case-control study (1:2 matching ratio) using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2011-2018. Cases were determined by self-reported prior diagnosis of cancer; all controls were free of cancer at the time of bone density measurement with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. We defined osteoporosis as a T-score ≤ - 2.5 at femoral neck, total hip, or lumbar spine. Unconditional multivariable logistic regression was used to test the association between a prior cancer diagnosis and osteoporosis. RESULTS: We identified 246 prior cancer cases and 492 controls (mean age: 65.8 years) in females, and 243 prior cancer cases and 486 controls (mean age: 68.0 years) in males. The most common types of cancer in females and males were breast cancer and prostate cancer, respectively. Osteoporosis prevalences were comparable between cases and controls among females (19.1% in cases vs. 18.7% in controls; P = 0.894) and males (5.8% in cases vs. 6.8% in controls; P = 0.594). After adjusting for covariates, a prior cancer diagnosis was not associated with osteoporosis in females (odds ratio [OR]: 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-1.29) or males (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.51-2.30). Results were unaffected by cancer severity, cancer type, or time since cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: A prior cancer diagnosis was not associated with osteoporosis in this nationally representative population.

Improved prediction of fracture risk leveraging a genome-wide polygenic risk score.

BACKGROUND: Accurately quantifying the risk of osteoporotic fracture is important for directing appropriate clinical interventions. While skeletal measures such as heel quantitative speed of sound (SOS) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry bone mineral density are able to predict the risk of osteoporotic fracture, the utility of such measurements is subject to the availability of equipment and human resources. Using data from 341,449 individuals of white British ancestry, we previously developed a genome-wide polygenic risk score (PRS), called gSOS, that captured 25.0% of the total variance in SOS. Here, we test whether gSOS can improve fracture risk prediction. METHODS: We examined the predictive power of gSOS in five genome-wide genotyped cohorts, including 90,172 individuals of European ancestry and 25,034 individuals of Asian ancestry. We calculated gSOS for each individual and tested for the association between gSOS and incident major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture. We tested whether adding gSOS to the risk prediction models had added value over models using other commonly used clinical risk factors. RESULTS: A standard deviation decrease in gSOS was associated with an increased odds of incident major osteoporotic fracture in populations of European ancestry, with odds ratios ranging from 1.35 to 1.46 in four cohorts. It was also associated with a 1.26-fold (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.41) increased odds of incident major osteoporotic fracture in the Asian population. We demonstrated that gSOS was more predictive of incident major osteoporotic fracture (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) = 0.734; 95% CI 0.727-0.740) and incident hip fracture (AUROC = 0.798; 95% CI 0.791-0.805) than most traditional clinical risk factors, including prior fracture, use of corticosteroids, rheumatoid arthritis, and smoking. We also showed that adding gSOS to the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) could refine the risk prediction with a positive net reclassification index ranging from 0.024 to 0.072. CONCLUSIONS: We generated and validated a PRS for SOS which was associated with the risk of fracture. This score was more strongly associated with the risk of fracture than many clinical risk factors and provided an improvement in risk prediction. gSOS should be explored as a tool to improve risk stratification to identify individuals at high risk of fracture.

Associations of clinically recognized vs unrecognized vertebral fracture with mortality.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to contrast mortality associated with clinically undiagnosed prevalent vertebral fracture recognized on densitometric vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) and prior clinically diagnosed vertebral fracture. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2016, 9679 men and women (mean age [SD] 76 [6.9] years, 93% women) with central site bone density T-score ≤ -1.5 had VFA images obtained at the time of bone densitometry. Vertebrae between T4 and L4 inclusive were evaluated for prevalent vertebral fracture on these images. Participants were categorized into three mutually exclusive groups; those with no vertebral fracture on VFA and no prior clinically diagnosed vertebral fracture (n = 7983), those with a definite vertebral fracture on VFA but no vertebral fracture clinically diagnosed before the index VFA date (n = 1376), and those with a prior clinically diagnosed vertebral fracture (n = 320). We ascertained mortality after the index VFA date using Manitoba provincial vital statistics files over a mean 2.8 (SD 1.7) years. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (C.I.) of prevalent vertebral fractures with mortality adjusted for multiple covariates. RESULTS: Adjusted for age and sex, those with clinically undiagnosed vertebral fracture on VFA had an HR of 1.22 (95% C.I. 1.00 to 1.50) for mortality, and those with a prior clinically diagnosed vertebral fracture had an HR of 1.78 (95% C.I. 1.27 to 2.50) for mortality compared to those with no prevalent vertebral fracture. After further adjustment for comorbidity score, current smoking, and other causes of mortality, these associations were slightly attenuated (HRs 1.18 [95% C.I. 0.95 to 1.45] and of 1.70 [95% C.I. 1.21 to 2.40], respectively). Stratified by elapsed years since diagnosis, clinical vertebral fractures were associated with excess mortality for up to 10 years after their occurrence. CONCLUSION: Clinically undiagnosed prevalent vertebral fracture detected on densitometric VFA images are weakly associated with subsequent mortality adjusted for age and sex, but not after accounting for other causes of mortality. Clinical vertebral fractures are associated with increased mortality for ten years after their diagnosis, even after accounting for other causes of mortality.

Development of a polygenic risk score to improve screening for fracture risk: A genetic risk prediction study.

BACKGROUND: Since screening programs identify only a small proportion of the population as eligible for an intervention, genomic prediction of heritable risk factors could decrease the number needing to be screened by removing individuals at low genetic risk. We therefore tested whether a polygenic risk score for heel quantitative ultrasound speed of sound (SOS)-a heritable risk factor for osteoporotic fracture-can identify low-risk individuals who can safely be excluded from a fracture risk screening program. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A polygenic risk score for SOS was trained and selected in 2 separate subsets of UK Biobank (comprising 341,449 and 5,335 individuals). The top-performing prediction model was termed "gSOS", and its utility in fracture risk screening was tested in 5 validation cohorts using the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group clinical guidelines (N = 10,522 eligible participants). All individuals were genome-wide genotyped and had measured fracture risk factors. Across the 5 cohorts, the average age ranged from 57 to 75 years, and 54% of studied individuals were women. The main outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity to correctly identify individuals requiring treatment with and without genetic prescreening. The reference standard was a bone mineral density (BMD)-based Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) score. The secondary outcomes were the proportions of the screened population requiring clinical-risk-factor-based FRAX (CRF-FRAX) screening and BMD-based FRAX (BMD-FRAX) screening. gSOS was strongly correlated with measured SOS (r2 = 23.2%, 95% CI 22.7% to 23.7%). Without genetic prescreening, guideline recommendations achieved a sensitivity and specificity for correct treatment assignment of 99.6% and 97.1%, respectively, in the validation cohorts. However, 81% of the population required CRF-FRAX tests, and 37% required BMD-FRAX tests to achieve this accuracy. Using gSOS in prescreening and limiting further assessment to those with a low gSOS resulted in small changes to the sensitivity and specificity (93.4% and 98.5%, respectively), but the proportions of individuals requiring CRF-FRAX tests and BMD-FRAX tests were reduced by 37% and 41%, respectively. Study limitations include a reliance on cohorts of predominantly European ethnicity and use of a proxy of fracture risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the use of a polygenic risk score in fracture risk screening could decrease the number of individuals requiring screening tests, including BMD measurement, while maintaining a high sensitivity and specificity to identify individuals who should be recommended an intervention.

New Developments in Fracture Risk Assessment for Current Osteoporosis Reports.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Identifying individuals at high fracture risk can be used to target those likely to derive the greatest benefit from treatment. This narrative review examines recent developments in using specific risk factors used to assess fracture risk, with a focus on publications in the last 3 years. RECENT FINDINGS: There is expanding evidence for the recognition of individual clinical risk factors and clinical use of composite scores in the general population. Unfortunately, enthusiasm is dampened by three pragmatic randomized trials that raise questions about the effectiveness of widespread population screening using clinical fracture prediction tools given suboptimal participation and adherence. There have been refinements in risk assessment in special populations: men, patients with diabetes, and secondary causes of osteoporosis. New evidence supports the value of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), high resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT), opportunistic screening using CT, skeletal strength assessment with finite element analysis (FEA), and trabecular bone score (TBS). The last 3 years have seen important developments in the area of fracture risk assessment, both in the research setting and translation to clinical practice. The next challenge will be incorporating these advances into routine work flows that can improve the identification of high risk individuals at the population level and meaningfully impact the ongoing crisis in osteoporosis management.

Trends in Prescribing Menopausal Hormone Therapy and Bisphosphonates in Australia and Manitoba, Canada and Adherence to Recommendations.

Background: Recommendations for using menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) and bisphosphonates for postmenopausal osteoporosis management have changed over time. After the release of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial results in 2002, new evidence on risks and benefits of MHT became available, and newer guidelines generally specify that MHT should not be prescribed for prevention of chronic disease, including osteoporosis. This raises the question of whether bisphosphonate prescribing changed over time to compensate for the decrease in MHT use. Materials and Methods: We examined trends in dispensed prescriptions in Australia (national) and Canada (province of Manitoba) in relation to prescribing recommendations. Administrative data were used to describe dispensing patterns and changes for persons of all ages from 1996 to 2008, and for women aged 50 to ≥80 years from 2003 to 2008 in Australia and 1996 to 2008 in Canada. Results: In both geographic settings, MHT dispensing increased 1996-2001, peaked in 2001, and declined substantially thereafter (67% reduction in MHT prescriptions for Australia; 64% reduction for Manitoba, Canada to 2008). From 2003 to 2008, the number of MHT prescriptions declined among all age groups in both settings, with the highest declines among women in their 50s. Concurrently, bisphosphonate dispensing increased until 2005 (2001-2005: 260% increase in the number of prescriptions in Australia; 125% increase in Manitoba) and stabilized thereafter, in both settings. Annual bisphosphonate dispensing rates increased 4.1-10.9% for women in their 70s and 80s in Australia and Manitoba during the period studied. Conclusions: Based on dispensed prescriptions data, more recent guidelines for MHT and bisphosphonates use for postmenopausal osteoporosis, which were updated during the study period (and are still consistent with the current guidelines), appear to have been broadly adhered to in both settings.

Risk for Thyroid Cancer Recurrence Is Higher in Men Than in Women Independent of Disease Stage at Presentation.

Background: Well-differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) presents at a more advanced stage in men than in women, and the mortality in men is higher than that in women. However, it is not clear whether DTC recurrence is affected by sex independent of stage at presentation. The objective of the present study was to assess if male sex is an independent risk factor for recurrence of DTC. Methods: The Canadian Collaborative Network for Cancer of the Thyroid (CANNECT) is a collaborative registry to describe patterns of care for thyroid cancer. We included patients from the CANNECT registry with DTC diagnosed at age 18 or older between 2000 and 2010. We compared men and women with respect to presentation, management, and recurrence risk, stratified for American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage. Results: We included 2595 patients, 2067 (79.7%) women and 528 (20.3%) men. Men presented with more advanced AJCC stage (p < 0.001), T stage (p < 0.001), N stage (p < 0.001), and M stage (p = 0.002) There was no difference in follow-up duration between women (7.7 ± 4.0 [mean ± standard deviation] years) and men (7.7 ± 4.0 years, p = 0.985). Overall recurrence was 2.2% (n = 46) for women and 8.5% (n = 45) for men (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis adjusted for AJCC stage, men were at significantly greater risk for DTC recurrence than women (adjusted hazard ratio 2.72 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78-4.20]; p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis adjusted for tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, men were at significantly greater risk for DTC recurrence than women (adjusted hazard ratio 2.31 [CI 1.48-3.60]; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our study confirms that the risk for recurrence of DTC is higher in men than in women. Although men tend to present with more advanced-stage disease, the difference in recurrence risk persists when adjusted for stage of presentation. It needs to be determined whether sex should influence follow-up intensity and/or duration.

Factors Associated With Bone Density Monitoring While on Antiosteoporosis Treatment in Routine Clinical Practice: A Registry-Based Cohort Study.

The role for bone mineral density (BMD) monitoring while on antiosteoporosis therapy remains controversial. The current study used population-based registries to identify factors associated with BMD monitoring in women within 5 yr of receiving antiosteoporosis treatment vs treatment without monitoring in routine clinical practice. The analytical dataset consisted of women age 40 yr and older at baseline receiving antiosteoporosis therapy: 6877 with BMD monitoring (mean interval 3.2 yr) and 6747 without BMD monitoring. There was a significant negative secular trend in BMD monitoring during the study period (p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that parental hip fracture, glucocorticoid and aromatase inhibitor use, and lower baseline BMD were independently and positively associated with BMD monitoring. Individuals with increasing age, greater body mass index, smoking, rheumatoid arthritis, later calendar year, diabetes, rural residency, lower income, and greater comorbidity score were less likely to undergo monitoring. A shorter monitoring interval (<23 mo) was strongly associated with glucocorticoid and aromatase inhibitor use. In conclusion, our study identifies factors associated with BMD monitoring over 5 yr in patients receiving antiosteoporosis therapy.

Population-Based Osteoporosis Primary Prevention and Screening for Quality of Care in Osteoporosis, Current Osteoporosis Reports.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite the high prevalence and impact of osteoporosis, screening and treatment rates remain low, with few women age 65 years and older utilizing osteoporosis screening for primary prevention. RECENT FINDINGS: This review examines opportunities and challenges related to primary prevention and screening for osteoporosis at the population level. Strategies on how to identify individuals at high fracture risk and target them for treatment have lagged far behind other developments in the osteoporosis field. Most osteoporosis quality improvement strategies have focused on patients with recent or prior fracture (secondary prevention), with limited attention to individuals without prior fracture. For populations without prior fracture, the only quality improvement strategy for which meta-analysis demonstrated significant improvement in osteoporosis care was patient self-scheduling of DXA plus education Much more work is needed to develop and validate effective primary screening and prevention strategies and translate these into high-quality guidelines.

Screening to prevent fragility fractures among adults 40 years and older in primary care: protocol for a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care by systematically reviewing direct evidence on the effectiveness and acceptability of screening adults 40 years and older in primary care to reduce fragility fractures and related mortality and morbidity, and indirect evidence on the accuracy of fracture risk prediction tools. Evidence on the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment will be reviewed, if needed to meaningfully influence the Task Force's decision-making. METHODS: A modified update of an existing systematic review will evaluate screening effectiveness, the accuracy of screening tools, and treatment benefits. For treatment harms, we will integrate studies from existing systematic reviews. A de novo review on acceptability will be conducted. Peer-reviewed searches (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO [acceptability only]), grey literature, and hand searches of reviews and included studies will update the literature. Based on pre-specified criteria, we will screen studies for inclusion following a liberal-accelerated approach. Final inclusion will be based on consensus. Data extraction for study results will be performed independently by two reviewers while other data will be verified by a second reviewer; there may be some reliance on extracted data from the existing reviews. The risk of bias assessments reported in the existing reviews will be verified and for new studies will be performed independently. When appropriate, results will be pooled using either pairwise random effects meta-analysis (screening and treatment) or restricted maximum likelihood estimation with Hartun-Knapp-Sidnick-Jonkman correction (risk prediction model calibration). Subgroups of interest to explain heterogeneity are age, sex, and menopausal status. Two independent reviewers will rate the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, with consensus reached for each outcome rated as critical or important by the Task Force. DISCUSSION: Since the publication of other guidance in Canada, new trials have been published that are likely to improve understanding of screening in primary care settings to prevent fragility fractures. A systematic review is required to inform updated recommendations that align with the current evidence base.

Fracture Risk in Women with Breast Cancer Initiating Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy: A Registry-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) used in breast cancer induce loss in bone mineral density (BMD) and are reported to increase fracture risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a population-based BMD registry, we identified women aged at least 40 years initiating AIs for breast cancer with at least 12 months of AI exposure (n = 1,775), women with breast cancer not receiving AIs (n = 1,016), and women from the general population (n = 34,205). Fracture outcomes were assessed to March 31, 2017 (mean, 6.2 years for AI users). RESULTS: At baseline, AI users had higher body mass index (BMI), higher BMD, lower osteoporosis prevalence, and fewer prior fractures than women from the general population or women with breast cancer without AI use (all p < .001). After adjusting for all covariates, AI users were not at significantly greater risk for major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.42), hip fracture (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.56-1.43), or any fracture (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.88-1.28) compared with the general population. CONCLUSION: Higher baseline BMI, BMD, and lower prevalence of prior fracture at baseline may offset the adverse effects of AI exposure. Although confirmatory data from large cohort studies are required, our findings challenge the view that all women with breast cancer initiating AI therapy should be considered at high risk for fractures. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In a population-based observational registry that included 1,775 patients initiating long-term aromatase inhibitor therapy, risk for major osteoporotic fracture, hip fracture, or any fracture was similar to the general population. Higher baseline body mass index, bone mineral density, and lower prevalence of prior fracture at baseline may offset the adverse effects of aromatase inhibitor exposure.

Performance of FRAX in Women with Breast Cancer Initiating Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy: A Registry-Based Cohort Study.

FRAX was developed to predict 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture in the general population. Aromatase inhibitors (AI) used in breast cancer induce loss in bone mineral density (BMD) and are reported to increase fracture risk. AI exposure is not a direct input to FRAX but is captured under "secondary osteoporosis". To inform use of FRAX in women treated with AI, we used a population-based registry for the Province of Manitoba, Canada, to identify women aged ≥40 years initiating AI for breast cancer with at least 12 months' AI exposure (n = 1775), women with breast cancer not receiving AI (n = 1016), and women from the general population (n = 34,205). Among AI users, fracture probability estimated without BMD (AI use coded as secondary osteoporosis) significantly overestimated risk (10-year observed/predicted ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.68; 10-year hip fracture observed/predicted ratio 0.33, 95% CI 0.18-0.49). However, when BMD was included in the fracture probability, there was no significant difference between observed and predicted fracture risk. In Cox proportional hazards models, FRAX stratified risk of MOF, hip, and any fracture equally well in all subgroups (p-interaction >0.1). When adjusted for FRAX score without BMD, with AI use coded as secondary osteoporosis, AI users were at significantly lower risk for MOF (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.95), hip fracture (HR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.73) and any fracture (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89). AI use was no longer significantly associated with fractures when AI use was not entered as secondary osteoporosis in FRAX without BMD or when BMD was included in the FRAX calculation. In conclusion, FRAX scores stratify fracture risk equally well in women receiving AI therapy as in non-users, but including secondary osteoporosis as a risk factor for AI users overestimates fracture risk. Our results call this practice into question. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Osteoporosis.

Fractures resulting from osteoporosis become increasingly common in women after age 55 years and men after age 65 years, resulting in substantial bone-associated morbidities, and increased mortality and health-care costs. Research advances have led to a more accurate assessment of fracture risk and have increased the range of therapeutic options available to prevent fractures. Fracture risk algorithms that combine clinical risk factors and bone mineral density are now widely used in clinical practice to target high-risk individuals for treatment. The discovery of key pathways regulating bone resorption and formation has identified new approaches to treatment with distinctive mechanisms of action. Osteoporosis is a chronic condition and long-term, sometimes lifelong, management is required. In individuals at high risk of fracture, the benefit versus risk profile is likely to be favourable for up to 10 years of treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab. In people at a very high or imminent risk of fracture, therapy with teriparatide or abaloparatide should be considered; however, since treatment duration with these drugs is restricted to 18-24 months, treatment should be continued with an antiresorptive drug. Individuals at high risk of fractures do not receive adequate treatment and strategies to address this treatment gap-eg, widespread implementation of Fracture Liaison Services and improvement of adherence to therapy-are important challenges for the future.