Carolyn J Crandall1, Joseph Larson2, Andrea LaCroix3, Jane A Cauley4, Meryl S LeBoff5, Wenjun Li6, Erin S LeBlanc7, Beatrice J Edwards8, JoAnn E Manson9, Kristine Ensrud10. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. ccrandall@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. WHI Clinical Coordinating Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Endocrine, Diabetes and Hypertension Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Division of Biomedical Data Science, Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. 7. Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research NW, Portland, OR, USA. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 9. Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital 3rd Floor, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 10. Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend fracture risk assessment in postmenopausal women aged 50-64, but the optimal method is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare discrimination and calibration of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and Garvan fracture risk calculator for predicting fractures in postmenopausal women aged 50-64 at baseline. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-three thousand seven hundred twenty-three postmenopausal women aged 50-64 years participating in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study and Clinical Trials. MAIN MEASURES: Incident hip fractures and major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) during 10-year follow-up. Calculated FRAX- and Garvan-predicted hip fracture and MOF fracture probabilities. KEY RESULTS: The observed 10-year hip fracture probability was 0.3% for women aged 50-54 years (n = 14,768), 0.6% for women aged 55-59 years (n = 22,442), and 1.1% for women aged 60-64 years (n = 25,513). At sensitivity thresholds ≥ 80%, specificity of both tools for detecting incident hip fracture during 10 years of follow-up was low: Garvan 30.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 30.3-31.0%) and FRAX 43.1% (95% CI 42.7-43.5%). At maximal area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC(c), 0.58 for Garvan, 0.65 for FRAX), sensitivity was 16.0% (95% CI 12.7-19.4%) for Garvan and 59.2% (95% CI 54.7-63.7%) for FRAX. At AUC(c) values, sensitivity was lower in African American and Hispanic women than among white women and lower in women aged 50-54 than those 60-64 years old. Observed hip fracture probabilities were similar to FRAX-predicted probabilities but greater than Garvan-predicted probabilities. At AUC(c) values (0.56 for both tools), sensitivity for identifying MOF was also low (range 26.7-46.8%). At AUC(c) values (0.55 for both tools), sensitivity for identifying any clinical fracture ranged from 18.1 to 34.0%. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women aged 50-64 years, the FRAX and Garvan fracture risk calculator discriminate poorly between women who do and do not experience fracture during 10-year follow-up. There is no useful threshold for either tool.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend fracture risk assessment in postmenopausal women aged 50-64, but the optimal method is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare discrimination and calibration of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and Garvan fracture risk calculator for predicting fractures in postmenopausal women aged 50-64 at baseline. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-three thousand seven hundred twenty-three postmenopausal women aged 50-64 years participating in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study and Clinical Trials. MAIN MEASURES: Incident hip fractures and major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) during 10-year follow-up. Calculated FRAX- and Garvan-predicted hip fracture and MOF fracture probabilities. KEY RESULTS: The observed 10-year hip fracture probability was 0.3% for women aged 50-54 years (n = 14,768), 0.6% for women aged 55-59 years (n = 22,442), and 1.1% for women aged 60-64 years (n = 25,513). At sensitivity thresholds ≥ 80%, specificity of both tools for detecting incident hip fracture during 10 years of follow-up was low: Garvan 30.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 30.3-31.0%) and FRAX 43.1% (95% CI 42.7-43.5%). At maximal area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC(c), 0.58 for Garvan, 0.65 for FRAX), sensitivity was 16.0% (95% CI 12.7-19.4%) for Garvan and 59.2% (95% CI 54.7-63.7%) for FRAX. At AUC(c) values, sensitivity was lower in African American and Hispanic women than among white women and lower in women aged 50-54 than those 60-64 years old. Observed hip fracture probabilities were similar to FRAX-predicted probabilities but greater than Garvan-predicted probabilities. At AUC(c) values (0.56 for both tools), sensitivity for identifying MOF was also low (range 26.7-46.8%). At AUC(c) values (0.55 for both tools), sensitivity for identifying any clinical fracture ranged from 18.1 to 34.0%. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women aged 50-64 years, the FRAX and Garvan fracture risk calculator discriminate poorly between women who do and do not experience fracture during 10-year follow-up. There is no useful threshold for either tool.
Authors: Mark J Bolland; Amanda Ty Siu; Barbara H Mason; Anne M Horne; Ruth W Ames; Andrew B Grey; Greg D Gamble; Ian R Reid Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Philip N Sambrook; Julie Flahive; Fred H Hooven; Steven Boonen; Roland Chapurlat; Robert Lindsay; Tuan V Nguyen; Adolfo Díez-Perez; Johannes Pfeilschifter; Susan L Greenspan; David Hosmer; J Coen Netelenbos; Jonathan D Adachi; Nelson B Watts; Cyrus Cooper; Christian Roux; Maurizio Rossini; Ethel S Siris; Stuart Silverman; Kenneth G Saag; Juliet E Compston; Andrea LaCroix; Stephen Gehlbach Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Carolyn J Crandall; Joseph C Larson; Nelson B Watts; Margaret L Gourlay; Meghan G Donaldson; Andrea LaCroix; Jane A Cauley; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Margery L Gass; John A Robbins; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Zhao Chen; Charles Kooperberg; Mary B Pettinger; Tamsen Bassford; Jane A Cauley; Andrea Z LaCroix; Cora E Lewis; Simon Kipersztok; Carolyn Borne; Rebecca D Jackson Journal: Menopause Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Luai A Ahmed; Nguyen D Nguyen; Åshild Bjørnerem; Ragnar M Joakimsen; Lone Jørgensen; Jan Størmer; Dana Bliuc; Jacqueline R Center; John A Eisman; Tuan V Nguyen; Nina Emaus Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Georgi Todorov; Susan Brook; Nicole Quah Qin Xian; Sophia Von Widekind; Bernard Freudenthal; Alexander N Comninos Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Carolyn J Crandall; Joseph Larson; Jane A Cauley; John T Schousboe; Andrea Z LaCroix; John A Robbins; Nelson B Watts; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: JBMR Plus Date: 2019-11-30
Authors: Agustín Aibar-Almazán; Ana Voltes-Martínez; Yolanda Castellote-Caballero; Diego Fernando Afanador-Restrepo; María Del Carmen Carcelén-Fraile; Elena López-Ruiz Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-08-21 Impact factor: 6.208