Search

Bone is commonly affected in cancer. Cancer-induced bone disease results from the primary disease, or from therapies against the primary condition, causing bone fragility. Bone-modifying agents, such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, are efficacious in preventing and delaying cancer-related bone disease. With evidence-based care pathways, guidelines assist physicians in clinical decision-making. Of the 57 million deaths in 2008 worldwide, almost two thirds were due to non-communicable diseases, led by cardiovascular diseases and cancers. Bone is a commonly affected organ in cancer, and although the incidence of metastatic bone disease is not well defined, it is estimated that around half of patients who die from cancer in the USA each year have bone involvement. Furthermore, cancer-induced bone disease can result from the primary disease itself, either due to circulating bone resorbing substances or metastatic bone disease, such as commonly occurs with breast, lung and prostate cancer, or from therapies administered to treat the primary condition thus causing bone loss and fractures. Treatment-induced osteoporosis may occur in the setting of glucocorticoid therapy or oestrogen deprivation therapy, chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure and androgen deprivation therapy. Tumour skeletal-related events include pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to bone and may or may not include hypercalcaemia of malignancy while skeletal complication refers to pain and other symptoms. Some evidence demonstrates the efficacy of various interventions including bone-modifying agents, such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, in preventing or delaying cancer-related bone disease. The latter includes treatment of patients with metastatic skeletal lesions in general, adjuvant treatment of breast and prostate cancer in particular, and the prevention of cancer-associated bone disease. This has led to the development of guidelines by several societies and workin

The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) convened the FRAX® Position Development Conference (PDC) in Bucharest, Romania, on November 14, 2010, following a two-day joint meeting of the ISCD and IOF on the "Interpretation and Use of FRAX® in Clinical Practice." These three days of critical discussion and debate, led by a panel of international experts from the ISCD, IOF and dedicated task forces, have clarified a number of important issues pertaining to the interpretation and implementation of FRAX® in clinical practice. The Official Positions resulting from the PDC are intended to enhance the quality and clinical utility of fracture risk assessment worldwide. Since the field of skeletal assessment is still evolving rapidly, some clinically important issues addressed at the PDCs are not associated with robust medical evidence. Accordingly, some Official Positions are based largely on expert opinion. Despite limitations inherent in such a process, the ISCD and IOF believe it is important to provide clinicians and technologists with the best distillation of current knowledge in the discipline of bone densitometry and provide an important focus for the scientific community to consider. This report describes the methodology and results of the ISCD-IOF PDC dedicated to FRAX®. © 2011 The International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

Osteoporosis is a serious worldwide epidemic. Increased risk of fractures is the hallmark of the disease and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and economic burden.FRAX® is a web-based tool developed by the Sheffield WHO Collaborating Center team, that integrates clinical risk factors, femoral neck BMD, country specific mortality and fracture data and calculates the 10 year fracture probability in order to help health care professionals identify patients who need treatment. However, only 31 countries have a FRAX® calculator at the time paper was accepted for publication. In the absence of a FRAX® model for a particular country, it has been suggested to use a surrogate country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates the index country. More specific recommendations for clinicians in these countries are not available.In North America, concerns have also been raised regarding the assumptions used to construct the US ethnic specific FRAX® calculators with respect to the correction factors applied to derive fracture probabilities in Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in comparison to Whites. In addition, questions were raised about calculating fracture risk in other ethnic groups e.g., Native Americans and First Canadians.In order to provide additional guidance to clinicians, a FRAX® International Task Force was formed to address specific questions raised by physicians in countries without FRAX® calculators and seeking to integrate FRAX® into their clinical practice. The main questions that the task force tried to answer were the following:1.What is the evidence supporting ethnic and sex specific adjustments for fracture incidence rates in Blacks, Hispanics and Asians-2.What data exist for other groups, e.g., Native Americans, First Nations Canadians-3.Are there secular changes in fracture rates-4.What are the requirements for the construction of a FRAX® calculator? And what are the desirable/optimal characteristics of the data-5.What

Summary: The introduction of the WHO FRAX® algorithms has facilitated the assessment of fracture risk on the basis of fracture probability. Its use in fracture risk prediction has strengths, but also limitations of which the clinician should be aware and are the focus of this review Introduction: The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) appointed a joint Task Force to develop resource documents in order to make recommendations on how to improve FRAX and better inform clinicians who use FRAX. The Task Force met in November 2010 for 3 days to discuss these topics which form the focus of this review. Methods: This study reviews the resource documents and joint position statements of ISCD and IOF. Results: Details on the clinical risk factors currently used in FRAX are provided, and the reasons for the exclusion of others are provided. Recommendations are made for the development of surrogate models where country-specific FRAX models are not available. Conclusions: The wish list of clinicians for the modulation of FRAX is large, but in many instances, these wishes cannot presently be fulfilled; however, an explanation and understanding of the reasons may be helpful in translating the information provided by FRAX into clinical practice. © 2011 International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation.