P002 A comparison between radiologically reported osteopenia and the FRAX score as an indication for bone densitometry

Abstract

Abstract Background/Aims Osteopenia is defined as a bone mineral density score between -1 and -2.5 standard deviations compared to a young adult reference mean (T-score) based on dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Radiologists continue to use the term in a generic and qualitative manner to mean decreased bone mineral density, but they cannot distinguish between osteopenia and osteoporosis which means patients then go on to have a DXA. We would like to see if a FRAX (fracture risk assessment tool) can safely replace osteopenia as an indication for a DXA. Methods We retrospectively identified 2276 patients to have had a DXA scan from October 2022 to March 2023 according to the departmental database. Their referral forms were obtained from the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). Out of these, 150 patients were referred with a sole indication being radiologically reported osteopenia. Out of 150 patients, 22 were excluded as they were found to have other indications not reported on their referral from and seven more were excluded as three had bilateral hip replacement, three were below 40 and one was undergoing gender reassignment and was on oestrogen. The remaining 121 patients were included in the study and their post BMD ( bone mineral density) FRAX score was obtained from patient EMR. Pre BMD FRAX was also calculated using clinical information available on patient’s EMR retrospectively. NOGG ( National Osteoporosis Guideline Group) recommendation of treatment based on the fracture risk as per the FRAX were then compared between pre and post BMD retrospectively to see if there would be any change in treatment plan. Results Of total 121 patients included, 94 were female. Mean age was 68 years. Retrospective review of the case notes revealed that using a FRAX with BMD, total 34 (28.1%) patients needed treatment for osteoporosis while 87 (71.9%) did not. Of 87 patients not requiring treatment, 55 would not have received DXA scan if FRAX assessment was done without BMD. Of the 34 who did need treatment, 32 would still be recommended for a DXA while only two patients wouldn’t. However, these two patients had other clinical indications for osteoporosis assessment and would still have required a specialist referral such that a decision can be made about DXA. Conclusion If radiologically reported osteopenia as an indication for a DXA is replaced by FRAX, DXA would not be needed in nearly half of the patients. This will have potential to save scarce DXA resource without compromising patient safety, treatment plan, and will reduce waiting times. Disclosure S. Srinivas: None. K. Hood: None. H. Sapkota: None.