Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Osteoporosis Diagnosis in Men: The T-Score Controversy Revisited

  • Therapeutics and Medical Management (E Shane and RA Adler, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Osteoporosis Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Osteoporosis becomes common with aging in both sexes, but is often ignored in men. The 2013 International Society for Clinical Densitometry consensus conference endorsed a Caucasian female referent database for T-score calculation in men. This recommendation has generated controversy and concern. Accumulating data indicate that at the same DXA-measured body mineral density (BMD) (g/cm2), men and women are at approximately the same fracture risk. With this point in mind, using the same database to derive the T-score in men and women is reasonable. As a result, a greater proportion of men who sustain a fragility fracture will have T-scores that are higher than they would if a male database were used; in fact, many men will fracture at T-scores that are “normal.” This highlights the importance of diagnosing osteoporosis not just by T-score, but also by the presence of fragility fracture and/or by estimations of fracture risk as generated by tools such as the FRAX calculator. The practical consequences of this change in densitometric definition of osteoporosis in men should be monitored, including the proportion of men at risk identified and treated as well as defining the response to treatment in those assessed by this more comprehensive approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Anonymous. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis and therapy NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis and Therapy. JAMA. 2001;285:785–95.

  2. Cooper C, Melton LJ. Epidemiology of osteoporosis. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 1992;3:224–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bliuc D, Nguyen ND, Milch VE, et al. Mortality risk associated with low-trauma osteoporotic fracture and subsequent fracture in men and women. JAMA. 2009;301:513–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Watts NB, Adler RA, Bilezikian JP, et al. Osteoporosis in men: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:1802–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Amin S, Achenbach SJ, Atkinson EJ, et al. Trends in fracture incidence: a population-based study over 20 years. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29:581–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cooper C, Cole ZA, Holroyd CR, et al. Secular trends in the incidence of hip and other osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:1277–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, et al. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:465–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Watts NB. Osteoporosis in men. Endocr Pract. 2013;19:834–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Orwoll ES, Ettinger M, Weiss S, et al. Alendronate for the treatment of osteoporosis in men. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:604–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Boonen S, Reginster JY, Kaufman JM, et al. Fracture risk and zoledronic acid therapy in men with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1714–23. This is the first therapeutic study in men with fracture as the primary outcome. Zoledronic acid reduced morphometric vertebral fractures in men, compared with placebo.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Solomon DH, Johnston SS, Boytsov NN, et al. Osteoporosis medication use after hip fracture in U.S. patients between 2002 and 2011. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29(9):1929-1937

  12. Watts NB, Leslie WD, Foldes AJ, et al. 2013 International Society for Clinical Densitometry Position Development Conference: Task Force on Normative Databases. J Clin Densitom. 2013;16:472–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Faulkner KG. The tale of the T-score: review and perspective. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:347–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Anonymous. Assessment of Fracture Risk and its Application to Screening for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis WHO Technical Report Series 843. World Health Organization. 1994.

  15. Watts NB. Using bone mineral density T-scores to diagnose postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr Pract. 2000;6:217–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Faulkner KG, Roberts LA, McClung MR. Discrepancies in normative data between Lunar and Hologic DXA systems. Osteoporos Int. 1996;6:432–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Steiger P. Letter to the editor standardization of spine BMD measurements. J Bone Miner Res. 1995;10:1602–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hanson J. Letter to the editor; standardization of femur BMD. J Bone Miner Res. 1997;8:1316–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Binkley N, Schmeer P, Wasnich RD, et al. What are the criteria by which a densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis can be made in males and non-Caucasians? J Clin Densitom. 2002;5(Suppl):S19–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kanis JA, Bianchi G, Bilezikian JP, et al. Towards a diagnostic and therapeutic consensus in male osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:2789–98.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Hans PDD, Downs RW, Duboeuf F, et al. Skeletal sites for osteoporosis diagnosis: The 2005 ISCD Official Positions. J Clin Densitom. 2006;9:15–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ross PD, Lombardi A, Freedholm D. The assessment of bone mass in men. In: Orwoll ES, editor. Osteoporosis in men: The effects of gender on skeletal health. San Diego: Academic Press; 1999. p. 505–25.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. De Laet CEDH, Van Hout BA, Burger H, et al. Hip fracture prediction in elderly men and women: validation in the Rotterdam study. J Bone Miner Res. 1998;13:1587–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cheng S, Suominen H, Sakari-Rantala R, et al. Calcaneal bone mineral density predicts fracture occurrence: a five-year follow-up study in elderly people. J Bone Miner Res. 1997;12:1075–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. De Laet CE, van Hout BA, Burger H, et al. Bone density and risk of hip fracture in men and women: cross sectional analysis. Br Med J. 1997;315:221–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. The EuropeanProspective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS) Group Authors. The relationship between bone density and incident vertebral fracture in men and women. J Bone Miner Res. 2002;17:2214–21.

  27. Langsetmo L, Leslie WD, Zhou W, et al. Using the same bone density reference database for men and women provides a simpler estimation of fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25:2108–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Leslie WD, Langsetmo L, Zhou W, et al. Choice of lumbar spine bone density reference database for fracture prediction in men and women: a population-based analysis. J Clin Densitom. 2014;17:295–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Selby PL, Davies M, Adams JE. Do men and women fracture bones at similar bone densities? Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:153–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Cauley JA, Zmuda JM, Wisniewski SR, et al. Bone mineral density and prevalent vertebral fractures in men and women. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15:32–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Riggs BL, Melton LJI, Robb RA, et al. Population-based study of age and sex differences in bone volumetric density, size, geometry and structure at different skeletal sites. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:1945–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gilsanz V, Boechat MI, Gilsanz R, et al. Gender differences in vertebral sizes in adults: biomechanical implications. Radiology. 1994;190:678–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Looker AC, Beck TJ, Orwoll ES. Does body size account for gender differences in femur bone density and geometry? J Bone Miner Res. 2001;16:1291–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Srinivasan B, Kopperdahl DL, Amin S, et al. Relationship of femoral neck areal bone mineral density to volumetric bone mineral density, bone size, and femoral strength in men and women. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:155–62. This study provided information on bone strength, supporting the concept that men and women fracture at approximately the same absolute bone mineral density as measured by DXA.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Pasco JA, Lane SE, Brennan SL, et al. Fracture risk among older men: osteopenia and osteoporosis defined using cut-points derived from female versus male reference data. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25:857–62. In this study, men who had osteoporotic fractures were likely to have normal bone density by DXA if a female normative database was used for T-score calculation, illustrating a potential practical problem.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wiemann L, Krueger D, Vallarta-Ast N, et al. Effect of female database use for T-score derivation in men. J Clin Densitom. 2006;10:244–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schousboe JT, Tanner SB, Leslie WD. Definition of osteoporosis by bone density criteria in men: effect of using female instead of male young reference data depends on skeletal site and densitometer manufacturer. J Clin Densitom. 2014;17:301–6. This is a review of the rationale for using a Caucasian female normative database for determining the DXA T-score in men.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Siris ES, Boonen S, Mitchell PJ, et al. What's in a name? What constitutes the clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis? Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:2093–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Siris ES, Adler R, Bilezikian J, et al. The clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis: a position statement from the National Bone Health Alliance Working Group. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25:1439–43. This paper provides the rationale for making the diagnosis of osteoporosis in patients who may not have a DXA T-score ≤ -2.5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Papaioannou A, Morin S, Cheung AM, et al. 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182:1864–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Compston J, Bowring C, Cooper A, et al. Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men in the UK: National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) update; 2013. Maturitas. 2013;75:392–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, et al. European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24:23–57.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Kanis JA, Adams J, Borgstrom F, et al. The cost-effectiveness of alendronate in the management of osteoporosis. Bone. 2008;42:4–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Adler RA. Osteoporosis in men: recent progress. Endocrine. 2013;44:40–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Smith MR, Egerdie B, Hernandez Toriz N, et al. Denosumab in men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:745–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Studenski SA, Peters KW, Alley DE, et al. The FNIH Sarcopenia Project: rationale, study description, conference recommendations, and final estimates. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014;69:547–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Di Monaco M, Castiglione C, Vallero F, et al. Sarcopenia is more prevalent in men than in women after hip fracture: a cross-sectional study of 591 inpatients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012;55:e48–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Buehring B, Binkley N. Myostatin—the holy grail for muscle, bone, and fat? Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2013;11:407–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

N. Binkley has received consultancy fees or funding from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, and Amgen.

R. Adler and J. P. Bilezikian declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

All studies by the authors involving animal and/or human subjects were performed after approval by the appropriate institutional review boards. When required, written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin Osteoporosis Clinical Research Program, 2870 University Avenue, Suite 100, Madison, WI, 53705, USA

    Neil Binkley

  2. Endocrinology Section, McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 1201 Broad Rock Boulevard, Richmond, VA, 23249, USA

    Robert Adler

  3. Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, 630 W. 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032, USA

    John P. Bilezikian

Authors
  1. Neil Binkley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Adler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John P. Bilezikian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Binkley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Binkley, N., Adler, R. & Bilezikian, J.P. Osteoporosis Diagnosis in Men: The T-Score Controversy Revisited. Curr Osteoporos Rep 12, 403–409 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-014-0242-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-014-0242-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation