Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Contact
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Contact
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Follow SNMMI on Twitter
  • Visit SNMMI on Facebook
Review ArticleContinuing Education

Bone Mineral Density: Clinical Relevance and Quantitative Assessment

Katherine N. Haseltine, Tariq Chukir, Pinar J. Smith, Justin T. Jacob, John P. Bilezikian and Azeez Farooki
Journal of Nuclear Medicine April 2021, 62 (4) 446-454; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.256180
Katherine N. Haseltine
1Endocrinology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tariq Chukir
1Endocrinology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pinar J. Smith
2Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Disease, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Justin T. Jacob
3Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John P. Bilezikian
4Division of Endocrinology, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Azeez Farooki
1Endocrinology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Bone mineral density (BMD) measurement by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is an internationally accepted standard-of-care screening tool used to assess fragility-fracture risk. Society guidelines have recommended which populations may benefit from DXA screening and the use of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) to guide decisions regarding pharmacologic treatment for osteoporosis. According to the U.S. National Osteoporosis Foundation guidelines, postmenopausal women and men at least 50 y old with osteopenic BMD warrant pharmacologic treatment if they have a FRAX-calculated 10-y probability of at least 3% for hip fracture or at least 20% for major osteoporotic fracture. Patients with osteoporosis defined by a clinical event, namely a fragility fracture, or with an osteoporotic BMD should also be treated. Patients who are treated for osteoporosis should be monitored regularly to track expected gains in BMD by serial DXA scans. With some drug therapies, BMD targets can be reached whereby further improvements in BMD are not associated with further reductions in fracture risk. Although reaching this target might suggest a stopping point for therapy, the reversibility of most treatments for osteoporosis, except for the bisphosphonates, has dampened enthusiasm for this approach. In the case of denosumab, it is now apparent that stopping therapy at any point can lead to an increase in multiple-fracture risk. For patients who do not respond to antiosteoporosis pharmacologic therapy with an improvement in BMD, or who have an incident fragility fracture on therapy, secondary causes of osteoporosis or non-compliance with medical therapy should be considered.

  • bone mineral density
  • DXA
  • fracture risk
  • osteoporosis
  • FRAX

Footnotes

  • Published online Dec. 11, 2020.

  • Learning Objectives: On successful completion of this activity, participants should be able to describe (1) the benefits and limitations of evaluating bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and FRAX to assess fracture risk; (2) the uses of various pharmacologic therapies available for the treatment of osteoporosis; and (3) the process of monitoring and ensuring patient response to osteoporosis therapy.

  • Financial Disclosure: Dr. Farooki has received consulting fees from Amgen and has been an Amgen advisory board member. Dr. Bilezikian has received consulting fees from Radius and Amgen. This work was supported in part by NIH/NCI Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center support grant P30 CA008748. The authors of this article have indicated no other relevant relationships that could be perceived as a real or apparent conflict of interest.

  • CME Credit: SNMMI is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to sponsor continuing education for physicians. SNMMI designates each JNM continuing education article for a maximum of 2.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits. Physicians should claim only credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. For CE credit, SAM, and other credit types, participants can access this activity through the SNMMI website (http://www.snmmilearningcenter.org) through April 2024.

  • © 2021 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 62 (4)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 62, Issue 4
April 1, 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Bone Mineral Density: Clinical Relevance and Quantitative Assessment
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Bone Mineral Density: Clinical Relevance and Quantitative Assessment
Katherine N. Haseltine, Tariq Chukir, Pinar J. Smith, Justin T. Jacob, John P. Bilezikian, Azeez Farooki
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Apr 2021, 62 (4) 446-454; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.256180

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Bone Mineral Density: Clinical Relevance and Quantitative Assessment
Katherine N. Haseltine, Tariq Chukir, Pinar J. Smith, Justin T. Jacob, John P. Bilezikian, Azeez Farooki
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Apr 2021, 62 (4) 446-454; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.256180
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • DXA: THE GOLD STANDARD FOR ASSESSING FRACTURE RISK
    • DXA SCANNING IN SPECIAL POPULATIONS
    • DXA INTERPRETATION AND POSITIONING
    • INDICATIONS FOR TREATMENT BASED ON BMD
    • TREATMENT OPTIONS
    • RESPONSE TO THERAPY
    • CONCLUSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The Role of Nuclear Medicine in the Clinical Management of Benign Thyroid Disorders, Part 1: Hyperthyroidism
  • Quantitative clinical nuclear cardiology, part 2: Evolving/emerging applications
Show more Continuing Education

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • bone mineral density
  • DXA
  • fracture risk
  • osteoporosis
  • FRAX
SNMMI

© 2021 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire