Increased cortical porosity has been suggested as a possible factor increasing fracture propensity in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This is a paradox because cortical porosity is generally associated with high bone turnover, while bone turnover is reduced in patients with T2DM. We therefore wanted to test the hypothesis that women with T2DM have lower bone turnover markers (BTM) and lower cortical porosity than those without diabetes, and that higher serum glucose and body mass index (BMI) are associated with lower BTM, and with lower cortical porosity. Increasing glucose and BMI were associated with lower bone turnover suggesting that reduced intracortical and endocortical remodeling leads to reduced porosity and thicker cortices. Using low-resolution clinical CT, cortical porosity was lower in women with T2DM compared to 3 women without diabetes. This indicates that other changes in bone qualities, not increased cortical porosity, are likely to explain the increased fracture propensity in patients with T2DM.

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and Garvan Calculator have improved the individual prediction of fracture risk. However, additional bone measurements that might enhance the predictive ability of these tools are the subject of research. There is increasing interest in cortical parameters, especially cortical porosity. Neither FRAX nor Garvan include measurements of cortical architecture, important for bone strength, and providing independent information beyond the conventional approaches. We tested the hypothesis that cortical parameters are associated with fracture risk, independent of FRAX and Garvan estimates. This nested case-control study included 211 postmenopausal women aged 54–94 years with nonvertebral fractures, and 232 controls from the Tromsø Study in Norway. We assessed FRAX and Garvan 10-year risk estimates for fragility fracture, and quantified femoral subtrochanteric cortical porosity, thickness, and area from computed tomography images using StrAx1.0 software. Per standard deviation higher cortical porosity, thinner cortices, and smaller cortical area, the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for fracture was 1.71 (1.38–2.11), 1.79 (1.44–2.23), and 1.52 (1.19–1.95), respectively. Cortical porosity and thickness, but not area, remained associated with fracture when adjusted for FRAX and Garvan estimates. Adding cortical porosity and thickness to FRAX or Garvan resulted in greater area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. When using cortical porosity (>80th percentile) or cortical thickness (<20th percentile) combined with FRAX (threshold >20%), 45.5% and 42.7% of fracture cases were identified, respectively. Using the same cutoffs for cortical porosity or thickness combined with Garvan (threshold >25%), 51.2% and 48.3% were identified, respectively. Specificity for all combinations ranged from 81.0–83.6%. Measurement of cortical porosity or thickness identified 20.4% and 17.5% additional fracture cases that, were unidentified using FRAX alone, and 16.6% and 13.7% fracture cases unidentified using Garvan alone. In conclusion, cortical parameters may help to improve identification of women at risk for fracture.

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) is widely used to identify individuals at increased risk for fracture. However, cortical porosity is associated with risk for fracture independent of FRAX and is reported to improve the net reclassification of fracture cases. We wanted to test the hypothesis that women with fracture who are unidentified by high FRAX score, but identified by high cortical porosity, have a set of characteristics that contribute to their fracture risk beyond high FRAX score and high cortical porosity. We quantified FRAX score with femoral neck areal bone mineral density (FN aBMD), and femoral subtrochanteric architecture, in 211 postmenopausal women aged 54-94 years with non-vertebral fractures, and 232 fracture-free controls in Tromsø, Norway, using StrAx software. Of 211 fracture cases, FRAX score > 20% identified 53 women (sensitivity 25.1% and specificity 93.5%), while cortical porosity cut-off > 80th percentile identified 61 women (sensitivity 28.9% and specificity 87.9%). The 43 (20.4%) additional fracture cases identified by high cortical porosity alone, had lower FRAX score (12.3 vs. 26.2%) than those identified by FRAX alone, they were younger, had higher FN aBMD (806 vs. 738 mg/cm), and fewer had a prior fracture (23.3 vs. 62.9%), all p < 0.05. They had higher cortical porosity (48.7 vs. 42.1%), thinner cortices (3.75 vs. 4.12 mm), lower cortical and total volumetric BMD (942 vs. 1053 and 586 vs. 699 mg HA/cm), larger medullary and total cross-sectional areas (245 vs. 190 and 669 vs. 593 mm), and higher cross-sectional moment of inertia (2619 vs. 2388 cm) all p < 0.001. When the fracture cases and controls with high cortical porosity were compared, cases had higher cortical porosity, lower cortical vBMD, lower total vBMD, smaller cortical CSA/Total CSA, larger medullary CSA and larger total CSA than controls (all p ≤ 0.05). Thus, fracture cases, unidentified by FRAX, but identified by cortical porosity, had an architecture where the positive impact of larger bone size did not offset the negative effect of thinner cortices with increased porosity. A measurement of cortical porosity may be a marker of other characteristics that capture additional fracture risk components, not captured by FRAX.