4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Bone mineral density among premenopausal women with early breast cancer in a randomized trial of adjuvant endocrine therapy

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 18, Pages 3694-3699

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.148

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To examine the effects on bone mineral density of 2 years of treatment with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist alone or in combination with tamoxifen or tamoxifen alone in premenopausal breast cancer. Patients and Methods We recruited 89 women from two centers in Stockholm participating in a randomized multicenter trial of three different endocrine approaches in the adjuvant setting (Zoladex in Premenopausal Patients Trial). The women were assigned to receive the LHRH agonist goserelin with or without tamoxifen, tamoxifen alone, or no endocrine therapy. The treatment was given for 2 years. We measured total-body bone density before start of treatment and at 12, 24, and 36 months. Results After 2 years of treatment, there was a significant loss of bone mineral density (mean change, -5%- P < .001) in the women receiving goserelin alone. The combined goserelin and tamoxifen treatment, as well as tamoxifen alone, resulted in a lesser but statistically significant decline in bone mineral density (mean change, -1.4%; P = .02; and -1.5%; P < .001). One year after cessation of treatment, the goserelin group alone showed a partial recovery from bone loss (mean change, 1.5%; P = .02). Conclusion Two years of ovarian ablation from goserelin treatment caused a significant reduction in bone mineral density but there was a partial recovery from the bone loss 1 year after cessation of treatment. The addition of tamoxifen seems to partially counteract the demineralizing effects of goserelin. (C) 2004 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available