4.7 Article

Assessment of fracture risk in women with breast cancer using current vs emerging guidelines

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 102, Issue 4, Pages 645-650

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605548

Keywords

bone mineral density (BMD); breast cancer; risk factors; fracture risk; guidelines; bone loss

Categories

Funding

  1. Amgen
  2. AstraZeneca
  3. Eli Lilly
  4. GlaxoSmithKline
  5. Novartis
  6. Novo Nordisk
  7. Organon
  8. Pfizer
  9. Procter Gamble
  10. Roche
  11. Sanofi-Aventis
  12. Solvay
  13. Wyeth

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) therapies can have negative effects on bone. Current guidelines recommend antiresorptive therapy based on bone mineral density (BMD), and emerging guidelines include both clinical risk factors and BMD to assess the overall fracture risk. A retrospective, case-controlled study based on current and emerging guidelines was conducted in women with newly diagnosed BC to identify those who were at increased fracture risk based on current and emerging guidelines. METHODS: Baseline characteristics, fracture risk factors, and lumbar-spine (LS) and total-hip BMD in women with BC (88 premenopausal and 402 postmenopausal) were assessed to determine who would receive bisphosphonate therapy based on current and emerging guidelines. RESULTS: Among patients with estrogen-receptor-positive (ER+) BC, 18.8% of premenopausal and 36.9% of postmenopausal women were osteopenic at LS. In the postmenopausal cohort, osteoporosis was more prevalent in patients with ER+ vs ER- BC. Current guidelines identified 8.9% of patients as eligible for antiresorptive therapy, clinical risk factors alone identified 6.5%, and BMD plus clinical risk factors identified 28.6%. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to fracture risk factors present at BC diagnosis, cancer therapies leading to BMD loss further increase fracture risk. Evaluating both BMD and clinical risk factors may allow more effective identification of BC patients with elevated fracture risk. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 102, 645-650. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605548 www.bjcancer.com Published online 19 January 2010 (C) 2010 Cancer Research UK

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