4.7 Article

Long-Term Safety of Growth Hormone Replacement after CNS Irradiation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 96, 期 9, 页码 2756-2761

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2011-0112

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Radiotherapy is a central component in the treatment of many brain tumors, but long-term sequelae include GH deficiency and increased risk of secondary neoplasms. It is unclear whether replacement therapy with GH (GHRT) further increases this risk. Objective: The objective of the study was to assess the effect of GHRT on the incidence of secondary tumors and tumor recurrence after cranial irradiation. Design and Setting: We conducted a retrospective matched-pairs analysis of previously irradiated patients, with and without GHRT, attending a tertiary center between 1994 and 2009. Patients: We reviewed the records for all patients undergoing GHRT at our institution over the study period. Patients were included if they had received cranial irradiation, GHRT for at least 12 months, and records of serial magnetic resonance imaging data and data for dose and fractionation of irradiation were available. GH-naive control patients were selected from a radiotherapy database of patients attending the same hospital. Patients were matched for date of radiotherapy, age, site of primary diagnosis, radiation dose, and fractionation. Main Outcome Measure: The primary outcome measure was risk of tumor recurrence or secondary tumor. Results: Matched controls were identified for 110 GH-treated patients. Median follow-up was 14.5 yr. No significant differences were apparent in the number of tumor recurrences (six vs. eight, GHRT vs. control group) or secondary tumors (five vs. three, respectively) between groups. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates no increased risk for recurrent or secondary neoplasms in patients receiving GHRT, thus supporting a high safety profile of GHRT after central nervous system irradiation. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96: 2756-2761, 2011)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据