4.7 Article

Sonographic and Electrodiagnostic Evaluations in Patients With Aromatase Inhibitor-Related Arthralgia

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 30, 页码 4955-4960

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.5435

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To investigate the prevalence of arthralgia in breast cancer patients taking aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and perform a detailed rheumatologic assessment including autoimmune serology, musculoskeletal sonography, and electromyography (EMG) in these patients. Patients and Methods Postmenopausal patients with stage I to III breast cancer who were taking adjuvant AIs were enrolled (n = 92). Patients who were not receiving hormone treatment were included as a control group (n = 28). Musculoskeletal sonography and EMG were applied to the patients and the controls along with markers of autoimmunity. Results Thirty patients (32.6%) reported to have AI-related new-onset or worsening arthralgia. The most commonly affected joints were knee (70%), wrist (70%), and small joints of the hand (63%). Patients taking AIs had increased tendon thicknesses compared with those who never received AIs (P < .001). Patients with AI-related arthralgia had higher rates of effusion in hand joints/tendons than those without arthralgia (P < .033). More patients with AI-related arthralgia had EMG findings consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) than those without arthralgia (P < .024). No significant difference was observed in erythrocyte sedimentation rates, C-reactive protein, antinuclear antibody, antidouble stranded DNA antibody, rheumatoid factor, or anticyclic citrullinated peptide levels between patients and controls or between those with and without arthralgia. Conclusion Patients with AI-related arthralgia often show tenosynovial changes suggesting tenosynovitis, exerting local problems but lacking a systemic inflammatory component. Our finding of increased CTS frequency also supports this hypothesis.

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