4.5 Article

Bone complications among prostate cancer survivors: long-term follow-up from the prostate cancer outcomes study

期刊

PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 338-342

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2014.31

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda [R01-CA114524]
  2. [N01-PC-67007]
  3. [N01-PC-67009]
  4. [N01-PC-67010]
  5. [N01-PC-67006]
  6. [N01-PC-67005]
  7. [N01-PC-67000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: To assess the relationship between androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) exposure and self-reported bone complications among men in a population-based cohort of prostate cancer survivors followed for 15 years after diagnosis. METHODS: The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study enrolled 3533 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1994 and 1995. This analysis included participants with non-metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis who completed 15-year follow-up surveys to report development of fracture, and use of bone-related medications. The relationship between ADT duration and bone complications was assessed using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among 961 surviving men, 157 (16.3%) received prolonged ADT (>1 year), 120 (12.5%) received short-term ADT (<= 1 year) and 684 (71.2%) did not receive ADT. Men receiving prolonged ADT had higher odds of fracture (OR 2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1-5.7), bone mineral density testing (OR 5.9; 95% CI: 3.0-12) and bone medication use (OR 4.3; 95% CI: 2.3-8.0) than untreated men. Men receiving short-term ADT reported rates of fracture similar to untreated men. Half of men treated with prolonged ADT reported bone medication use. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based cohort study with long-term follow-up, prolonged ADT use was associated with substantial risks of fracture, whereas short-term use was not. This information should be considered when weighing the advantages and disadvantages of ADT in men with prostate cancer.

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

4.5
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