4.4 Article

Young patients with hematologic and lymphatic malignancies have an increased risk of hip and knee arthroplasty

期刊

ACTA ONCOLOGICA
卷 55, 期 5, 页码 567-571

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2015.1119884

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Nona and Kullervo Vare Foundation
  2. Alma and K.A. Snellman Foundation
  3. Finnish Medical Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Skeletal complications such as osteonecrosis (ON) are potential adverse events in patients treated for cancer, especially in those treated for hematologic and lymphatic malignancies (HLMs). ON may damage the hip or knee joints and may lead to arthrosis requiring total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The aim of this study was to address the risk of TJA in patients with cancer, especially those treated for HLM, in a nationwide population-based setting.Material and methods All patients who had undergone TJA after cancer diagnosis between the years 2000 and 2012 were identified by linking the Arthroplasty Register and the Cancer Registry. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of TJAs were calculated to assess whether patients with any cancer, but especially HLM, have increased risk for TJA when compared with the general population.Results In patients with HLM or other cancer, the overall SIRs were similar compared with the general population. However, in HLM patients under 50 years of age, the SIR was 7.6, and in patients under 35 years of age, it was 45.5. The corresponding SIRs in patients with other cancers were 3.6 and 6.6, respectively. The highest SIRs, including all age groups, were among patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (SIR=4.5) and acute myeloid leukemia (SIR=1.9).Discussion HLMs imply an increased risk for TJA compared with the general population. The risk is especially high in patients younger than 50 years, regardless of the type of HLM. Young patients with HLM, as well as their healthcare providers, should be aware of the highly increased risk of skeletal complications requiring TJA.

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

4.4
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