4.7 Article

Osteoporosis treatment and 10 years' oestrogen receptor plus breast cancer outcome in postmenopausal women treated with aromatase inhibitors

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 101, 期 -, 页码 87-94

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.06.028

关键词

Breast cancer; Osteoporosis; Bisphosphonates; Vitamin D

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Risk factors for breast cancer relapse are well-known, such as large tumour size or lymph node involvement. The aim of our study was to analyse the influence of bone mineral density, fractures and bisphosphonate or vitamin D prescription on 10 years' breast cancer outcome. Patients and methods: This is a longitudinal and prospective cohort of 450 postmenopausal women with local oestrogen receptor (ER) + breast cancer. For every patient, we analysed tumour characteristics, bone status at the beginning of aromatase inhibitor treatment and 10 years' cancer outcome with Cox model. Results: Mean follow-up was 10.3 +/- 3.0 years. Seventy nine women died, and 75 had a relapse; 30.7% had a history of fracture, 16.9% had a T-score <= -2.5 and 11.3% had vitamin D deficiency. Bisphosphonates were prescribed to 35.3% women for osteoporosis for a mean duration of 5 +/- 1.7 years. Tumour size (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, P <= 0.01) and the number of lymph nodes involved (HR = 1.07, P = 0.03) were significantly associated with relapse. Bisphosphonate treatment was significantly associated with a decreased risk of relapse (HR = 0.51, P = 0.03). Age at cancer diagnosis (HR = 1.07, P <= 0.01) and vitamin D deficiency (HR = 1.85, P = 0.04) were significantly associated with an increased risk of death, whereas bisphosphonate treatment was associated with a decreased risk of death (HR = 0.46, P = 0.01). Conclusion: Osteoporosis treatment, including vitamin D and bisphosphonates, is associated with a 50% reduction of relapse and death in women treated with aromatase inhibitors for ER+ breast cancer. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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