4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with multiple myeloma and breast or prostate cancer on intravenous bisphosphonate therapy

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 65, 期 7, 页码 1328-1331

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.03.006

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) has been observed recently in patients with cancer who are receiving intravenous bisphosphonate (BP) therapy. The incidence of BP-associated ONJ has not been wen established. The purpose of this study wits to determine the incidence of ONJ in a cohort of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), breast cancer (BC), or prostate cancer (PC) who were receiving BP therapy. Patients and Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed. Medical record numbers were identified by ICD-9 codes: 203.0, 203.01, 174.9, and 185.0 for active MM, MM in remission, BC, and PC, respectively. Patients were included if they were evaluated and/or treated between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2005, and had received zoledronic acid and/or pamidronate. Patients were excluded if they had a history of radiation therapy to the jaws or of tumors or cysts. ONJ was defined as clinical evidence of exposed necrotic bone in the mouth. Results: Through evaluation of 1,086 patient medical records, it was determined that 447 subjects met the inclusion criteria: 11 of 292 patients with MM (3.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6%, 6.0%) had ONJ, as did 2.5% of 81 patients with BC (0%, 6.9%) and 2.9% of 69 patients with PC (0%, 5.9%). Conclusion: The incidence of ONJ associated with intravenous BPs was at least 3.8 per 100 patients with MM, 2.5 per 100 patients with BC, and 2.9 per 100 patients with PC during the 5-year study period. The next phase of this study involves assessment of risk factors that differentiate these patients from those treated with BPs who do not develop ONJ. (c) 2007 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

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

4.1
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