4.6 Article

Androgens and liver tumors: Fanconi's anemia and non-Fanconi's conditions

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 77, 期 3, 页码 257-267

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.20183

关键词

androgens; anabolic steroids; liver tumors; hepatocellular carcinomas; hepatomas; adenomas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The association between anabolic androgenic steroids and liver tumors was first noted in patients with Fanconi's anemia (FA). The hypotheses which led to this review were as follows: (1) androgen-treated individuals who do not have FA are also at risk of liver tumors; (2) parenteral as well as oral androgens may be responsible for liver tumors; (3) FA patients develop liver tumors after smaller and briefer androgen exposure than non-FA individuals; (4) the risk of hepatic neoplasms may depend on the specific androgen. Medline and Web of Science were searched for all cases of liver tumors associated with androgens. Information from individual cases was entered into a spreadsheet and descriptive statistical analyses were performed. Thirty-six FA cases and 97 non-FA cases with both nonhematologic disorders and acquired aplastic anemia (non-FA AA) were identified. The most common androgens were oxymetholone, methyltestosterone, and danazol. Hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) were more often associated with oxymetholone and methyltestosterone, while adenomas were associated with danazol. Tumors were reported in six patients who received only parenteral and not oral androgens. FA patients were younger than non-FA patients when androgen use was initiated, and the FA patients developed tumors at younger ages. Non-AA patients were treated with androgens for longer periods of time, compared with FA and non-FA AA patients. All patients on anabolic androgenic steroids are at risk of liver tumors, regardless of underlying diagnosis. The magnitude of the risk cannot be determined from currently available ata, because the number of patients receiving androgens is unknown. Published 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.(dagger)

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

4.6
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