4.5 Article

Bone mineral density in premenopausal women treated for node-positive early breast cancer with 2 years of goserelin or 6 months of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF)

期刊

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
卷 14, 期 12, 页码 1001-1006

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-003-1508-y

关键词

bone mineral density; goserelin; node-positive early breast cancer; premenopausal; ZEBRA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to compare changes in bone mineral density (BMD) in premenopausal patients with node-positive early breast cancer treated with goserelin (Zoladex) or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF). Patients (n=1640) were randomized to goserelin (3.6 mg every 28 days for 2 years) or CMF (sixx28-day cycles) treatment. In a protocoled sub-study involving 96 patients from eight centers (goserelin: n=53; CMF: n=43), lumbar spine (L2-L4) and femoral neck BMD were assessed by dual X-ray absorptiometry at baseline and then annually for 3 years. At the end of the 2-year goserelin-treatment period, mean BMD losses for goserelin-treated and CMF-treated patients were -10.5% and -6.5% (P=0.0005) for lumbar spine and -6.4% and -4.5% (P=0.04) for femoral neck, respectively. At 3 years, partial recovery of BMD was observed in goserelin recipients. In contrast, mean BMD losses for the CMF group indicated persistent BMD loss. No significant differences in BMD were observed between groups at the 3-year assessment of the spine or femoral neck. In the CMF group, based on amenorrhea status at 48 weeks, BMD losses at the lumbar spine were greater for amenorrheic than non-amenorrheic patients. Ovarian suppression resulting in amenorrhea was closely related to BMD loss in both treatment groups. Overall, patients who received CMF did not show recovery of BMD throughout follow-up, whereas partial recovery was observed 1 year after cessation of goserelin therapy, associated with the return of ovarian function in the majority of patients.

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