4.6 Article

Changes in muscle, fat and bone mass after 36 weeks of maximal androgen blockade for prostate cancer

期刊

BJU INTERNATIONAL
卷 102, 期 1, 页码 44-47

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07539.x

关键词

lean mass; fat mass; bone mass; androgen deprivation therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To assess the effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on whole-body and regional muscle, fat and bone mass in men with prostate cancer without metastatic bone disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS Seventy-two men aged 44-88 years underwent spine, hip and whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans at baseline and after 36 weeks of ADT. The change in whole-body and regional lean mass (LM), fat mass ( FM), and bone mineral content and density (BMD) were determined. In addition, the prostate specific antigen (PSA), serum testosterone and haemoglobin levels were measured, and the level of physical activity and fatigue assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-30. RESULTS The upper limb, lower limb, trunk and whole-body LM decreased by a mean (SEM) of 5.6 (0.6)%, 3.7 (0.5)%, 1.4 (0.5)% and 2.4 (0.4)% (P < 0.01), respectively, while FM increased by 20.7 (3.3)%, 18.7 (2.7)%, 12.0 (2.5)% and 13.8 (2.3)% (P < 0.001). Hip, spine, whole-body and upper limb BMD decreased by 1.5 (0.5)%, 3.9 (0.4)%, 2.4 (0.3)% and 1.3 (0.3%) (P < 0.001), but not lower limb BMD. Serum testosterone, PSA and haemoglobin levels decreased by 93.3 (0.4)%, 98.2 (0.5)%, and 8.8 (0.9)% (P < 0.001), respectively. In addition, physical activity levels decreased and levels of fatigue increased. CONCLUSION After 36 weeks of ADT there was a significant decrease in whole-body and regional LM and bone mass, while whole-body and regional FM increased in older men with prostate cancer. Strategies to counteract changes in soft tissue and bone mass during ADT should be formulated to minimize the risk of sarcopenia, osteoporosis and obesity.

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