4.7 Article

Clinical, radiographic, and biochemical characterization of multiple myeloma patients with osteonecrosis of the jaw

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 2387-2395

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1430

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [IP50 CA10070-01, R0-1 CA 50947] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [P0-1 78378] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) has been reported in patients with a history of aminobisphosphonate use. This study was conducted in order to define ONJ clinically and radiographically and gain insights into its pathophysiology. Experimental Design: Eleven multiple myeloma (MM) patients with ONJ were included in the study. Patients underwent clinical, biochemical, radiographic, and molecular profiling. Ten MM patients on aminobisphosphonates without ONJ and five healthy volunteers were used as controls for biochemical and molecular studies. Results: MM patients with ONJ were treated with either pamidronate (n = 3), zoledronate (n = 4), or both agents sequentially (n = 4) for a mean of 38.7 months. Radiographic studies showed bone sclerosis and fragmentation on plain films and computerized tomography. Quantitative regional analysis of NaF-PET and FDG-PET scans confirmed an increased standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in areas of ONJI. The target to background ratio of SUVmax was significantly greater for NaF-PET compared with FDG-PET scan. Biochemical bone marker data and transcriptional profiling studies showed that genes and proteins involved in osteoblast and osteoclast signaling cascades were significantly down-regulated in patients with ONJ. Conclusions: ONJ was associated with a mean duration of 38.7 months of aminobisphosphonate exposure. Radiographic and functional imaging confirmed sites of clinically established ONJ. Gene and protein studies are consistent with altered bone remodeling, evidenced by suppression of both bone resorption and formation.

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