MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2156964551 · doi:10.1200/jco.2008.20.4057

Bisphosphonates and Bone Turnover in Premenopausal Women Receiving Adjuvant Chemotherapy

2009· letter· en· W2156964551 sur OpenAlexaff
Alexander Paterson, Tom Baker

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBone health and treatments
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBone remodelingChemotherapyAdjuvant chemotherapyAdjuvantOncologyInternal medicineCancerGynecologyBreast cancer

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Awareness of cancer-induced bone loss (CIBL) and treatmentinduced bone loss has increased among clinicians. Premenopausal women who undertake chemotherapy for breast cancer may lose up to 7% or more of their bone mass in the first year postchemotherapy. Chemotherapy induces ovarian atrophy and estrogen decline at a rate depending on the regimen used, but is much faster than occurs with natural menopause. The bone loss after chemotherapy (and the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists) in the first year implies a rapid and profound switching to a net resorption pattern of bone turnover. That all this results in real morbidity was shown by Kanis et al, who reported a fourto five-fold increase in the first-year incidence of vertebral fractures in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer compared with an age-matched cohort of healthy women in the metropolitan London area. Attempts to ameliorate the unwanted side effect of CIBL have concentrated on the use of bisphosphonates, and it has sometimes been assumed that standard postmenopausal doses of bisphosphonates will be useful in this patient group. This may not be the case. Hines et al report in this issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology a phase III, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of the bisphosphonate risedronate for the prevention of bone loss in premenopausal women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. This article has unexpected, but explainable, results. Two hundred and sixteen premenopausal women receiving chemotherapy were allocated to weekly oral risedronate or a placebo, and their bone mineral density (BMD) was measured at baseline and 1 year. The change in average BMD at 1 year in the lumbar spine was similar in both active and placebo groups; there was also little difference in the total hip and femoral neck bone mineral densities at 1 year. There was a nonsignificant numerical trend for patients receiving risedronate to have less bone loss at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip, as well as a numerical but nonsignificant trend for less osteopenia and osteoporosis in the risedronate group. Compliance was good, running at more than 86% in the risedronate arm, and tamoxifen and taxane usage was evenly spread in the two arms. All except two patients had systemic adjuvant chemotherapy, and most would be expected to undergo premature menopause. The results support the clinical impression that it is harder to suppress bone turnover and subsequent bone loss with standard postmenopausal osteoporosis dosing of bisphosphonates in premenopausal women undergoing chemotherapy-induced premature menopause than in older, postmenopausal women. Is this merely a question of inadequate drug dosing in the presence of a powerful wave of estrogen deprivation–induced bone resorption? Or does a preor perimenopausal state confer some kind of protection from the effects of bisphosphonates? Successful inhibition of bone turnover has been achieved in premenopausal women in several studies. Delmas et al have previously reported in JCO that risedronate was effective in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced bone loss in premenopausal women. In this smaller study, the patients (all of whom were premenopausal before adjuvant chemotherapy) were postmenopausal on entry to the trial with endocrine levels in the postmenopause range. Furthermore, patients were administered 30 mg risedronate orally daily for 2 weeks with a 10-week rest period for a total of eight cycles. This regime differs from the 35 mg weekly dose in this study (a standard dose for osteoporosis), and although the total amount of drug during 1 year is similar (1,680 mg in the Delmas et al study v 1,820 mg in the Hines et al study), the initial loading of 420 mg risedronate over 2 weeks may have been sufficient to inhibit bone turnover. However, using a 35 mg weekly dosing of residronate, van Londen et al have demonstrated improvement in hip structural geometry and BMD compared with a placebo group at 1 year. Powles et al reported BMD measurements at 1 and 2 years in women with breast cancer receiving oral clodronate versus placebo demonstrating inhibition of bone turnover in premenopausal women at 1 year ( 1.57% compared with 4.4%), although the effect was lost at 2 years ( 3.99% compared with 3.94%), possibly related to compliance. Postmenopausal women experienced a significant gain in BMD during the first and second years compared with the placebo group. Gnant et al showed the effectiveness of parenteral bisphosphonates in patients who were premenopausal on study entry. All received continuous goserelin for 3 years, thereby converting them to a biologic state similar to postmenopause. In that setting, intravenous zoledronic acid was effective in preventing the reduction in BMD seen in the untreated postmenopausal woman. Likewise, Hershman et al have shown a reduction of BMD loss with zoledronic acid in premenopausal women with CIBL. Estrogens have a beneficial effect on bone health by suppressing bone resorption and enhancing formation. Mechanisms for this effect JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY E D I T O R I A L VOLUME 27 NUMBER 7 MARCH 1 2009

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,004

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,070
Tête enseignante GPT0,434
Écart entre enseignants0,363 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Même sujetBone health and treatments→Travaux en français237 207→