7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      To submit to this journal, click here

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia among cancer patients and its risk factors: a retrospective monocentric study

      letter

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To the editors of the Pan African Medical Journal Decreased bone mineral density (BMD) is attributed to reducing bone mass index with architectural distortion, resulting in fractures [1]. Following adjuvant chemotherapy, cancer patients are more likely to develop osteopenia and osteoporosis, which affects two-thirds of males, more than half of premenopausal women, and approximately one-fifth of postmenopausal women [2]. Cancer therapy-induced bone loss is a leading cause of secondary osteoporosis, which results in bone fragility, increased fracture risk, decreased quality of life, and increased mortality [2]. Recent clinical guidelines recommend evaluating BMD in high-risk patients [3]. In Saudi Arabia, published data scarce on the impact of chemotherapy on bone loss among cancer survivors in the literature [4]. We report the prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia and their associated factors in cancer patients managed within the cancer center of King Khalid Hospital in Najran, Saudi Arabia between February 2021 and March 2022. 39 adult chemotherapy cancer, were interviewed. Using a Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, the BMD of the lumbar spine and femur neck were evaluated. Univariate analysis was performed to determine the risk factors of osteoporosis and osteopenia with other variables. The patients' mean age was 60.15 ± 12.26 years. The majority of patients (53.8%) were aged between (60-69) years old, and most of them (64.1%) were female. The main primary diagnosis was breast cancer in 14 (35.9%) patients. Osteopenia, osteoporosis, and normal BMD were found in 7(17.9%), 28(71.8%), and 4 (10.3%) patients, respectively. Most of the patients (43.6%) had a low serum concentration of 25-hydroxycholecalciferol (25-vitamin D) ≤ 20 (ng/ml). Univariate analysis showed no relation between osteopenia or osteoporosis with gender, type of cancer, hormone therapy, length of hormone therapy or chemotherapy, history of bone pain, and metastatic stage (p >0.05). Osteoporosis and osteopenia were significantly more frequent in older patients, patients receiving chemotherapy, and patients with lower serum levels of vitamin D (p = 0.04, 0.05, and 0.005, respectively) (Table 1). Table 1 comparison between osteopenia, osteoporosis, and normal bone health status with other factors Variables Subgroup Total N (%) Osteopenia N (%) and Mean (SD) 7(17.9) Osteoporosis N (%) and Mean (SD) 28(71.8) Normal N (%) and Mean (SD) 4(10.3) P-value* Age (year) - 60.15 ± 12.26 55.71 ± 4.11 62.29 ± 12.73 53.00 ± 16.00 0.213 Age group (year) <60 12(30.8) 5(41.7) 6(50.0) 1(8.3) 0.044 ≥60 27(69.2) 2(7.4) 22(81.5) 3(11.1) Gender Male 14 (35.9) 1(7.1) 10(71.4) 3(21.4) 0.139 Female 25 (64.1) 6(24.0) 18(72.0) 1(4.0) Primary diagnosis Breast cancer 14(35.9) 2(14.3) 11(78.6) 1(7.1) 0.218 Prostate cancer 10(25.6) 1(10.0) 6(60.0) 3(30.0) Other 15 (38.5) 4(26.7) 11(73.3) 0(0.0) History of bone pain Yes 18(46.2) 2(11.1) 14(77.8) 2(11.1) 0.597 No 21(53.8) 5(23.8) 14(66.7) 2(9.5) Chemotherapy use Yes 26(66.7) 4(15.4) 21(80.8) 1(3.8) 0.05 No 13(33.3) 3(23.1) 7(53.8) 3(23.1) Duration of chemotherapy ≥ 5years 9(23.1) 2(22.2) 6(66.7) 1(11.1) 0.522 4-2 years 6(15.4) 1(16.7) 5(83.3) 0(0.0) ≤ 1 year 11(28.2) 1(9.1) 10(90.9) 0(0.0) Hormone therapy use Yes 25(64.1) 4(16.0) 17(68.0) 4(16.0) 0.372 No 14(35.9) 3(21.4) 11(78.6) 0(0.0) Duration of hormone therapy ≥ 5years 4(10.3) 1(25.0) 2(50.0) 1(25.0) 0.268 4-2 years 12(30.8) 2(16.7) 7(58.3) 3(25.0) ≤ 1 year 9(23.1) 1(11.1) 8(88.9) 0(0.0) Serum Vit D level <20 (ng/ml) 17(43.6) 1(5.9) 16(94.1) 0(0.0) 0.005 20-30 (ng/ml) 10(25.6) 4(40.0) 6(60.0) 0(0.0) ≥ 30 (ng/ml) 12(30.8) 2(16.7) 6(50.0) 4(33.3) Bone scan No bone metastasis 24(61.5) 4(16.7) 17(70.8) 3(12.5) 1.000 Bone metastasis 15(38.5) 3(20.0) 11(73.3) 1(6.7) Aware of jaw necrosis Yes 10(25.6) 3(30.0) 7(70.0) 0(0.0) 0.292 No 29(74.4) 4(13.8) 21(72.4) 4(13.8) * P-values < 0.05 were considered significant Al Amri et al. reported a higher trend of osteopenia and osteoporosis in patients aged 50 years old or younger [4]. Another study found a higher prevalence of osteoporosis among older cancer survivors, as seen in our patients [5]. Various factors that may influence BMD in cancer patients were reported in different studies. For instance, in Reuss-Borst's study, age, body weight, menopausal state, and hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) in women and body weight in men have shown a significant association with the prevalence of osteoporosis [6]. Choi et al. showed a higher prevalence of osteoporosis among older age, female gender, and lower monthly income cancer survivors. Additionally, being underweight and inadequate calcium consumption in male cancer survivors were associated with osteoporosis [5]. In our analysis, older age, chemotherapy use, and low level of vitamin D were significantly associated with the prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia. However, other risk factors, including hormone therapy, duration of chemotherapy, and metastatic status, were not statistically significant. We explained that the small sample size and the short follow-up period limited us from making a robust statistical analysis. Therefore, a multicentric study is recommended. Chemotherapy-associated bone loss in premenopausal women may be due to premature ovarian failure or, possibly, through estrogen-independent mechanisms. However, the more substantial bone loss was attributed to hormonal therapy due to its direct impact on osteogenesis and a longer administration time. Findings that are consistent with our results [7]. Pharmacological interventions for bone loss are recommended for patients with high risk and insufficient dietary intake, which include vitamin D supplementation (1000-2000 IU daily) and calcium supplementation (1000 mg daily) [8]. The addition of antiresorptive therapy should be recommended for patients with a baseline T score of -2.0 or patients with two or more clinical risk factors for fracture [9]. In our patients, instead of vitamin D, denosumab and calcium were administrated to all patients. The current study had several limitations. Firstly, a retrospective nature, monocentric, and a small number of participants limited us from making a robust statistical analysis. Second, the incidence of osteopenia and osteoporosis was determined based DEXA scan and may be subject to misclassification. Finally, factors such as physical activity, economic status, comorbidity conditions, and diet, which may influence osteopenia and osteoporosis status, are not included. Conclusion Bone loss due to cancer treatment is a significant potential adverse side effect. Those at risk of treatment-related bone loss should be identified using effective screening procedures, and therapy should be offered if risk factors are found. Our study found that osteoporosis and osteopenia were more common in older patients, patients under chemotherapy, and those with low levels of serum vitamin D.

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The crippling consequences of fractures and their impact on quality of life.

          Around 40% of white women and 13% of white men in the United States have at least one fragility fracture after the age of 50 years. The risk of fracture increases with advancing age and progressive loss of bone mass, and varies with the population being considered. The age-adjusted incidence of fragility fractures in both sexes is 25% lower in Britain and many areas of Europe than in the United States. Mortality 5 years after hip or vertebral fracture is about 20% in excess of that expected; mortality rate is highest in men > 75 years suffering from a variety of chronic diseases. Most excess deaths occur in the first 6 months after hip fracture. One year after hip fracture, 40% of patients are still unable to walk independently, 60% have difficulty with at least one essential activity of daily living, and 80% are restricted in other activities, such as driving and grocery shopping. Moreover, 27% of these patients enter a nursing home for the first time. Less is known of the epidemiology of vertebral fractures and of the associated mortality and morbidity. Although an estimated 30% of postmenopausal U.S. white women have osteoporosis, and 1 in 4 has at least one vertebral deformity, two thirds of vertebral fractures remain undiagnosed. After a clinically diagnosed vertebral fracture, survival rate decreases gradually from that expected without fracture. Women with severe vertebral deformities have a consistently higher risk of back pain and height loss. An accurate assessment of the risk of fractures associated with osteoporosis and of their impact on quality of life is essential if appropriate and cost-effective interventions are to be designed for different populations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Bone Mineral Density: Clinical Relevance and Quantitative Assessment.

            Bone mineral density (BMD) measurement by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is an internationally accepted standard-of-care screening tool used to assess fragility-fracture risk. Society guidelines have recommended which populations may benefit from DXA screening and the use of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) to guide decisions regarding pharmacologic treatment for osteoporosis. According to the U.S. National Osteoporosis Foundation guidelines, postmenopausal women and men at least 50 y old with osteopenic BMD warrant pharmacologic treatment if they have a FRAX-calculated 10-y probability of at least 3% for hip fracture or at least 20% for major osteoporotic fracture. Patients with osteoporosis defined by a clinical event, namely a fragility fracture, or with an osteoporotic BMD should also be treated. Patients who are treated for osteoporosis should be monitored regularly to track expected gains in BMD by serial DXA scans. With some drug therapies, BMD targets can be reached whereby further improvements in BMD are not associated with further reductions in fracture risk. Although reaching this target might suggest a stopping point for therapy, the reversibility of most treatments for osteoporosis, except for the bisphosphonates, has dampened enthusiasm for this approach. In the case of denosumab, it is now apparent that stopping therapy at any point can lead to an increase in multiple-fracture risk. For patients who do not respond to antiosteoporosis pharmacologic therapy with an improvement in BMD, or who have an incident fragility fracture on therapy, secondary causes of osteoporosis or non-compliance with medical therapy should be considered.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Cancer Treatment–Induced Bone Loss (CTIBL): State of the Art and Proper Management in Breast Cancer Patients on Endocrine Therapy

              About 70–80% of early breast cancer (BC) patients receive adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for at least 5 years. ET includes in the majority of cases the use of aromatase inhibitors, as upfront or switch strategy, that lead to impaired bone health. Given the high incidence and also the high prevalence of BC, cancer treatment–induced bone loss (CTIBL) represents the most common long-term adverse event experimented by patients with hormone receptor positive tumours. CTIBL is responsible for osteoporosis occurrence and, as a consequence, fragility fractures that may negatively affect quality of life and survival expectancy. As recommended by main international guidelines, BC women on aromatase inhibitors should be carefully assessed for their fracture risk at baseline and periodically reassessed during adjuvant ET in order to early detect significant worsening in terms of bone health. Antiresorptive agents, together with adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D, should be administered in BC patients during all course of ET, especially in those at high risk of osteoporotic fractures, as calculated by tools available for clinicians. Bisphosphonates, such as zoledronate or pamidronate, and anti-RANKL antibody, denosumab, are the two classes of antiresorptive drugs used in clinical practice with similar efficacy in preventing bone loss induced by aromatase inhibitor therapy. The choice between them, in the absence of direct comparison, should be based on patients’ preference and compliance; the different safety profile is mainly related to the route of administration, although both types of drugs are manageable with due care, since most of the adverse events are predictable and preventable. Despite advances in management of CTIBL, several issues such as the optimal time of starting antiresorptive agents and the duration of treatment remain unanswered. Future clinical trials as well as increased awareness of bone health are needed to improve prevention, assessment and treatment of CTIBL in these long-term survivor patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Pan Afr Med J
                Pan Afr Med J
                PAMJ
                The Pan African Medical Journal
                The African Field Epidemiology Network
                1937-8688
                17 April 2023
                2023
                : 44
                : 179
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Oncology, King Khalid Hospital, Najran, Saudi Arabia,
                [2 ]Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Hadhramaut University, Hadhramaut, Yemen,
                [3 ]Department of Internal Medicine, King Khalid Hospital, Najran, Saudi Arabia,
                [4 ]Urology Research Center, Al-Thora General Hospital, Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Ibb University of Medical Sciences, Ibb, Yemen,
                [5 ]Department of General Medicine, King Khalid Hospital, Najran, Saudi Arabia
                Author notes
                [& ] Corresponding author: Ahmed Badheeb, Department of Oncology, King Khalid Hospital, Najran, Saudi Arabia. Badheebdr@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                PAMJ-44-179
                10.11604/pamj.2023.44.179.36365
                10349618
                0ccb0662-8d1f-4c13-af52-1523e3315ac5
                Copyright: Ahmed Badheeb et al.

                The Pan African Medical Journal (ISSN: 1937-8688). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 July 2022
                : 15 March 2023
                Categories
                Letter to the Editors

                Medicine
                osteoporosis,osteopenia,cancer,chemotherapy,hormone therapy
                Medicine
                osteoporosis, osteopenia, cancer, chemotherapy, hormone therapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article