Postmenopausal survivors of breast cancer at risk for osteoporosis: nutritional intake and body size

Osteoporosis Associated with Breast Cancer Treatments Based on Types of Hormonal Therapy: A Cross-Sectional Study Using Korean National Sample Data

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to investigate osteoporosis-related treatments and the overall anticancer drug treatment tendencies, with a focus on selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs), in Korean patients with breast cancer from 2010 to 2019. Materials and Methods: Data were obtained from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Patients with breast cancer (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision code: C50) as a principal diagnosis at least once from 2010 to 2019 were included. Those with osteoporosis (M80, M81, or M82) as a principal or sub-diagnosis or those who received osteoporosis treatment at least once were categorized as the osteoporosis-related treatment group, and others as the non-osteoporosis-related treatment group. The trends of drug prescriptions and treatment costs in patient groups were evaluated using descriptive statistics. Results: Among all included patients, those aged 45-54 years (40.20%) without osteoporosis treatment and those aged 55-64 years (34.11%) with osteoporosis treatment were the most common. SERM was the most commonly prescribed anticancer drug (29.20%) in the entire patient group, followed by AIs (20.83%). Patients without osteoporosis treatment had the highest prescription rate of SERM (31.48%), and those with osteoporosis treatment had a higher prescription rate of AIs (34.28%). Additionally, SERM and AIs were prescribed most frequently before and after the age of 55 years, respectively, regardless of the presence of treatment. Conclusions: This study found that osteoporosis-related treatment and patient age were associated with anticancer drug prescriptions. The present findings would help clinicians and researchers in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.

Effect of Tamoxifen on the Risk of Osteoporosis and Osteoporotic Fracture in Younger Breast Cancer Survivors: A Nationwide Study

Background: Although international guidelines recommend bone screening for premenopausal breast cancer patients taking adjuvant tamoxifen, the effects of tamoxifen on osteoporosis and related risks remain controversial. The objective of this study was to investigate the incidence of and risk factors for osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures in younger breast cancer patients.

Methods: A nationwide retrospective cohort study was conducted using South Korea Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service claims data. The rates of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fracture were calculated as incident cases per person-year and disease-free probability rates were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. To identify risk factors for osteoporosis and osteoporotic fracture, a multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model was applied.

Results: From January 2009 to December 2014, a total of 47,649 breast cancer patients were included. The incidence rates of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fracture were 23.59 and 2.40 per 1,000 person-years, respectively. In the overall population, tamoxifen was significantly associated with a decreased risk of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures 0.76). However, tamoxifen was not associated with the risk of osteoporosis (HR 1.24, CI 0.85–1.82) and osteoporotic fracture (HR 8.15, CI 0.36–186.70) in patients under age 40. In the 40–49 years subgroup, tamoxifen significantly decreased the risk of osteoporosis (HR 0.74, CI 0.65–0.84) and osteoporotic fracture (HR 0.49, CI 0.31–0.76).

Conclusions: Tamoxifen is not associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fracture in premenopausal breast cancer patients. Tailored screening strategies for breast cancer survivors with different osteoporosis risks are needed.

Precis: Tamoxifen is not associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fracture in premenopausal breast cancer patients. Tailored screening strategies for breast cancer survivors who are at different risks of developing osteoporosis are needed.

Hormone therapy and osteoporosis in breast cancer survivors: assessment of risk and adherence to screening recommendations

The long-term impact of hormone therapy for breast cancer on risk of osteoporosis and the extent to which bone screening recommendations are implemented in daily practice remain unknown. We found that the aromatase inhibitor-induced risk of osteoporosis did not continue in the off-treatment follow-up. Adherence to screening recommendations was suboptimal.

INTRODUCTION

A case-cohort study was undertaken to better understand the impact of hormone therapy on breast cancer patients' risk of osteoporosis, and to estimate the extent to which current bone mineral density screening recommendations are implemented in real-life daily practice.

METHODS

This study is based on 1692 female breast cancer survivors recruited from "Leumit" healthcare fund, who were diagnosed with primary nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer between 2002 and 2012. A 20% random subcohort was sampled at baseline, and all osteoporosis cases were identified. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by weighted Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Of 1692 breast cancer survivors, 312 developed osteoporosis during a median follow-up of 5 years. The crude cumulative incidence of osteoporosis accounting for death as a competing risk was 25.7% (95% CI, 21.9-29.5%). In multivariable analyses, osteoporosis was positively associated with the aromatase inhibitor (AI) sequential treatment after tamoxifen (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.44-6.88; P = .004) but was more pronounced with AI use as upfront monotherapy (HR, 5.53; 95% CI, 1.46-20.88; P = .012). This effect did not continue in the off-treatment follow-up. In subgroup analysis by menopausal status, tamoxifen did not seem to confer a protective effect on bone health in postmenopausal patients. Adherence to screening recommendations in AI-treated postmenopausal women was suboptimal, particularly at baseline and after 48 months of continuous AI use.

CONCLUSIONS

The natural, age-related reduction in bone density is exacerbated by breast cancer active AI treatment. Future research should focus on investigating screening adherence-related barriers/facilitators and effective strategies to bring practice in line with agreed standards.

Survivorship issues in older breast cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Almost half of breast cancer survivors are aged ≥ 65 years and the proportion is likely to increase due to the aging of the population. The objectives of this article were to review studies of health outcomes among older breast cancer survivors ≥ 65 years to identify gaps in the published literature and offer suggestions for future research.

METHODS

The present review is based upon bibliographic searches in PubMed and CINAHL and relevant search terms. Articles published in English from January 1, 1970 through October 1, 2018 were identified using the following MeSH search terms and Boolean algebra commands.

RESULTS

This review has revealed that older breast cancer survivors cope with health issues related to cancer treatment and the aging process, including comorbidities, osteoporosis, symptoms, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, nutrition, and physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional research is needed to examine therapeutic interventions to address the health conditions older breast cancer survivors are coping with. Particular focus of further research should be on the nutritional status and physical activity levels of older breast cancer survivors. Individualized nutrition plans and tailored physical activity programs for older survivors are needed that meet people where they are and that form habits.

The effects of high-dose calcitriol and individualized exercise on bone metabolism in breast cancer survivors on hormonal therapy: a phase II feasibility trial

INTRODUCTION

Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) is a long-term side effect of breast cancer therapy. Both calcitriol and weight-bearing exercise improve bone metabolism for osteoporotic patients, but are unproven in a breast cancer population. We used a novel high-dose calcitriol regimen with an individualized exercise intervention to improve bone metabolism in breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

We accrued 41 subjects to this open label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized feasibility trial. Breast cancer survivors were randomized to receive the following: (1) calcitriol (45 micrograms/week), (2) individualized exercise with progressive walking and resistance training, (3) both, or (4) a daily multivitamin (control condition) for 12 weeks. Primary outcomes included changes in biomarkers of bone formation, bone resorption, and the bone remodeling index, a composite measure of bone formation and resorption. Safety measures included clinical and biochemical adverse events. A main effect analysis was used for these endpoints.

RESULTS

Hypercalcemia was limited to three grade I cases with no grade ≥ 2 cases. Among exercisers, 100% engaged in the prescribed aerobic training and 44.4% engaged in the prescribed resistance training. Calcitriol significantly improved bone formation (Cohen's d = 0.64; p < 0.01), resulting in a non-significant increase in the bone remodeling index (Cohen's d = 0.21; p = 31). Exercise failed to improve any of the bone biomarkers.

CONCLUSIONS

Both calcitriol and exercise were shown to be feasible and well tolerated. Calcitriol significantly improved bone formation, resulting in a net increase of bone metabolism. Compliance with the exercise intervention was sub-optimal, which may have led to a lack of effect of exercise on bone metabolism.

Non-musculoskeletal benefits of vitamin D

The aim of this study is to determine and critically evaluate the plausible relationships of vitamin D with extra-skeletal tissues in humans. Severe vitamin D deficiency results in rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults; these beneficial effects in the musculoskeletal system and certain physiological functions are well understood. Nevertheless, mounting reports support additional beneficial effects of vitamin D, outside the musculoskeletal system. This review explores the recent advances in knowledge about the non-skeletal effects of vitamin D. Peer-reviewed papers were extracted from research databases using key words, to assess correlations between vitamin D and extra-skeletal diseases and conditions. As per the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA); general interpretations of results are included; taking into consideration the broader evidence and implications. This review summarizes current knowledge of the effects of vitamin D status on extra-skeletal tissues with special attention given to relationships between vitamin D status and various diseases commonly affecting adults; the effects of intervention with vitamin D and exposure to sunlight. Evidence suggests that vitamin D facilitates the regulation of blood pressure; and cardiac; endothelial; and smooth muscle cell functions; playing an important role in cardiovascular protection. In addition; 1,25(OH)₂D improves immunity; subdues inflammation; and reduces the incidence and severity of common cancers; autoimmune diseases and infectious diseases. Almost all adequately powered; epidemiological and biological studies that use; adequate doses of vitamin D supplementation in D-deficient populations have reported favorable outcomes. These studies have concluded that optimizing 25(OH)D status improves the functionality of bodily systems; reduces comorbidities; improves the quality of life; and increases survival. Although accumulating evidence supports biological associations of vitamin D sufficiency with improved physical and mental functions; no definitive evidence exists from well-designed; statistically powered; randomized controlled clinical trials. Nevertheless, most studies point to significant protective effects of vitamin D in humans when the minimum 25(OH)D serum level exceeds 30ng/mL and is maintained throughout the year.

American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline

The purpose of the American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline is to provide recommendations to assist primary care and other clinicians in the care of female adult survivors of breast cancer. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015. A multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, gynecology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nursing was formed and tasked with drafting the Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline. A total of 1,073 articles met inclusion criteria; and, after full text review, 237 were included as the evidence base. Patients should undergo regular surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, including evaluation with a cancer-related history and physical examination, and should be screened for new primary breast cancer. Data do not support performing routine laboratory tests or imaging tests in asymptomatic patients to evaluate for breast cancer recurrence. Primary care clinicians should counsel patients about the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle, monitor for post-treatment symptoms that can adversely affect quality of life, and monitor for adherence to endocrine therapy. Recommendations provided in this guideline are based on current evidence in the literature and expert consensus opinion. Most of the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong evidence-based recommendation. Recommendations on surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of physical and psychosocial long-term and late effects of breast cancer and its treatment, health promotion, and care coordination/practice implications are made.

This guideline was developed through a collaboration between the American Cancer Society and the American Society of Clinical Oncology and has been published jointly by invitation and consent in both CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians and Journal of Clinical Oncology. Copyright © 2015 American Cancer Society and American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission by the American Cancer Society or the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The purpose of the American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline is to provide recommendations to assist primary care and other clinicians in the care of female adult survivors of breast cancer. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015. A multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, gynecology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nursing was formed and tasked with drafting the Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline. A total of 1073 articles met inclusion criteria; and, after full text review, 237 were included as the evidence base. Patients should undergo regular surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, including evaluation with a cancer-related history and physical examination, and should be screened for new primary breast cancer. Data do not support performing routine laboratory tests or imaging tests in asymptomatic patients to evaluate for breast cancer recurrence. Primary care clinicians should counsel patients about the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle, monitor for post-treatment symptoms that can adversely affect quality of life, and monitor for adherence to endocrine therapy. Recommendations provided in this guideline are based on current evidence in the literature and expert consensus opinion. Most of the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong evidence-based recommendation. Recommendations on surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of physical and psychosocial long-term and late effects of breast cancer and its treatment, health promotion, and care coordination/practice implications are made.

Assessing the prevalence of compromised bone health among overweight and obese African-American breast cancer survivors: a case-control study

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis increases the risk of fracture and is often considered a late effect of breast cancer treatment. We examined the prevalence of compromised bone health in a sample of exclusively African-American (AA) breast cancer survivors since bone mineral density (BMD) varies by race/ethnicity in healthy populations.

METHODS

Using a case-control design, AA women in a weight loss intervention previously diagnosed and treated for stages I-IIIa breast cancer were matched 1:1 on age, race, sex, and BMI with non-cancer population controls (n = 101 pairs) from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Questionnaires and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanning were completed, and participants were categorized as having normal bone density, low bone mass, or osteoporosis using the World Health Organization (WHO) definition for femoral neck T-scores.

RESULTS

The majority of these overweight/obese survivors were 6.6 (±4.7) years post-diagnosis, had stage II (n = 46) or stage III (n = 16) disease, and treated with chemotherapy (76 %), radiation (72 %), and/or adjuvant hormone therapies (45 %). Mean femoral neck BMD was significantly lower in cases vs. matched non-cancer population controls (0.85 ± 0.15 vs. 0.91 ± 0.14 g/cm(2), respectively; p = 0.007). However, the prevalence of low bone mass and osteoporosis was low and did not significantly differ between groups (n = 101 pairs; p = 0.26), even when restricted to those on adjuvant hormone therapies (n = 45 pairs; p = 0.75). Using conditional logistic regression, controlling for dietary factors and education, the odds of developing compromised bone health in AA breast cancer survivors was insignificant (OR 1.5, 95 % CI 0.52, 5.56).

CONCLUSIONS

These null case-control findings challenge the clinical assumption that osteoporosis is highly prevalent among all breast cancer survivors, providing foundational evidence to support differences by race/ethnicity and body weight.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Routine bone density testing and regular patient-provider dialogue is critical in overweight/obese AA breast cancer survivors to ensure that healthy lifestyle factors (e.g., ideal weight, regular weight-bearing exercises, dietary adequacy of calcium and vitamin D) support optimal skeletal health.

Bone health issues in breast cancer survivors: a Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) study

PURPOSE

Breast cancer treatments (chemotherapy and hormone therapy) can cause a rapid loss in bone mineral density, leading to osteoporosis and fractures later in life. Fortunately, preventative measures (vitamin D, exercise, etc.) can delay bone loss if employed early enough. This study compares the prevalence of osteoporosis and osteoporosis-related discussions with physicians among female breast cancer survivors and females with no cancer history to determine if breast cancer patients are being correctly advised on their high risk of bone loss.

METHODS

The 2003 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, a nationally representative sample of 550 women with a breast cancer history and 6,673 women with no cancer history aged ≥65, was used. The first set of dependent variables collected information on bone health (osteoporosis, falls, and fractures). The second set of dependent variables collected information on bone health discussions with their physician. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate whether breast cancer was independently associated with bone health issues.

RESULTS

After adjustment for confounders, a breast cancer diagnosis was found to be associated with a higher prevalence of an osteoporosis diagnosis over their lifetime (adjusted odds ratio (OR(adj)) = 1.32, 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) = 1.08-1.61) and falls in the previous year (OR(adj) = 1.23, 95 % CI = 1.01-1.51) compared to respondents without a cancer diagnosis. However, breast cancer respondents were not more likely than respondents without a cancer diagnosis to discuss osteoporosis with their physician (OR(adj) = 1.20, 95 % CI = 0.96-1.50) or be told they are at high risk for osteoporosis (OR(adj) = 1.41, 95 % CI = 0.95-2.10).

CONCLUSIONS

A breast cancer diagnosis was associated with an increased prevalence of osteoporosis and falls. Nevertheless, breast cancer respondents were not more likely to discuss osteoporosis with their physician nor were they more likely to be considered high risk for osteoporosis. Increased dialogue between physician and breast cancer patient pertaining to bone loss is needed.

Low bone density in breast cancer survivors in Korea: prevalence, risk factors and associations with health-related quality of life

PURPOSE

To examine the prevalence and risk factors of low bone density and identify associations with health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in breast cancer survivors in Korea.

METHODS

This study was a cross-sectional descriptive study design. A total of 136 women with breast cancer who had completed their therapy were recruited at one university-based cancer center in Korea. Bone mineral density (BMD), health behaviors (physical activity, diet/nutrition behaviors, smoking, alcohol consumption, sunlight exposure), and HRQOL were measured.

RESULTS

Among the 136 breast cancer survivors, 49 women (36.0%) had osteopenia and six women (4.4%) had osteoporosis. Univariate analyses revealed that older age, low education level, low monthly income, tamoxifen therapy, aromatase inhibitor therapy, calcium supplement intake, and past or current smoking were associated with low bone density (BMD T-score < -1.0). In multivariate analyses, low economic status (OR = 2.22, p = 0.050) and past or current smoking (OR = 3.77, p = 0.039) were final risk factors of low bone density. In addition, women who had low bone density reported worse role function (p = 0.022) than women who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Women of lower economic status or who are past or current smokers warrant monitoring and treatment strategies to reduce bone loss risk. Nurses may play a crucial role in screening this high-risk group for low bone density and in educating patients on the importance of healthy lifestyle changes.

The association between breast cancer prognostic indicators and serum 25-OH vitamin D levels

BACKGROUND

Studies show that women with low vitamin D levels have an increased risk of breast cancer (BC) incidence and mortality, but there is a lack of research examining vitamin D levels and prognostic variables in BC patients. The aim of this study is to examine 25-OH vitamin D levels between BC cases and controls and by prognostic indicators among BC cases.

METHODS

25-OH vitamin D levels were collected from 194 women who underwent BC surgery and 194 cancer-free (CF) controls at the University of Rochester between January 2009 and October 2010. Mean 25-OH vitamin D levels and odds ratios (OR) were calculated by case/control status for the overall cohort and by prognostic indicators (invasiveness, ER status, triple-negative status, Oncotype DX score, molecular phenotype) for BC cases.

RESULTS

BC cases had significantly lower 25-OH vitamin D levels than CF controls (BC: 32.7 ng/mL vs. CF: 37.4 ng/mL; P = .02). In case-series analyses, women with suboptimal 25-OH vitamin D concentrations (<32 ng/mL) had significantly higher odds of having ER- (OR = 2.59, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 1.08-6.23) and triple-negative cancer (OR = 3.15, 95% CI = 1.05-9.49) than those with optimal 25-OH D concentrations. Women with basal-like phenotype had lower 25-OH vitamin D levels than women luminal A phenotype (basal-like: 24.2 ng/mL vs. luminal A: 32.8 ng/mL; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

BC patients with a more aggressive molecular phenotype (basal-like) and worse prognostic indicators (ER- and triple-negative) had lower mean 25-OH vitamin D levels. Further research is needed to elucidate the biological relationship between vitamin D and BC progression.

The effect of various vitamin D supplementation regimens in breast cancer patients

Vitamin D deficiency in the patients treated for breast cancer is associated with numerous adverse effects (bone loss, arthralgia, and falls). The first aim of this study was to assess vitamin D status, determined by 25-OH vitamin D levels, among women diagnosed with breast cancer according to demographic/clinical variables and bone mineral density (BMD). The second aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of daily low-dose and weekly high-dose vitamin D supplementation on 25-OH vitamin D levels. This retrospective study included 224 women diagnosed with stage 0-III breast cancer who received treatment at the James P. Wilmot Cancer Center at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Total 25-OH vitamin D levels (D(2) + D(3)) were determined at baseline for all participants. Vitamin D deficiency was defined as a 25-OH vitamin D level < 20 ng/ml, insufficiency as 20-31 ng/ml, and sufficiency as ≥32 ng/ml. BMD was assessed during the period between 3 months before and 6 months following the baseline vitamin D assessment. Based on the participants' baseline levels, they received either no supplementation, low-dose supplementation (1,000 IU/day), or high-dose supplementation (≥50,000 IU/week), and 25-OH vitamin D was reassessed in the following 8-16 weeks. Approximately 66.5% had deficient/insufficient vitamin D levels at baseline. Deficiency/insufficiency was more common among non-Caucasians, women with later-stage disease, and those who had previously received radiation therapy (P < 0.05). Breast cancer patients with deficient/insufficient 25-OH vitamin D levels had significantly lower lumbar BMD (P = 0.03). Compared to the no-supplementation group, weekly high-dose supplementation significantly increased 25-OH vitamin D levels, while daily low-dose supplementation did not significantly increase levels. Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency were common among women with breast cancer and associated with reduced BMD in the spine. Clinicians should carefully consider vitamin D supplementation regimens when treating vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency in breast cancer patients.

Interventions to Alleviate Symptoms Related to Breast Cancer Treatments and Areas of Needed Research

Treatments for breast cancer produce a host of side effects, which can become debilitating. Some cancer treatment-related side effects occur in up to 90% of patients during treatment and can persist for months or years after treatment has ended. As the number of breast cancer survivors steadily increases, the need for cancer control intervention research to alleviate side effects also grows. This review provides a general overview of recent clinical research studies of selected topics in the areas of symptom management for breast cancer with a focus on cognitive difficulties, fatigue, cardiotoxicity, bone loss, insomnia, and cancer pain. We review both pharmacological and behavioral intervention clinical research studies, conducted with breast cancer patients and survivors. Additionally, clinical perspectives on symptom management and recommendations for areas of needed research are provided.

Osteoporosis and rate of bone loss among postmenopausal survivors of breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer diagnosis and treatment may put women at higher risk for osteoporosis in later life.

METHODS

In a subgroup of participants in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study, authors of the current study investigated differences in bone mineral density (BMD, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) between breast cancer survivors (n = 209) and a noncancer reference group (n = 5759).

RESULTS

In comparison to the reference group, breast cancer survivors had significantly lower total body BMD value (0.989 vs. 1.013 g/cm(2), P = 0.001) and total hip BMD value (0.823 vs. 0.845 g/cm(2), P = 0.02) at baseline after adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, years since menopause, and clinical center. These lower BMD levels were largely explained by lower usage of hormone therapy (HT) among survivors: after additional statistical adjustment for HT, hip BMD values were 0.834 versus 0.844 g/cm(2) (P = 0.26), and total body values were 1.005 versus 1.013 g/cm(2) (P = 0.33) for survivors and reference women, respectively. More than 77% of survivors with osteoporosis were undiagnosed by their healthcare providers, and this was similar to the undiagnosed rate in the reference group (85.7%). Longitudinally, breast cancer survivors in this study did not demonstrate an accelerated rate of bone loss compared with the reference population.

CONCLUSIONS

Associated with lower HT usage, postmenopausal survivors of breast cancer were more likely to have low BMD in comparison to other women of the same age; and many of these survivors with osteoporosis were undiagnosed.

Cancer risk-reduction behaviors of breast cancer survivors

Using secondary data analysis, the aim was to determine if postmenopausal women, who have survived breast cancer, have adopted healthy nutritional and physical activity behaviors recommended in the American Cancer Society guidelines as cancer risk-reduction strategies, and in guidelines for prevention of other chronic diseases or for improving general health. From their personal health history, women who have survived breast cancer would be likely candidates to adopt healthy behaviors recommended as cancer risk-reduction strategies or for prevention of other chronic diseases. A secondary aim was to determine the perceived general health and affective state of these women. These breast cancer survivors had a high perception of their general health, a positive affective state, and have adopted some healthy lifestyle behaviors, but they are not fully adhering to the ACS nutrition and physical activity guidelines or other health related guidelines for cancer risk reduction or prevention of other chronic diseases.

Regulation of aromatase expression by the nuclear receptor LRH-1 in adipose tissue

Aromatase is the enzyme responsible for estrogen production, and is the product of the CYP19 gene. This gene is under the control of many tissue-specific promoters, each of which is regulated by different cohorts of factors. In normal breast adipose tissue, relatively low levels of aromatase are expressed via the action of the adipose specific promoter I.4. Breast tumor-derived factors such as prostaglandin E(2) (PGE(2)) strongly stimulate aromatase expression via an alternative promoter, promoter II, leading to increased estrogenic drive and tumor growth. Understanding the mechanisms that regulate promoter II activity in tumorous breast may therefore identify new targets for breast cancer drug discovery. The current study describes the role of the orphan nuclear receptor LRH-1 and its co-regulators in modulating aromatase expression in breast adipose tissue.

Postmenopausal breast cancer survivors at risk for osteoporosis: physical activity, vigor, and vitality

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To test a multicomponent intervention to prevent and treat osteoporosis in breast cancer survivors.

DESIGN

Descriptive, correlational.

SETTING

Midwestern urban and rural sites.

SAMPLE

27 postmenopausal breast cancer survivors between the ages of 42-65 who had completed treatment, except for tamoxifen, and were not candidates for hormone replacement therapy.

METHODS

Bone mineral density (BMD) of the hip, spine, and forearm was measured using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Physical activity was recorded using the Seven-Day Physical Activity Recall-Adapted, which classifies activities as light, moderate, hard, or very hard. Vigor was measured with the eight-item subscale of the Profile of Mood State based on the previous week. Vitality was measured using the four-question subscale of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Physical activity, vigor, vitality, and BMD.

FINDINGS

More than half reported no very hard physical activity, and 37% reported no hard activity. The association of vigor with total metabolic equivalents for combined moderate, hard, and very hard activities was significant (r = 0.536, p = 0.007), as were the hours spent in the combined moderate to very hard activities. No relationship was found between vigor, vitality, or any level of activity and BMD.

CONCLUSIONS

Survivors reported high levels of perceived vigor and vitality but spent more time engaged in light versus hard or very hard activities. Positive correlations between higher levels of vitality and vigor with metabolic equivalents support the idea that activity promotes perceptions of energy and positive feelings.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Breast cancer survivors are at risk for osteoporosis. Nurses should be aware of increased risk, recommend screening for bone health, and encourage physical activity.