Table 2

Bone mineral content of tamoxifen-treated women versus controls^2-a

Study	Duration of tamoxifen (year)	Area studied	Study design	Control	Tamoxifen-treated group	Statistical significance
Gotfredsen et al., 1984	1	Distal radius	Change in BMC^2-b(g/cm²)	−2.5%	−3.2%	NS
Fornander et al., 1990	2	Proximal radius	BMD (g/cm²)	1.04	0.99	NS
	2	Distal radius	BMD (g/cm²)	0.74	0.70	NS
	5	Proximal radius	BMD (g/cm²)	1.05	1.06	NS
	5	Distal radius	BMD (g/cm²)	0.74	0.78	NS
Fentimanet al., 1989	0.5	Femur	gHA/cm²	0.81	0.81	NS
	0.5	Lumbar spine	gHA/cm²	0.95	0.94	NS
Love et al., 1992	2	Lumbar spine	%/year change in BMD	−1.0%	0.6%	P < 0.0001
	2	Radius	%/year change in BMD	1.29%	0.88%	NS
Cuzick et al., 1992	6	Lumbar spine	BMD (g/cm²)	0.97	1.08	NS
	6	Trochanter	BMD (g/cm²)	0.75	0.81	NS
Ward et al., 1993	1	Lumbar spine	%/year change in BMD	−2.3%	0.09%	P = 0.04
	1	Trochanter	%/year change in BMD	−1.8%	1.4%	P = 0.03
Neal et al., 1993	5	Lumbar spine	BMD (g/cm²)	1.028	1.059	NS
	5	Femur	BMD (g/cm²)	0.838	0.894	NS
Turken et al., 1989	1	Lumbar spine	%/year change in BMD	−2.7%	2.4%	P < 0.003
Kristensen et al., 1994	2	Lumbar spine	% change in BMD	−4.3%^2-c	2.5%^2-c	P= 0.00074
	2	Distal radius	% change in BMD	−6.3%^2-c	−2.0%^2-c	P= 0.024

↵2-a The summary of nine studies examining the effects of tamoxifen therapy on bone resorption in women (adapted) from Bilimoriaet al., 1996a).
↵2-b Abbreviations: BMC, bone mineral content; BMD, bone mineral density; gHA, grams of hydroxyapatite; NS, not significant.
↵2-c Percentages extrapolated from data graphs.