Study | Duration of tamoxifen (year) | Area studied | Study design | Control | Tamoxifen-treated group | Statistical significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gotfredsen et al., 1984 | 1 | Distal radius | Change in BMC2-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.