Table 2

Bone mineral content of tamoxifen-treated women versus controls2-a

StudyDuration of tamoxifen (year)Area studiedStudy designControlTamoxifen-treated groupStatistical significance
Gotfredsen et al., 1984 1Distal radiusChange in BMC2-b(g/cm2)−2.5%−3.2%NS
Fornander et al., 1990 2Proximal radiusBMD (g/cm2)1.040.99NS
2Distal radiusBMD (g/cm2)0.740.70NS
5Proximal radiusBMD (g/cm2)1.051.06NS
5Distal radiusBMD (g/cm2)0.740.78NS
Fentimanet al., 19890.5FemurgHA/cm2 0.810.81NS
0.5Lumbar spinegHA/cm2 0.950.94NS
Love et al., 1992 2Lumbar spine%/year change in BMD−1.0%0.6% P < 0.0001 
2Radius%/year change in BMD1.29%0.88%NS
Cuzick et al., 1992 6Lumbar spineBMD (g/cm2)0.971.08NS
6TrochanterBMD (g/cm2)0.750.81NS
Ward et al., 1993 1Lumbar spine%/year change in BMD−2.3%0.09% P = 0.04   
1Trochanter%/year change in BMD−1.8%1.4% P = 0.03   
Neal et al., 1993 5Lumbar spineBMD (g/cm2)1.0281.059NS
5FemurBMD (g/cm2)0.8380.894NS
Turken et al., 1989 1Lumbar spine%/year change in BMD−2.7%2.4% P < 0.003  
Kristensen et al., 1994 2Lumbar spine% change in BMD−4.3%2-c 2.5%2-c P= 0.00074
2Distal 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.