Bailin Zhang1, Jinqi Wu2, Rongshou Zheng3, Qian Zhang4, Margaret Zhuoer Wang5, Jun Qi6, Haijing Liu7, Yipeng Wang1, Yang Guo8, Feng Chen6, Jing Wang1, Wenyue Lyu8, Jidong Gao1, Yi Fang1, Wanqing Chen9, Xiang Wang1. 1. Department of Breast Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China. 2. Department of Breast Surgery, Cancer Hospital of Huanxing Chaoyang District Beijing, Beijing 100122, China. 3. Office for Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China. 4. Department of Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China. 5. Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago 60637, USA. 6. Department of Clinical Laboratory, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China. 7. Pharmacy Department, Kailuan General Hospital, Tangshan 063000, China. 8. Surgery Department, Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital of Yanqing District Beijing, Beijing 102100, China. 9. Office of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In patients with chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea (CIA), the menopausal status is ambiguous and difficult to evaluate. This study aimed to establish a discriminative model to predict and classify the menopausal status of breast cancer patients with CIA. METHODS: This is a single center hospital-based study from 2013 to 2016. The menopausal age distribution and accumulated incidence rate of CIA are described. Multivariate models were adjusted for established and potential confounding factors including age, serum concentration of estradiol (E2) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), feeding, pregnancy, parity, abortions, and body mass index (BMI). The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of different risk factors were estimated. RESULTS: A total of 1,796 breast cancer patients were included in this study, among whom, 1,175 (65.42%) were premenopausal patients and 621 (34.58%) were post-menopause patients. Five hundred and fifty patients were included in CIA analysis, and a cumulative CIA rate of 81.64% was found in them. Age (OR: 1.856, 95% CI: 1.732-1.990), serum concentration of E2 (OR: 0.976, 95% CI: 0.972-0.980) and FSH (OR: 1.060, 95% CI: 1.053-1.066), and menarche age (OR: 1.074, 95% CI: 1.009-1.144) were found to be associated with the patients' menopausal status. According to multivariate analysis, the discriminative model to predict the menopausal status is Logit (P)=-28.396+0.536Age-0.014E2+0.031FSH. The sensitivities for this model were higher than 85%, and its specificities were higher than 89%. CONCLUSIONS: The discriminative model obtained from this study for predicting menstrual state is important for premenopausal patients with CIA. This model has high specificity and sensitivity and should be prudently used.
OBJECTIVE: In patients with chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea (CIA), the menopausal status is ambiguous and difficult to evaluate. This study aimed to establish a discriminative model to predict and classify the menopausal status of breast cancer patients with CIA. METHODS: This is a single center hospital-based study from 2013 to 2016. The menopausal age distribution and accumulated incidence rate of CIA are described. Multivariate models were adjusted for established and potential confounding factors including age, serum concentration of estradiol (E2) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), feeding, pregnancy, parity, abortions, and body mass index (BMI). The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of different risk factors were estimated. RESULTS: A total of 1,796 breast cancer patients were included in this study, among whom, 1,175 (65.42%) were premenopausal patients and 621 (34.58%) were post-menopause patients. Five hundred and fifty patients were included in CIA analysis, and a cumulative CIA rate of 81.64% was found in them. Age (OR: 1.856, 95% CI: 1.732-1.990), serum concentration of E2 (OR: 0.976, 95% CI: 0.972-0.980) and FSH (OR: 1.060, 95% CI: 1.053-1.066), and menarche age (OR: 1.074, 95% CI: 1.009-1.144) were found to be associated with the patients' menopausal status. According to multivariate analysis, the discriminative model to predict the menopausal status is Logit (P)=-28.396+0.536Age-0.014E2+0.031FSH. The sensitivities for this model were higher than 85%, and its specificities were higher than 89%. CONCLUSIONS: The discriminative model obtained from this study for predicting menstrual state is important for premenopausal patients with CIA. This model has high specificity and sensitivity and should be prudently used.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; amenorrhea; drug therapy; logistic models; menopause
Authors: Russell L Basser; Anne O'Neill; Giovanni Martinelli; Michael D Green; Fedro Peccatori; Saverio Cinieri; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Stefan Aebi; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Guiseppe Viale; Karen N Price; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: O Pagani; A O'Neill; M Castiglione; R D Gelber; A Goldhirsch; C M Rudenstam; J Lindtner; J Collins; D Crivellari; A Coates; F Cavalli; B Thürlimann; E Simoncini; M Fey; K Price; H J Senn Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: A Guerrero; J Gavilá; E Folkerd; B Ortiz; F Martínez; A García; M A Climent; V Guillem; A Ruíz Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-10-28 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Eric P Winer; Clifford Hudis; Harold J Burstein; Antonio C Wolff; Kathleen I Pritchard; James N Ingle; Rowan T Chlebowski; Richard Gelber; Stephan B Edge; Julie Gralow; Melody A Cobleigh; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Lori J Goldstein; Timothy J Whelan; Trevor J Powles; John Bryant; Cheryl Perkins; Judy Perotti; Susan Braun; Amy S Langer; George P Browman; Mark R Somerfield Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Ivana Sestak; Michael Baum; Aman Buzdar; Anthony Howell; Mitch Dowsett; John F Forbes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Jack Cuzick; Jim Ingle; Alan Coates; John Forbes; Judith Bliss; Marc Buyse; Michael Baum; Aman Buzdar; Marco Colleoni; Charles Coombes; Claire Snowdon; Michael Gnant; Raimund Jakesz; Manfred Kaufmann; Francesco Boccardo; Jon Godwin; Christina Davies; Richard Peto Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathryn J Ruddy; Daniel J Schaid; Anthony Batzler; Reena S Cecchini; Ann H Partridge; Aaron Norman; Louis Fehrenbacher; Elizabeth A Stewart; Emanuel Trabuco; Elizabeth Ginsburg; Fergus J Couch; Peter A Fasching; Celine Vachon; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 13.506