Youn Kyung Chung1, Young-Kyun Lee2, Byung-Ho Yoon3, Dong Hoon Suh4, Kyung-Hoi Koo2,5. 1. Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul Paik Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea; sdhwcj@naver.com. 5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the study was to estimate the prevalence of pelvic insufficiency fractures (PIFs) after radiation therapy (RT) in patients with cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 3,633 patients from 15 cohort studies were included. Proportion meta-analysis was performed to estimate prevalence and subgroup analysis was performed according to imaging modalities for diagnosis of PIF. For continuous variables (age and length of follow-up), meta-regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Pooled prevalence estimate of PIF was 14% (95% CI=10-19). Incidence of PIF was higher in studies that used MRI as a diagnostic tool (17%, 95% CI=12-22) than non-MRI (8%, 95% CI=2-14). In meta-regression, we found a significant association of prevalence of PIF with age (p=0.021) but not with length of follow-up (p=0.118). CONCLUSION: PIF after RT in patients with cervical cancer is not rare. Physicians need to pay attention to PIFs, especially in patients with high-risk factors for osteoporotic fracture. Copyright
AIM: The aim of the study was to estimate the prevalence of pelvic insufficiency fractures (PIFs) after radiation therapy (RT) in patients with cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 3,633 patients from 15 cohort studies were included. Proportion meta-analysis was performed to estimate prevalence and subgroup analysis was performed according to imaging modalities for diagnosis of PIF. For continuous variables (age and length of follow-up), meta-regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Pooled prevalence estimate of PIF was 14% (95% CI=10-19). Incidence of PIF was higher in studies that used MRI as a diagnostic tool (17%, 95% CI=12-22) than non-MRI (8%, 95% CI=2-14). In meta-regression, we found a significant association of prevalence of PIF with age (p=0.021) but not with length of follow-up (p=0.118). CONCLUSION:PIF after RT in patients with cervical cancer is not rare. Physicians need to pay attention to PIFs, especially in patients with high-risk factors for osteoporotic fracture. Copyright
Authors: Yevgeniya Jane Mikhailovna Ioffe; Travis J Hillen; Gongfu Zhou; Julie K Schwarz; L Stewart Massad; Matthew A Powell; Andrea R Hagemann; David G Mutch; Premal H Thaker Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Karin K Shih; Michael R Folkert; Marisa A Kollmeier; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Yukio Sonoda; Mario M Leitao; Richard R Barakat; Kaled M Alektiar Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-12-20 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Megan M Pendleton; Shannon R Emerzian; Saghi Sadoughi; Alfred Li; Jennifer W Liu; Simon Y Tang; Grace D O'Connell; Jean D Sibonga; Joshua S Alwood; Tony M Keaveny Journal: JBMR Plus Date: 2021-09-26