Advertisement

Journal of Endocrinological Investigation

, Volume 42, Issue 11, pp 1337–1343 | Cite as

Trabecular bone score and quantitative ultrasound measurements in the assessment of bone health in breast cancer survivors assuming aromatase inhibitors

  • A. CatalanoEmail author
  • A. Gaudio
  • R. M. Agostino
  • N. Morabito
  • F. Bellone
  • A. Lasco
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) represent the first-line adjuvant therapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (BC) women. AIs have been associated with an increased rate of fractures. The aim of our study was to investigate trabecular bone score (TBS) and bone quantitative ultrasound (QUS) measurements as bone quality surrogates in AIs users.

Methods

Sixty postmenopausal BC women starting AIs and forty-two controls (mean age 61.64 ± 8.33 years) were considered. Bone mineral density (BMD) at lumbar spine and femoral neck and TBS were measured by DXA; QUS-derived Amplitude-Dependent Speed of Sound (AD-SoS), Bone Transmission Time (BTT), and Ultrasound Bone Profile Index (UBPI) were assessed at phalangeal site; morphometric vertebral fractures (Vfx) by X-ray, serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP), and C-telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX) were also evaluated.

Results

After 18 months, changes of TBS vs baseline were significantly different between AIs group and controls [Δ TBS − 2.2% vs − 0.4%, respectively, p = 0.001]. AD-SoS, BTT and UBPI values decreased only in AIs’ group (− 3.7%, − 6.45%, −8.5%, vs baseline, respectively, pall < 0.001). 3 Vfx occurred in AIs users and were associated with the greater TBS and AD-SoS modifications. In the AIs’ group, ΔTBS was associated with ΔAD-SoS (r = 0.58, p < 0.001) and ΔUBPI (r = 0.415, p = 0.001), but not with ΔBMD. Moreover, ΔTBS was independently predicted by ΔAD-SoS, after correcting for BMD, CTX and BSAP level changes (β = 0.37, SE = 2.44, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

TBS and phalangeal QUS provide useful information related to bone quality in AI-treated BC survivors and could be considered for fracture risk evaluation.

Keywords

Trabecular bone score Quantitative ultrasound Bone quality Osteoporosis Aromatase inhibitors Breast cancer 

Notes

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

Antonino Catalano, Agostino Gaudio, Rita Maria Agostino, Nunziata Morabito, Federica Bellone, and Antonino Lasco declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Rugo HS, Rumble RB, Macrae E et al (2016) Endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline. J Clin Oncol 34(25):3069–3103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amir E, Seruga B, Niraula S, Carlsson L, Ocaña A (2011) Toxicity of adjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(17):1299–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hadji P (2009) Aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss in breast cancer patients is distinct from postmenopausal osteoporosis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 69:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hadji P, Aapro MS, Body JJ et al (2017) Management of Aromatase Inhibitor-Associated Bone Loss (AIBL) in postmenopausal women with hormone sensitive breast cancer: joint position statement of the IOF, CABS, ECTS, IEG, ESCEO IMS, and SIOG. J Bone Oncol 23(7):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sakata S, Barkmann R, Lochmüller EM, Heller M, Glüer CC (2004) Assessing bone status beyond BMD: evaluation of bone geometry and porosity by quantitative ultrasound of human finger phalanges. J Bone Miner Res 19(6):924–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krause M, Museyko O, Breer S et al (2014) Accuracy of trabecular structure by HR-pQCT compared to gold standard μCT in the radius and tibia of patients with osteoporosis and long-term bisphosphonate therapy. Osteoporos Int 25(5):1595–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shepherd JA, Schousboe JT, Broy SB, Engelke K, Leslie WD (2015) Executive summary of the 2015 ISCD position development conference on advanced measures from DXA and QCT: fracture prediction beyond BMD. J Clin Densitom 18(3):274–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malgo F, Hamdy NAT, Papapoulos SE, Appelman-Dijkstra NM (2017) Bone material strength index as measured by impact microindentation is low in patients with fractures irrespective of fracture site. Osteoporos Int 28(8):2433–2437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harvey NC, Glüer CC, Binkley N et al (2015) Trabecular bone score (TBS) as a new complementary approach for osteoporosis evaluation in clinical practice. Bone 78:216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hans D, Barthe N, Boutroy S, Pothuaud L, Winzenrieth R, Krieg MA (2011) Correlations between trabecular bone score, measured using anteroposterior dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry acquisition, and 3-dimensional parameters of bone microarchitecture: an experimental study on human cadaver vertebrae. J Clin Densitom 14(3):302–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hans D, Šteňová E, Lamy O (2017) The Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) Complements DXA and the FRAX as a Fracture Risk Assessment Tool in Routine Clinical Practice. Curr Osteoporos Rep 15(6):521–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Catalano A, Morabito N, Agostino RM et al (2017) Bone health assessment by quantitative ultrasound and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in postmenopausal women with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Menopause 24(1):85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Catalano A, Gaudio A, Morabito N et al (2017) Quantitative ultrasound and DXA measurements in aromatase inhibitor-treated breast cancer women receiving denosumab. J Endocrinol Invest 40(8):851–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Atteritano M, Lasco A, Mazzaferro S et al (2013) Bone mineral density, quantitative ultrasound parameters and bone metabolism in postmenopausal women with depression. Intern Emerg Med 8(6):485–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Catalano A, Morabito N, Basile G et al (2013) Fracture risk assessment in postmenopausal women referred to an Italian center for osteoporosis: a single day experience in Messina. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 10(3):191–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guglielmi G, Njeh CF, de Terlizzi F (2003) Phalangeal quantitative ultrasound, phalangeal morphometricvariables, and vertebral fracture discrimination. Calcif Tissue Int 72(4):469–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guglielmi G, Rossini M, Nicolosi MG, Ragno A, Lentini G, de Terlizzi F (2013) Three-year prospective study on fracture risk in postmenopausal women by quantitative ultrasound at the phalanges. J Clin Densitom 16(3):341–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, De Laet C, De Terlizzi F (2005) Ten-year probabilities of clinical vertebral fractures according to phalangeal quantitative ultrasonography. Osteoporos Int 16(9):1065–1670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glüer CC, Eastell R, Reid DM et al (2004) Association of five quantitative ultrasound devices and bone densitometry with osteoporotic vertebral fractures in a population-based sample: the OPUS Study. J Bone Miner Res 19(5):782–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guglielmi G, de Terlizzi F (2009) Quantitative ultrasound in the assessment of osteoporosis. Eur J Radiol 71(3):425–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Catalano A, Morabito N, Di Vieste G, Pintaudi B, Cucinotta D, Lasco A, Di Benedetto A (2013) Phalangeal quantitative ultrasound and metabolic control in pre-menopausal women with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Endocrinol Invest 36(5):347–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Catalano A, Bellone F, Cicala G, Giandalia A, Morabito N, Cucinotta D, Russo GT (2017) Multiple fractures and impaired bone metabolism in Wolfram syndrome: a case report. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 14(2):254–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8(9):1137–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Muschitz C, Kocijan R, Haschka J et al (2015) TBS reflects trabecular microarchitecture in premenopausal women and men with idiopathic osteoporosis and low-traumatic fractures. Bone 79:259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Hellemond IEG, Geurts SME, Tjan-Heijnen VCG (2018) Current Status of Extended Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Early Stage Breast Cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol 19(5):26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anderson KB, Holloway-Kew KL, Mohebbi M, Kotowicz MA, Hans D, Pasco JA (2018) Is trabecular bone score less affected by degenerative-changes at the spine thanlumbar spine BMD? Arch Osteoporos 13(1):127.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-018-0544-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leslie WD, Anderson WA, Metge CJ, Manness LJ (2007) Maximizing Osteoporosis Management in Manitoba Steering Committee. Clinical risk factors for fracture in postmenopausal Canadian women: a population-based prevalence study. Bone 40(4):991–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu J, Curtis EM, Cooper C, Harvey NC (2019) State of the art in osteoporosis risk assessment and treatment. J Endocrinol Invest.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-019-01041-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Boutroy S, Hans D, Sornay-Rendu E, Vilayphiou N, Winzenrieth R, Chapurlat R (2013) Trabecular bone score improves fracture risk prediction in non-osteoporotic women: the OFELY study. Osteoporos Int 24(1):77–85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    María RS, Marta PM, Sonia S et al (2016) TBS and BMD at the end of AI-therapy: a prospective study of the B-ABLE cohort. Bone 92:1-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mariotti V, Page DB, Davydov O et al (2016) Assessing fracture risk in early stage breast cancer patients treated with aromatase-inhibitors: An enhanced screening approach incorporating trabecular bone score. J Bone Oncol 7:32–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ramalho J, Marques IDB, Hans D et al (2018) The trabecular bone score: relationships with trabecular and cortical microarchitecture measured by HR-pQCT and histomorphometry in patients with chronic kidney disease. Bone 116:215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sakata S, Barkmann R, Lochmüller EM, Heller M, Glüer CC (2004) Assessing bone status beyond BMD: evaluation of bone geometry and porosity by quantitative ultrasound of human finger phalanges. J Bone Miner Res 19(6):924–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Catalano A, Martino G, Morabito N, Scarcella C, Gaudio A, Basile G, Lasco A (2017) Pain in Osteoporosis: From Pathophysiology to Therapeutic Approach. Drugs Aging 34(10):755–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Catalano A, Morabito N, Atteritano M, Basile G, Cucinotta D, Lasco A (2012) Vitamin D reduces musculoskeletal pain after infusion of zoledronic acid for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int 90(4):279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Martino G, Catalano A, Bellone F et al (2018) Quality of life in postmenopausal women: which role for vitamin D? Mediterr J Clin Psychol 6(2):85.  https://doi.org/10.6092/2282-1619/2018.6.1875 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Catalano
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Gaudio
    • 2
  • R. M. Agostino
    • 3
  • N. Morabito
    • 1
  • F. Bellone
    • 1
  • A. Lasco
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical and Experimental MedicineUniversity Hospital of MessinaMessinaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Clinical and Experimental MedicineUniversity of CataniaCataniaItaly
  3. 3.Medical Oncology UnitGrand Metropolitan Hospital “Bianchi Melacrino Morelli”Reggio CalabriaItaly

Personalised recommendations