Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24161130›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2013

Disentangling the body weight-bone mineral density association among breast cancer survivors: an examination of the independent roles of lean mass and fat mass.

Stephanie M George, Anne McTiernan, Adriana Villaseñor, Catherine M Alfano, Melinda L Irwin, Marian L Neuhouser, Richard N Baumgartner, Kathy B Baumgartner, Leslie Bernstein, Ashley W Smith and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Weight loss and bone mineral density.Current opinion in endocrinology, diabetes, and obesity · 2014
    Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Stephanie M GeorgeApplied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. Stephanie.george@nih.gov.
Anne McTiernan
Adriana Villaseñor
Catherine M Alfano
Melinda L Irwin
Marian L Neuhouser
Richard N Baumgartner
Kathy B Baumgartner
Leslie Bernstein
Ashley W Smith
Rachel Ballard-Barbash
National Cancer Institute · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USUniversity of Louisville · USBeckman Research InstituteUniversity of California, San Diego · USYale University · US

Funding

SURVEILLANCE EPIDEMIOLOGY &END RESULTS PROGRAMN01PC067010 · PC · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI ROSS, RONALD K · 1996 to 2000
$2.4M
SURVEILLANCE, EPIDEMIOLOGY, AND END RESULTSN01CN005228 · CN · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO · PI KEY, CHARLES · 1990 to 1996
–
NCI NIH HHS N01-CN-05228NCI NIH HHS N01-CN-75036-20NCI NIH HHS N01-PC-67010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBone mineral density (BMD) and lean mass (LM) may both decrease in breast cancer survivors, thereby increasing risk of falls and fractures. Research is needed to determine whether lean mass (LM) and fat mass (FM) independently relate to BMD in this patient group.

methodsThe Health, Eating, Activity, and Lifestyle Study participants included 599 women, ages 29-87 years, diagnosed from 1995-1999 with stage 0-IIIA breast cancer, who underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans approximately 6-months postdiagnosis. We calculated adjusted geometric means of total body BMD within quartiles (Q) of LM and FM. We also stratified LM-BMD associations by a fat mass index threshold that tracks with obesity (lower body fat: ≤ 12.9 kg/m2; higher body fat: >12.9 kg/m2) and stratified FM-BMD associations by appendicular lean mass index level corresponding with sarcopenia (non-sarcopenic: ≥ 5.45 kg/m2 and sarcopenic: < 5.45 kg/m2).

resultsHigher LM (Q4 vs. Q1) was associated with higher total body BMD overall (1.12 g/cm2 vs. 1.07 g/cm2, p-trend  < 0.0001), and among survivors with lower body fat (1.13 g/cm2 vs. 1.07 g/cm2, p-trend < 0.0001) and higher body fat (1.15 g/cm2 vs. 1.08 g/cm2, p-trend = 0.004). Higher FM (Q4 vs. Q1) was associated with higher total body BMD overall (1.12 g/cm2 vs. 1.07 g/cm2, p-trend < 0.0001) and among non-sarcopenic survivors (1.15 g/cm2 vs. 1.08 g/cm2, p < 0.0001), but the association was not significant among sarcopenic survivors (1.09 g/cm2 vs. 1.04 g/cm2, p-trend = 0.18).

conclusionAmong breast cancer survivors, higher LM and FM were independently related to higher total body BMD. Future exercise interventions to prevent bone loss among survivors should consider the potential relevance of increasing and preserving LM.

Indexed as

Body WeightBone DensitySurvivorsAdipose TissueAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBody CompositionBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNew MexicoRisk FactorsSEER ProgramWashington

Identifiers

PMID24161130
PMCPMC3924343
OpenAlexW2106715569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.