English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Bone 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.    Methods  The 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/m 2 ; higher body fat: >12.9 kg/m 2 ) and stratified FM-BMD associations by appendicular lean mass index level corresponding with sarcopenia (non-sarcopenic: ≥ 5.45 kg/m 2  and sarcopenic: < 5.45 kg/m 2 ).    Results  Higher LM (Q4 vs. Q1) was associated with higher total body BMD overall (1.12 g/cm 2  vs. 1.07 g/cm 2 ,  p -trend < 0.0001), and among survivors with lower body fat (1.13 g/cm 2  vs. 1.07 g/cm 2 ,  p -trend < 0.0001) and higher body fat (1.15 g/cm 2  vs. 1.08 g/cm 2 ,  p -trend = 0.004). Higher FM (Q4 vs. Q1) was associated with higher total body BMD overall (1.12 g/cm 2  vs. 1.07 g/cm 2 ,  p -trend < 0.0001) and among non-sarcopenic survivors (1.15 g/cm 2  vs. 1.08 g/cm 2 , p < 0.0001), but the association was not significant among sarcopenic survivors (1.09 g/cm 2  vs. 1.04 g/cm 2 , p-trend = 0.18).    Conclusion  Among 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.

bmc cancer

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