Next Article in Journal
Image-Guided Mesenchymal Stem Cell Sodium Iodide Symporter (NIS) Radionuclide Therapy for Glioblastoma
Previous Article in Journal
Outcome of Endoprosthetic Hip Reconstruction Following Resection of Malignant Bone Tumors
Previous Article in Special Issue
LUNA EMG as a Marker of Adherence to Prehabilitation Programs and Its Effect on Postoperative Outcomes among Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery for Ovarian Cancer and Suspected Ovarian Tumors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 16
Issue 16
10.3390/cancers16162891
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Selective and Nonselective Beta Blockers on Bone Mineral Density in Mexican Patients with Breast Cancer

by
César Miguel Mejía-Barradas
1,†,
Ana Amador-Martínez
2,†,
Eleazar Lara-Padilla
1,
Noemí Cárdenas-Rodríguez
3,
Iván Ignacio-Mejía
4,
Valentín Martínez-López
5,
Gabriela Ibañez-Cervantes
1,6,
Orlando de Jesús Picado-Garcia
7,
Brayan Domínguez
1 and
Cindy Bandala
1,*
1
Escuela Superior de Medicina, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City 11340, Mexico
2
Departamento de Radiología e Imagen, Centro Médico ABC, Mexico City 01120, Mexico
3
Laboratorio de Neurociencias, Instituto Nacional de Pediatria, Mexico City 04530, Mexico
4
Laboratorio de Medicina Traslacional, Escuela Militar de Graduados en Sanidad, Universidad Del Ejército y Fuerza Aérea, Mexico City 11200, Mexico
5
Unidad de Ingeniería de Tejidos, Terapia Celular y Medicina Regenerativa, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Mexico City 14389, Mexico
6
División de Investigación, Hospital Juárez de México, Mexico City 07760, Mexico
7
Ciudad de la Salud para la Mujer-Clínica Materna Huixquilucan, Huixquilucan de Degollado 52760, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Cancers 2024, 16(16), 2891; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16162891
Submission received: 3 July 2024 / Revised: 6 August 2024 / Accepted: 16 August 2024 / Published: 20 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Management and Prognosis of Gynecological Cancer)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Breast cancer (BCa) is a pathology that affects the world population. Patients present risk factors for osteopenia and osteoporosis, such as chronic stress, estrogen deprivation due to hormonal treatment, a menopausal status, and decreased physical activity. An available alternative is the use of nonselective beta blockers (nsBBs) that have antitumoral properties, and in other diseases, antiresorptive and osteoforming effects. We demonstrated that BCa patients taking nsBBs had a greater bone mineral density and a lower incidence of osteoporosis and osteopenia than untreated patients. Although our study has several limitations, such as its retrospective design and single-center population, it revealed promising effects of nsBBs on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and osteopenia in patients with BCa.

Abstract

Breast cancer (BCa) is related to chronic stress and can reduce the bone mineral density (BMD) through neurochemicals related to beta-adrenergic receptor (ADRB) 1 and 2. Selective beta blockers (sBBs) and nonselective beta blockers (nsBBs) are used to treat systemic arterial hypertension (SAH) and may have osteoprotective effects, as they inhibit ADRBs. To evaluate the effects of sBBs and nsBBs on the BMD of Mexican patients with BCa. A retrospective study was conducted. We included 191 Mexican women with BCa without SAH and with SAH treated with nsBBs, sBBs, and diuretics. BMD was evaluated using a bone density scan (DEX scan). A greater average BMD (p < 0.05) was observed in patients with prior treatment with both nsBBs and sBBs (0.54 ± 0.94 and −0.44 ± 1.22, respectively) compared to patients treated with diuretics or without SAH (−1.73 ± 0.83 and −1.22 ± 0.98, respectively). Regarding the diagnosis of osteoporosis/osteopenia, no cases were observed in patients treated with nsBBs, whereas 5.6% of the patients treated with sBBs presented osteopenia. A total of 23.1% and 10.6% patients managed with diuretics or without treatment presented with osteoporosis and 61.5% and 48% patients managed with loop diuretics and without treatment presented with osteopenia, respectively (p < 0.05). Treatment with nsBBs is a promising option for the prevention and management of osteoporosis/osteopenia in Mexican patients with BCa; however, further prospective studies are needed.

1. Introduction

Breast cancer (BCa) is the most common neoplasm in women and the most commonly diagnosed cancer globally [1]. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in the period from 2022 to 2050, an increase in the incidence and mortality of this pathology has been calculated worldwide (from 2.3 to 3.2 and from 0.67 to 1.2, respectively), for Latin America (from 219.7 to 341.9 and from 59.7 to 104.9, respectively), and for Mexico (from 31 to 50.3 and from 8.2 to 15.2, respectively) [2,3]. These statistics highlight the importance of continuing to develop strategies for the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and promotion of quality of life of patients with BCa.
BCa is characterized by the uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells, where mammary cells undergo numerous genotypic and phenotypic changes [4,5] and may be classified according to many factors, such as size, differentiation, prognosis, method of detection, or genetic alterations. The histological types of BCa are prognostically relevant because they are determined by the specific cells that are affected and by the pathological features of invasiveness [3,6,7].
Contemporary models for BCa treatment include surgery and cytotoxic, hormonal, and targeted therapies in accordance with the molecular profile and clinical stage [8]. Because hormonal receptor-positive BCa is the most prevalent subtype, the use of aromatase inhibitors is considered the standard treatment; however, they reduce estradiol levels, which also increases osteoporosis and fractures [9,10,11].
On the other hand, BCa is often accompanied by psychoemotional conditions, leading to increased chronic stress, which deteriorates the quality of life and increases physical fragility in patients. These alterations, along with hormonal treatment, bone metastasis, and decreased physical activity, are risk factors for a decreased bone mineral density (BMD) [12,13,14,15,16,17]. Chronic stress in BCa patients causes the hypothalamus to secrete corticotropin-releasing hormone and the pituitary gland to release adrenocorticotropic hormone. The adrenal glands then secrete cortisol, inducing the production and secretion of molecules such as catecholamines and glucocorticoids. These molecules influence the homeostasis of bone regulation, causing complications such as fractures, hypocalcemia, and severe pain [18,19]. The catecholamines that are increased in these patients are adrenaline (AD) and noradrenaline (NA) [12,20], both of which are related to tumor progression in BCa patients because they have the potential to induce physiological effects that may lead to changes in immune function and the inflammatory response [15,20,21,22] and an accelerated loss of BMD [12,23,24,25,26]. AD and NA exert their effects through the activation of target molecules known as beta-adrenergic receptors (ADRBs), including both the β1-adrenergic receptor (ADRB1) and the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) [12]. The most described ADRB in BCa is ADRB2, which has been shown to cause increased proliferation, tumor growth, metastasis, and complications in the bone microenvironment, disrupting the cascade of events that regulate bone resorption [19]. Cells in bone tissue, such as osteoblasts and osteoclasts, also express ADRBs, and their ligands can regulate the homeostasis of BMD [12,27]. Catecholamines, through ADRB2, decrease osteoblastic activity and increase the activity of osteoclasts (bone-resorbing cells), inhibiting the differentiation and adhesion of osteoblasts (bone-forming cells), increasing their level of apoptosis, and delaying collagen synthesis, thus impairing the capacity of osteoblasts to fully replace the resorbed bone [28]. BCa cells can regulate osteoclast activity and act through osteoblasts by stimulating osteoblast-derived receptor activator of NF-κB ligand (RANKL), which is a master regulator of osteoclastogenesis [12,29,30] and reduces the BMD in response to chronic stress [12,19]. Considering the importance of ADRB1 and ADRB2 and their ligands in tumor progression in BCa and in BMD homeostasis, a treatment option for both targets is management with beta blockers (BBs), which are competitive inhibitors of ADRBs. BBs can be selective (sBBs), which block ADRB1, or nonselective (nsBBs), which block both ADRB1 and ADRB2. BBs are particularly known for managing systemic arterial hypertension (SAH) [31]. Different studies have repositioned nsBBs as antitumoral agents in BCa because they inhibit signaling pathways related to metastasis, angiogenesis, chemoresistance, and cell proliferation [32,33,34]. On the other hand, in non-BCa patients or menopausal models, BBs have been reported to inhibit the mRNA expression of osteoclast-related genes by increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption, mainly through the inhibition of RANKL expression [19]. In this context, preclinical studies have demonstrated that the use of BBs is associated with an increased BMD. Animal experiments have shown that nsBBs, such as propranolol, prevent bone resorption and promote bone formation by increasing the transverse growth of the endosteum and tibia in rats, increasing bone osteointegration by negatively regulating the number of osteoclasts, positively regulating collagen formation, and promoting mineralization [24,35,36]. In addition, propranolol has been shown to enhance osseointegration and bone volume and regeneration in rats with unicortical defects, improve bone loss and bone fragility in spontaneously hypertensive rats [36,37], and reduce bone resorption in a model of experimental periodontal disease, probably by inhibiting osteoclastogenesis mediated by RANKL and inflammatory markers [38]. Clinical studies have shown that elderly patients with cardiovascular diseases have a reduced risk of osteoporosis and fractures after receiving nsBB treatment [39,40]. The use of sBBs in postmenopausal women was associated with an increased BMD and a low fracture risk [41]. In another study, bone biopsies obtained from elderly women treated with atenolol (50 mg/day) and nebivolol (5 mg/day) had a better bone microarchitecture than did those obtained from placebo-treated individuals, reducing bone resorption and increasing the BMD of the ultradistal radius [42].
The repositioning of BBs for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and osteopenia may be a viable alternative for improving the quality of life of patients with BCa. Importantly, the clinical benefits of sBBs or nsBBs on BMD or bone metabolism in BCa patients are still unclear. Therefore, in the present retrospective study, we aimed to evaluate the BMD of Mexican patients with BCa, including women with systemic arterial hypertension (SAH) treated with nsBBs, sBBs, loop diuretics, and those without SAH.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Trial Oversight

An observational and prospective study was performed in Centro Médico ABC, Mexico City. This research was carried out in full accordance with good clinical practice guidelines and was registered with the Research and Ethics Committee of the hospital (TABC-17–22). All patients signed informed consent forms, and their data were confidently protected in accordance with the Mexican General Health Law.

2.2. Patients

We included 191 women with a diagnosis of BCa based on clinical data, biopsy, and imaging studies. As the main inclusion criterion, we considered patients with a diagnosis of stage I to IV BCa who were treated for at least 3 months and up to 12 months with an sBB (atenolol 100 mg/day or metoprolol 200 mg/day), nsBB (propranolol 160 mg/day), or a loop diuretic (furosemide 80 mg/day) for the management of SAH, and we also included patients without SAH. We excluded pregnant patients with a diagnosis of chronic kidney disease or thyroid disease, patients with known osteoporosis/osteopenia prior to the diagnosis of BCa, and patients who did not undergo a BMD determination.

2.3. Study Procedures and Outcomes

BMD was evaluated with central dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA scan) after obtaining informed consent. The BMD determination was carried out by a single radiology specialist for all patients. DXA scans were performed on the lumbar spine and both coxofemoral joints using a Hologic Densitometer (Discovery WI model) with serial number 87039. Densitometry was classified according to the WHO using the T-score estimator, which represents the number of standard deviations of bone mineral density (sd-BMD) with respect to the mean value of the population aged 20 to 39 years of the same sex: normal ≥ −1.0, osteopenia −1.0 to −2.5, and osteoporosis ≤ −2.5 sd-BMD. Clinical and histological data were obtained from electronic records.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

To describe the data, means and standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages were calculated. The distribution type was evaluated using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Student’s t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey’s multiple comparison test, chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test were applied. Due to the retrospective design of the study, we calculated odds ratios and confidence intervals from contingency tables examining the relationship between two dichotomous variables. A p value < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism software, version 8.0.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA), and SPSS software, version 19 (IBM Corp. Released 2015. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 19.0. Armonk, NY, USA). As control strategies for confounding variables, we carried out a stratified analysis of the main outcomes (age), and homogeneity was demonstrated in relation to clinicopathological characteristics and risk factors for BCa among the study groups.

3. Results

3.1. Clinical and Demographic Data

A total of 191 patients with a diagnosis of BCa and an age range of 34–83 years were included. Among these patients, 35.6% (68 patients) had a previous diagnosis of SAH; 53% (36/68 patients) were treated with nsBBs, 28% (19/68 patients) with sBBs, and 19% (13/68 patients) were treated with diuretics. No differences were found in risk factors for BCa among the study groups (Table 1).
Table 2 shows the clinicopathological characteristics of patients with BCa in relation to the study group. Significant differences were detected in tumor stage and metastasis at the time of diagnosis (p < 0.05 for each variable), with the most aggressive stages and highest frequencies of metastasis observed in patients not treated with nsBBs.

3.2. Follow-Up and Outcomes

Table 3 shows the mean BMD of patients with BCa in relation to the study group. The values for the total number of patients were considered; however, they were also analyzed by age strata. The mean BMD across all ages of the patients, as well as by age stratum, was greater in those who were treated with nsBBs than in those who were treated with sBBs. The mean BMD was lower in patients treated with loop diuretics than in patients who did not receive any treatment. Figure 1 shows the comparison of mean BMDs between all study groups, highlighting the differences between groups according to the post hoc analysis.
According to the BMD classification into normal, osteopenia, and osteoporosis groups, in the group of patients who received treatment with nsBBs or sBBs, no cases of osteoporosis were observed; however, the patients who received diuretic management presented a frequency of 23.1% in the analysis of all ages, whereas 33.2% of the patients in the age group of 34 to 58 years and 20% of the patients in the age group of 59 to 83 years presented osteoporosis. Regarding the diagnosis of osteopenia, frequencies of 5.6% and 31.6% were observed in the group of patients treated with nsBBs and sBBs, respectively, and 61.5% and 48% were observed in the patients managed with loop diuretics and without treatment, respectively, considering all the age groups. This same trend was observed in the analysis by age stratum (Table 4 and Figure 2).
Table 5 shows that all patients with a diagnosis of osteoporosis/osteopenia were 26 times (all ages), 44 times (34 to 58 years old), and 16 times (59 to 83 years old) more likely not to be treated with nsBBs than women treated with nsBBs (p < 0.05).
For the group of patients not treated with sBBs, the probabilities of being diagnosed with osteoporosis/osteopenia were 4 times and 5 times greater than those of patients treated with sBBs among all patients and in the group aged 59 to 83 years, respectively (p < 0.05).

4. Discussion

BCa is associated with bone demineralization due to different pathophysiological mechanisms, such as increased chronic stress, treatment with antiestrogenic and aromatase inhibitors, bone metastasis, and reduced mobility and physical activity [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. Recent studies have shown that the link between cancer and chronic stress is mediated by neurochemicals such as cortisol, AD, and NA, which have protumor effects [21,22].
BCa is a neoplasm characterized by the overexpression of ADRBs with high affinity for AD and NA; therefore, management with BBs has shown promise as an antitumor agent [52,53]. This finding is similar to our results, as we observed patients with prior BB treatment had a lower tumor stage and a lower rate of metastasis than patients without a history of this treatment. In this context, various studies have shown chronic stress, mediated by neurochemicals and their ligands, can enhance different protumor mechanisms, such as angiogenesis, metastasis, chemoresistance, and cell proliferation [54]. Chronic stress levels can even increase in patients with neoplasms, leading to post-traumatic stress syndrome, which implies critical stress especially in the first three months after a BCa diagnosis [16,55,56,57,58,59].
For the analysis of BMD in relation to prior BB treatment, stratification was conducted by the age range. We observed a significantly lower BMD in patients aged 59 to 83 years compared to those aged 34 to 58 years. These data are consistent with the previously described negative correlation between age and BMD [46,60,61].
The mean BMD was greater in patients taking nsBBs in both the overall analysis and the age-stratified analysis, followed by those taking sBBs. The lowest BMDs were observed in patients treated with loop diuretics or those without any SAH treatment. The frequencies of osteopenia and osteoporosis were lower in patients treated with BBs, particularly nsBBs. These results can be explained by the antiresorptive effect of BBs, mainly nsBBs, as they prevent osteoclast activation by blocking ADRB1/2 receptors and promote osteoformation by activating osteoblasts through the RANKL pathway [27,28,33,36,55,62]. These findings may be related to the role of C-terminal domain nuclear envelope phosphatase 1 (Ctdnep1) in bone homeostasis, where bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) receptors suppress transforming growth factor (TGF-β) signaling and negatively regulate osteoclast differentiation [12,29,30,48,50,51,63,64]. These results were confirmed by studies of hypertensive rats, where treatment with nsBBs inhibited osteoclast activity and activated osteoblasts through the RANKL pathway [65]. It was also clear that sBBs had a smaller effect, possibly because acting only on ADRB1 and not on ADRB2 results in a smaller effect on RANKL, but this is still unclear [12]. Regarding clinical trials, few studies have evaluated the effects of nsBBs and sBBs on bone metabolism. For example, a clinical trial is investigating the effect of propranolol (Concor®, 5 mg once daily for 1 year) on the number of fractures in older adults with osteoporosis [66]. Additionally, the effects of atenolol, nevibolol, and propranolol (50 mg/day, 5 mg/day, and 40 mg b.i.d., respectively, for 20 weeks) on the ratio of serum bone formation to bone resorption markers in postmenopausal women have been studied [67]. Finally, the effects of atenolol (50 mg daily over 2 years) on the percent change in femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD and cortical bone microarchitecture in postmenopausal women have been studied [68]. In contrast to what was reported in the clinical trials, our BCa patients included in this study were treated with higher doses of both nsBBs and sBBs, as the SAH treatment regimens were managed, and the treatment time ranged from 3 months to 1 year, whereas in the aforementioned trials, it was 5 months to a maximum of 2 years. In this sense, although we observed significant results regarding the probable osteoprotective effect of nsBBs, we can mention limitations of our findings; as this was a retrospective study, we did not control the doses and time of treatment with nsBBs, as the regimens were based on the indications for SAH, and so we recommend that clinical trials be carried out where the specific dosage of nsBB is established as osteoprotective both in patients at risk, such as those at menopause, and those with specific pathologies, such as BCa. Importantly, the effects of nsBBs and sBBs on BMD may differ depending on the pathologies of the population, as reported by Anumas et al., who conducted a retrospective study of patients receiving weekly hemodialysis and concluded that patients treated for 5 months with nsBBs had no significant differences in mean BMD compared with untreated patients [69].
On the other hand, the administration of loop diuretics such as furosemide in this study was associated with a decrease in BMD because it promoted the accelerated excretion of urine, calcium, and other minerals important for bone maintenance [70]. However, other studies have shown that diuretics, especially thiazides, which retain calcium, have a protective effect on bone health. We suggest that BCa patients who require a diuretic for SAH treatment be treated with thiazides, as they are more appropriate than loop diuretics are [60,71].
Our results showed that nsBB therapy reduced the probability of a diagnosis of osteoporosis or osteopenia in patients with BCa. The possible mechanisms of action in relation to BMD can be attributed, as previously mentioned, to its antiresorptive and osteoforming capacities, which negatively regulate the number of osteoclasts, positively regulate collagen formation, and promote bone mineralization [8]. Another advantage is that, as an anxiolytic, it reduces the chronic stress experienced by patients with BCa, thereby lowering the levels of cortisol, AD, and NA, which, as already mentioned, precipitate the loss of BMD [72]. Finally, the antitumor effect of BBs limits cancer progression and metastasis [52,53].
The repositioning of nsBBs for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and osteopenia is an affordable alternative in terms of cost, availability, and therapeutic safety. Compared with other osteoforming and antiresorptive drugs that can have negative effects on tumor pathology, such as estrogen management or human recombinant parathyroid hormone agents, it can be a first option for preventing and treating bone demineralization and its consequences when they are not severe [73,74,75]. In this context, for BCa patients with osteoporosis and a risk of fracture, combining nsBBs with bisphosphonates such as zoledronic acid or the monoclonal antibody denosumab, which has demonstrated antitumor effects on BCa, would be useful [73,76,77,78,79,80]. For BCa patients with a diagnosis of osteopenia, postmenopausal women, or women at risk of osteoporosis, the prescription of nsBBs with vitamin D could be useful for preventing accelerated bone resorption [81,82,83,84]. However, further prospective studies and clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

5. Conclusions

In this retrospective study, we demonstrated that Mexican patients with a diagnosis of BCa who received previous treatment for SAH with nsBBs had a greater BMD and no cases of osteoporosis or osteopenia compared to patients treated with sBBs, loop diuretics, or without SAH.
Although our results were obtained from a single-center study, the mechanism underlying our findings could benefit BCa patients from other populations. Prospective studies evaluating specific dosage parameters for the protection of BMD in patients with BCa are needed.
Finally, in patients with BCa, treatment with nsBBs, in addition to the known antitumor benefits, appears promising from the perspective of osteoprotection.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.B., A.A.-M. and E.L.-P.; methodology, C.B., A.A.-M. and C.M.M.-B.; software, A.A.-M.; validation, A.A.-M.; formal analysis, C.B., A.A.-M. and C.M.M.-B.; investigation, A.A.-M., N.C.-R., V.M.-L., G.I.-C. and B.D.; data curation, C.B. and A.A.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, C.B., O.d.J.P.-G., N.C.-R. and C.M.M.-B.; writing—review and editing, C.B., N.C.-R. and I.I.-M.; supervision, C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board and Ethics Committee of Centro Médico ABC, (TABC-17-22, date of approval: 16 May 2016).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patients to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request to the corresponding author since they are the clinical data of patients protected under a confidentiality letter delivered to the Ethics Committee of the ABC Medical Center.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Escuela Superior de Medicina, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, and Consejo Nacional de Humanidades, Ciencias y Tecnologías.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Arzanova, E.; Mayrovitz, H. Breast Cancer. In The Epidemiology of Breast Cancer; Mayrovitz, H.N., Ed.; Exon Publications: Brisbane, Australia, 2022. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK583818/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK583818.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2024).
  2. Bray, F.; Laversanne, M.; Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2024, 74, 229–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. IARC-WHO Cancer Tomorrow. Available online: https://gco.iarc.fr/tomorrow/en/dataviz/tables?cancers=20 (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  4. Pescia, C.; Guerini-Rocco, E.; Viale, G.; Fusco, N. Advances in Early Breast Cancer Risk Profiling: From Histopathology to Molecular Technologies. Cancers 2023, 15, 5430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, Y.; Goliwas, K.F.; Severino, P.E.; Hough, K.P.; Van Vessem, D.; Wang, H.; Tousif, S.; Koomullil, R.P.; Frost, A.R.; Ponnazhagan, S.; et al. Mechanical strain induces phenotypic changes in breast cancer cells and promotes immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment. Lab. Investig. 2020, 100, 1503–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tseng, L.J.; Matsuyama, A.; MacDonald-Dickinson, V. Histology: The gold standard for diagnosis? Can. Vet. J. 2023, 64, 389–391. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cserni, G. Histological type and typing of breast carcinomas and the WHO classification changes over time. Pathologica 2020, 112, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rej, R.K.; Roy, J.; Allu, S.R. Therapies for the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Current Situation and Future Directions. Cancers 2024, 16, 552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Cerulli, C.; Moretti, E.; Grazioli, E.; Emerenziani, G.P.; Murri, A.; Tranchita, E.; Minganti, C.; Di Cagno, A.; Parisi, A. Protective role of exercise on breast cancer-related osteoporosis in women undergoing aromatase inhibitors: A narrative review. Bone Rep. 2024, 21, 101756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Martinez, P.; Galve, E.; Arrazubi, V.; Sala, M.A.; Fernandez, S.; Perez, C.E.; Arango, J.F.; Torre, I. Impact of an osteoporosis specialized unit on bone health in breast cancer survivals treated with aromatase inhibitors. Reumatol. Clin. 2019, 15, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Cucciniello, L.; Garufi, G.; Di Rienzo, R.; Martinelli, C.; Pavone, G.; Giuliano, M.; Arpino, G.; Montemurro, F.; Del Mastro, L.; De Laurentiis, M.; et al. Estrogen deprivation effects of endocrine therapy in breast cancer patients: Incidence, management and outcome. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2023, 120, 102624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhong, X.P.; Xia, W.F. Regulation of bone metabolism mediated by beta-adrenergic receptor and its clinical application. World J. Clin. Cases 2021, 9, 8967–8973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. JE, L.L.; Gil, C.; Amatya, N.; Lagalwar, S.; Possidente, B.; Vashishth, D. Degradation of Bone Quality in a Transgenic Mouse Model of Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2022, 37, 2548–2565. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lam, R.W.; Wong, H.K.; Kumarsing, R.A.; Chua, A.N.; Ho, R.C.; McIntyre, R.S.; Ho, C.S. Fluoxetine improves bone microarchitecture and mechanical properties in rodents undergoing chronic mild stress—An animal model of depression. Transl. Psychiatry 2022, 12, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wendel, J.; Verma, A.; Dhevan, V.; Chauhan, S.C.; Tripathi, M.K. Stress and Molecular Drivers for Cancer Progression: A Longstanding Hypothesis. Biomed. J. Sci. Tech. Res. 2021, 37, 29134–29138. [Google Scholar]
  16. Nazari, M.A.; Hasan, R.; Haigney, M.; Maghsoudi, A.; Lenders, J.W.M.; Carey, R.M.; Pacak, K. Catecholamine-induced hypertensive crises: Current insights and management. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2023, 11, 942–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yanagisawa, Y.; Suzuki, H.; Gamada, H.; Yamazaki, M. Atypical tibial fracture in breast cancer patient with bone metastasis receiving denosumab therapy: A case report and review of the literature. J. Med. Case Rep. 2023, 17, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Siregar, Z.; Usman, A.N.; Ahmad, M.; Ariyandy, A.; Ilhamuddin, I.; Takko, A.B. Massage on the prevention of breast cancer through stress reduction and enhancing immune system. Breast Dis. 2024, 43, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lourenco, C.; Conceicao, F.; Jeronimo, C.; Lamghari, M.; Sousa, D.M. Stress in Metastatic Breast Cancer: To the Bone and Beyond. Cancers 2022, 14, 1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Zhou, Z.; Shu, Y.; Bao, H.; Han, S.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, N.; Yuan, W.; Jian, C.; Shu, X. Stress-induced epinephrine promotes epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and stemness of CRC through the CEBPB/TRIM2/P53 axis. J. Transl. Med. 2022, 20, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Sousa, D.M.; Fernandes, V.; Lourenco, C.; Carvalho-Maia, C.; Estevao-Pereira, H.; Lobo, J.; Cantante, M.; Couto, M.; Conceicao, F.; Jeronimo, C.; et al. Profiling the Adrenergic System in Breast Cancer and the Development of Metastasis. Cancers 2022, 14, 5518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dai, S.; Mo, Y.; Wang, Y.; Xiang, B.; Liao, Q.; Zhou, M.; Li, X.; Li, Y.; Xiong, W.; Li, G.; et al. Chronic Stress Promotes Cancer Development. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Worton, L.E.; Srinivasan, S.; Threet, D.; Ausk, B.J.; Huber, P.; Kwon, R.Y.; Bain, S.D.; Gross, T.S.; Gardiner, E.M. Beta 2 Adrenergic Receptor Selective Antagonist Enhances Mechanically Stimulated Bone Anabolism in Aged Mice. JBMR Plus 2023, 7, e10712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Pierce, J.L.; Ding, K.H.; Xu, J.; Sharma, A.K.; Yu, K.; Del Mazo Arbona, N.; Rodriguez-Santos, Z.; Bernard, P.; Bollag, W.B.; Johnson, M.H.; et al. The glucocorticoid receptor in osteoprogenitors regulates bone mass and marrow fat. J. Endocrinol. 2019, 243, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Xu, H.K.; Liu, J.X.; Zheng, C.X.; Liu, L.; Ma, C.; Tian, J.Y.; Yuan, Y.; Cao, Y.; Xing, S.J.; Liu, S.Y.; et al. Region-specific sympatho-adrenergic regulation of specialized vasculature in bone homeostasis and regeneration. iScience 2023, 26, 107455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kim, B.J.; Kwak, M.K.; Ahn, S.H.; Kim, H.; Lee, S.H.; Song, K.H.; Suh, S.; Kim, J.H.; Koh, J.M. Lower Bone Mass and Higher Bone Resorption in Pheochromocytoma: Importance of Sympathetic Activity on Human Bone. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2017, 102, 2711–2718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Alves Barreto, A.E.; Balera Brito, V.G.; Patrocinio, M.S.; Ballassoni, B.B.; Tfaile Frasnelli, S.C.; Penha Oliveira, S.H. beta1-adrenergic receptor but not beta2 mediates osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in normotensive and hypertensive rats. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2021, 911, 174515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Arai, M.; Nagasawa, T.; Koshihara, Y.; Yamamoto, S.; Togari, A. Effects of beta-adrenergic agonists on bone-resorbing activity in human osteoclast-like cells. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2003, 1640, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Pierroz, D.D.; Bonnet, N.; Bianchi, E.N.; Bouxsein, M.L.; Baldock, P.A.; Rizzoli, R.; Ferrari, S.L. Deletion of beta-adrenergic receptor 1, 2, or both leads to different bone phenotypes and response to mechanical stimulation. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2012, 27, 1252–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sun, Z.; Hou, D.; Liu, S.; Fu, W.; Wang, J.; Liang, Z. Norepinephrine inhibits the cytotoxicity of NK92-MI cells via the beta2-adrenoceptor/cAMP/PKA/p-CREB signaling pathway. Mol. Med. Rep. 2018, 17, 8530–8535. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mahfoud, F.; Wang, J.; Ray, S. The current position of beta-blockers in hypertension: Guidelines and clinical practice. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2024, 40, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Vojvodic, A.; Vojvodic, P.; Vlaskovic-Jovicevic, T.; Sijan, G.; Dimitrijevic, S.; Peric-Hajzler, Z.; Matovic, D.; Wollina, U.; Tirant, M.; Thuong, N.V.; et al. Beta Blockers and Melanoma. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci. 2019, 7, 3110–3112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Amato, R.; Lucchesi, M.; Marracci, S.; Filippi, L.; Dal Monte, M. beta-Adrenoceptors in Cancer: Old Players and New Perspectives. In Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  34. Cavalu, S.; Saber, S.; Amer, A.E.; Hamad, R.S.; Abdel-Reheim, M.A.; Elmorsy, E.A.; Abdelhamid, A.M. The multifaceted role of beta-blockers in overcoming cancer progression and drug resistance: Extending beyond cardiovascular disorders. FASEB J. 2024, 38, e23813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Talo Yildirim, T.; Dundar, S.; Bozoglan, A.; Karaman, T.; Tekin, S.; Kahraman, O.E. Evaluation of the Effects of ss-Adrenergic Receptor-Propranolol on Osseointegration of the Titanium Implants. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2021, 32, 783–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Al-Subaie, A.E.; Laurenti, M.; Abdallah, M.N.; Tamimi, I.; Yaghoubi, F.; Eimar, H.; Makhoul, N.; Tamimi, F. Propranolol enhances bone healing and implant osseointegration in rats tibiae. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2016, 43, 1160–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sato, T.; Arai, M.; Goto, S.; Togari, A. Effects of propranolol on bone metabolism in spontaneously hypertensive rats. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2010, 334, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rodrigues, W.F.; Madeira, M.F.; da Silva, T.A.; Clemente-Napimoga, J.T.; Miguel, C.B.; Dias-da-Silva, V.J.; Barbosa-Neto, O.; Lopes, A.H.; Napimoga, M.H. Low dose of propranolol down-modulates bone resorption by inhibiting inflammation and osteoclast differentiation. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2012, 165, 2140–2151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Trost, S.; Tesfaye, N.; Harindhanavudhi, T. The interplay between bone and heart health as reflected in medication effects: A narrative review. Womens Health 2023, 19, 17455057231165549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Zhang, M.; Lee, A.V.; Rosen, J.M. The Cellular Origin and Evolution of Breast Cancer. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2017, 7, a027128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yavuz Keles, B.; Vural, M.; Onder, B.; Ones, K. Evaluation of the effects of beta1-selective beta-blockers on bone mineral density and fracture risk in postmenopausal women. Turk. J. Med. Sci. 2020, 50, 994–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khosla, S.; Drake, M.T.; Volkman, T.L.; Thicke, B.S.; Achenbach, S.J.; Atkinson, E.J.; Joyner, M.J.; Rosen, C.J.; Monroe, D.G.; Farr, J.N. Sympathetic beta1-adrenergic signaling contributes to regulation of human bone metabolism. J. Clin. Investig. 2018, 128, 4832–4842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Huang, J.F.; Tan, Q.C.; Bai, H.; Wang, J.; Bergman, M.; Wu, Z. Bone mineral density, osteopenia and osteoporosis among US adults with cancer. QJM 2022, 115, 653–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lee, S.; Kim, H.Y.; Jung, Y.J.; Kang, S.K.; Kim, J.Y.; Yun, M.S. Is bone mineral density a prognostic factor in postmenopausal women with luminal A breast cancer? Korean J. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 19, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bradley, J.A.; Liang, X.; Mailhot Vega, R.B.; Liu, C.; Brooks, E.D.; Burchianti, T.; Viviers, E.; Dagan, R.; Oladeru, O.T.; Morris, C.G.; et al. Incidence of Rib Fracture following Treatment with Proton Therapy for Breast Cancer. Int. J. Part. Ther. 2023, 9, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Galvano, A.; Gristina, V.; Scaturro, D.; Bazan Russo, T.D.; Tomasello, S.; Vitagliani, F.; Carita, F.; La Mantia, M.; Fulfaro, F.; Bazan, V.; et al. The role of bone modifying agents for secondary osteoporosis prevention and pain control in postpost-menopausal osteopenic breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant aromatase inhibitors. Front. Endocrinol. 2023, 14, 1297950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. de Sire, A.; Gallelli, L.; Marotta, N.; Lippi, L.; Fusco, N.; Calafiore, D.; Cione, E.; Muraca, L.; Maconi, A.; De Sarro, G.; et al. Vitamin D Deficiency in Women with Breast Cancer: A Correlation with Osteoporosis? A Machine Learning Approach with Multiple Factor Analysis. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lin, S.T.; Li, Y.Z.; Sun, X.Q.; Chen, Q.Q.; Huang, S.F.; Lin, S.; Cai, S.Q. Update on the Role of Neuropeptide Y and Other Related Factors in Breast Cancer and Osteoporosis. Front. Endocrinol. 2021, 12, 705499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. de Pinho, I.S.; Abreu, C.; Gomes, I.; Casimiro, S.; Pacheco, T.R.; de Sousa, R.T.; Costa, L. Exploring new pathways in endocrine-resistant breast cancer. Explor. Target. Anti-Tumor Ther. 2022, 3, 337–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. De Leon-Oliva, D.; Barrena-Blazquez, S.; Jimenez-Alvarez, L.; Fraile-Martinez, O.; Garcia-Montero, C.; Lopez-Gonzalez, L.; Torres-Carranza, D.; Garcia-Puente, L.M.; Carranza, S.T.; Alvarez-Mon, M.A.; et al. The RANK-RANKL-OPG System: A Multifaceted Regulator of Homeostasis, Immunity, and Cancer. Medicina 2023, 59, 1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Konno, T.; Murachi, H.; Otsuka, K.; Kimura, Y.; Sampei, C.; Arasaki, Y.; Kohara, Y.; Hayata, T. Ctdnep1 phosphatase is required for negative regulation of RANKL-induced osteoclast differentiation in RAW264.7 cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2024, 719, 150063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Parada-Huerta, E.; Alvarez-Dominguez, T.; Uribe-Escamilla, R.; Rodriguez-Joya, J.; Ponce-Medrano, J.D.; Padron-Lucio, S.; Alfaro-Rodriguez, A.; Bandala, C. Metastasis Risk Reduction Related with Beta-Blocker Treatment in Mexican Women with Breast Cancer. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2016, 17, 2953–2957. [Google Scholar]
  53. Madel, M.B.; Elefteriou, F. Mechanisms Supporting the Use of Beta-Blockers for the Management of Breast Cancer Bone Metastasis. Cancers 2021, 13, 2887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cui, B.; Luo, Y.; Tian, P.; Peng, F.; Lu, J.; Yang, Y.; Su, Q.; Liu, B.; Yu, J.; Luo, X.; et al. Stress-induced epinephrine enhances lactate dehydrogenase A and promotes breast cancer stem-like cells. J. Clin. Investig. 2019, 129, 1030–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Surman, M.; Janik, M.E. Stress and its molecular consequences in cancer progression. Postep. Hig. I Med. Dosw. 2017, 71, 485–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Anton, S.; Gugic, D.; Vrlic, K. Psychotraumatization and Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer. Psychiatr. Danub. 2022, 34, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  57. Lacourt, T.E.; Heijnen, C.J. Mechanisms of Neurotoxic Symptoms as a Result of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment: Considerations on the Contribution of Stress, Inflammation, and Cellular Bioenergetics. Curr. Breast Cancer Rep. 2017, 9, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Taub, C.J.; Lippman, M.E.; Hudson, B.I.; Blomberg, B.B.; Diaz, A.; Fisher, H.M.; Nahin, E.R.; Lechner, S.C.; Kwak, T.; Hwang, G.H.; et al. The effects of a randomized trial of brief forms of stress management on RAGE-associated S100A8/A9 in patients with breast cancer undergoing primary treatment. Cancer 2019, 125, 1717–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Li, J.; Gao, W.; Yang, Q.; Cao, F. Perceived stress, anxiety, and depression in treatment-naive women with breast cancer: A case—control study. Psychooncology 2021, 30, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hijazi, N.; Alourfi, Z. Association between Hypertension, Antihypertensive Drugs, and Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Syrian Women: A Cross-Sectional Study. Adv. Med. 2020, 2020, 7014212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Mohajeri-Tehrani, M.R.; Alemzadeh, S.A.; Marzbali, F.A.; Nasserisina, S.; Hosnan, F.; Naghghash, A.; Hamidieh, A.A.; Behfar, M.; Mohseni, F.; Rashidian, H.; et al. How Age, Sex and Transfusion Affects the Incidence of Endocrine and Bone Density Disorders in Major Thalassemic Patients. Iran. J. Public Health 2024, 53, 433–442. [Google Scholar]
  62. Obeid, E.I.; Conzen, S.D. The role of adrenergic signaling in breast cancer biology. Cancer Biomark. 2013, 13, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Bonnet, N.; Pierroz, D.D.; Ferrari, S.L. Adrenergic control of bone remodeling and its implications for the treatment of osteoporosis. J. Musculoskelet. Neuronal Interact. 2008, 8, 94–104. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhang, R.; Yin, H.; Yang, M.; Lei, X.; Zhen, D.; Zhang, Z. Advanced Progress of the Relationship Between Antihypertensive Drugs and Bone Metabolism. Hypertension 2023, 80, 2255–2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Uchibori, S.; Sekiya, T.; Sato, T.; Hayashi, K.; Takeguchi, A.; Muramatsu, R.; Ishizuka, K.; Kondo, H.; Miyazawa, K.; Togari, A.; et al. Suppression of tooth movement-induced sclerostin expression using beta-adrenergic receptor blockers. Oral Dis. 2020, 26, 621–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Clinical Tryals.gov. Clinical Study Evaluating Beta Blockers Use and Fracture Risk in Patients with Primary Osteoporosis. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04704947?cond=NCT04704947&rank=1 (accessed on 1 August 2024).
  67. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Clinical Tryals.gov. Dose Response and Receptor Selectivity of Beta-Blocker Effects on Bone Metabolism. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02467400?cond=NCT02467400&rank=1 (accessed on 1 August 2024).
  68. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Clinical Tryals.gov. Atenolol for the Prevention of Osteoporosis (APO). Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04905277?cond=NCT04905277&rank=1 (accessed on 1 August 2024).
  69. Anumas, S.; Thitisuriyarax, S.; Tantiyavarong, P.; Pholsawatchai, W.; Pattharanitima, P. The Association of Beta-Blocker Use and Bone Mineral Density Level in Hemodialysis Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study. Medicina 2023, 59, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Sumida, K.; Shrestha, P.; Mallisetty, Y.; Surbhi, S.; Thomas, F.; Streja, E.; Kalantar-Zadeh, K.; Kovesdy, C.P. Incident Diuretic Use and Subsequent Risk of Bone Fractures: A Large Nationwide Observational Study of US Veterans. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2024, 99, 913–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Huang, X.; Zhang, T.; Guo, P.; Gong, W.; Zhu, H.; Zhao, M.; Yuan, Z. Association of antihypertensive drugs with fracture and bone mineral density: A comprehensive drug-target Mendelian randomization study. Front. Endocrinol. 2023, 14, 1164387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Telegdy, G.; Adamik, A. Neurotransmitter-mediated anxiogenic action of PACAP-38 in rats. Behav. Brain Res. 2015, 281, 333–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Luo, C.; Qin, S.X.; Wang, Q.Y.; Li, Y.F.; Qu, X.L.; Yue, C.; Hu, L.; Sheng, Z.F.; Wang, X.B.; Wan, X.M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of five drugs for treating postmenopausal women in the United States with osteoporosis and a very high fracture risk. J. Endocrinol. Investig. 2023, 46, 367–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Patel, R.; Klein, P.; Tiersten, A.; Sparano, J.A. An emerging generation of endocrine therapies in breast cancer: A clinical perspective. NPJ Breast Cancer 2023, 9, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tchivileva, I.E.; Hadgraft, H.; Lim, P.F.; Di Giosia, M.; Ribeiro-Dasilva, M.; Campbell, J.H.; Willis, J.; James, R.; Herman-Giddens, M.; Fillingim, R.B.; et al. Efficacy and safety of propranolol for treatment of temporomandibular disorder pain: A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Pain 2020, 161, 1755–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Li, Y.Y.; Gao, L.J.; Zhang, Y.X.; Liu, S.J.; Cheng, S.; Liu, Y.P.; Jia, C.X. Bisphosphonates and risk of cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Cancer 2020, 123, 1570–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Sun, H.; Zhao, S.; Zhang, Y.; Li, D.; Zhang, Q.; Zhao, Y. Bisphosphonates and primary breast cancer risk: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis involving 963,995 women. Clin. Epidemiol. 2019, 11, 593–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Mbese, Z.; Aderibigbe, B.A. Bisphosphonate-Based Conjugates and Derivatives as Potential Therapeutic Agents in Osteoporosis, Bone Cancer and Metastatic Bone Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 6869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Morizio, P.; Burkhart, J.I.; Ozawa, S. Denosumab: A Unique Perspective on Adherence and Cost-effectiveness Compared with Oral Bisphosphonates in Osteoporosis Patients. Ann. Pharmacother. 2018, 52, 1031–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Santini, D.; Stumbo, L.; Spoto, C.; D’Onofrio, L.; Pantano, F.; Iuliani, M.; Fioramonti, M.; Zoccoli, A.; Ribelli, G.; Virzi, V.; et al. Bisphosphonates as anticancer agents in early breast cancer: Preclinical and clinical evidence. Breast Cancer Res. 2015, 17, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kouba, B.R.; Camargo, A.; Gil-Mohapel, J.; Rodrigues, A.L.S. Molecular Basis Underlying the Therapeutic Potential of Vitamin D for the Treatment of Depression and Anxiety. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 7077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Torres, A.; Cameselle, C.; Otero, P.; Simal-Gandara, J. The Impact of Vitamin D and Its Dietary Supplementation in Breast Cancer Prevention: An Integrative Review. Nutrients 2024, 16, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Voulgaridou, G.; Papadopoulou, S.K.; Detopoulou, P.; Tsoumana, D.; Giaginis, C.; Kondyli, F.S.; Lymperaki, E.; Pritsa, A. Vitamin D and Calcium in Osteoporosis, and the Role of Bone Turnover Markers: A Narrative Review of Recent Data from RCTs. Diseases 2023, 11, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zemlin, C.; Altmayer, L.; Stuhlert, C.; Schleicher, J.T.; Wormann, C.; Lang, M.; Scherer, L.S.; Thul, I.C.; Spenner, L.S.; Simon, J.A.; et al. Prevalence and Relevance of Vitamin D Deficiency in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients: A Pilot Study. Nutrients 2023, 15, 1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 16 02891 g001
Figure 1. Comparison of the mean bone mineral density between the study groups. Effect of treatment with BBs on bone mineral density in patients with BCa determined by DXA scans. (A) All patients, (B) patients aged 34 to 58 years, and (C) patients aged 59 to 83 years. * p < 0.05.
Figure 1. Comparison of the mean bone mineral density between the study groups. Effect of treatment with BBs on bone mineral density in patients with BCa determined by DXA scans. (A) All patients, (B) patients aged 34 to 58 years, and (C) patients aged 59 to 83 years. * p < 0.05.
Cancers 16 02891 g001
Cancers 16 02891 g002
Figure 2. Frequencies of the diagnoses of osteopenia and osteoporosis in the SAH treatment groups and the group without SAH. (A) All patients (34 to 83 years old), (B) patients aged 34 to 58 years old, and (C) patients aged 59 to 83 years old.
Figure 2. Frequencies of the diagnoses of osteopenia and osteoporosis in the SAH treatment groups and the group without SAH. (A) All patients (34 to 83 years old), (B) patients aged 34 to 58 years old, and (C) patients aged 59 to 83 years old.
Cancers 16 02891 g002
Table 1. Risk factors for BCa in relation to the treatment group.
Table 1. Risk factors for BCa in relation to the treatment group.
Study Group
nsBB
Mean ± SD		sBB
Mean ± SD		Diuretics
Mean ± SD		No SAH
Mean ± SD		p Value
Age (range)56.17 ± 9.1
(41–79)		59.32 ± 9.6
(46–74)		63.54 ± 6.9
(53–79)		57.36 ± 10.9
(34–83)		0.13
Body mass index24.68 ± 4.327.18 ± 7.226.57 ± 5.525.03 ± 4.30.19
% (n = 36)% (n = 19)% (n = 13)% (n = 123)
Family history of cancer50 (18)26.3 (5)53.8 (7)44.7 (55)0.32
Smoking33.3 (12)31.6 (6)30.8 (4)37.4 (46)0.91
Obesity8.3 (3)21.1 (4)15.4 (2)11.4 (14)0.55
Early menarche2.8 (1)5.3 (1)7.7 (1)4.1 (5)0.88
Nulliparity5.6 (2)5.3 (1)7.7 (1)5.7 (7)0.99
Late menopause0001.6 (2)0.77
Menopause83.3 (30)78.9 (15)100 (13)79.7 (98)0.33
SD = standard deviation, nsBB = nonselective beta blocker, sBB = selective beta blocker, SAH = systemic arterial hypertension.
Table 2. Clinicopathological characteristics of patients with BCa in relation to the study group.
Table 2. Clinicopathological characteristics of patients with BCa in relation to the study group.
Study Group
nsBB
% (n = 36)		sBB
% (n = 19)		Diuretics
% (n = 13)		No SAH
% (n = 123)		p Value
Stage I–II97.2 (35)100 (19)76.9 (10)77.2 (95)0.007
Stage III–IV2.8 (1)023.1 (3)22.8 (28)
Triple negative30.6 (11)52.6 (10)23.1 (3)50.4 (62)0.05
Triple positive16.7 (6)21.1 (4)15.4 (2)11.4 (14)0.64
Hormonal therapy2.8 (1)15.8 (3)08.1 (10)0.23
Metastasis2.8 (1)07.7 (1)17.1 (21)0.02
nsBB = nonselective beta blocker, sBB = selective beta blocker, SAH = systemic arterial hypertension.
Table 3. Bone mineral density of patients with BCa in relation to the study group.
Table 3. Bone mineral density of patients with BCa in relation to the study group.
Study Group
nsBB
Mean ± SD		sBB
Mean ± SD		Diuretic
Mean ± SD		No SAH
Mean ± SD		p Value
All patients+0.54 ± 0.94−0.44 ± 1.22−1.73 ± 0.83−1.22 ± 0.980.0001
Age range 34 to 58 years+0.90 ± 0.59+0.32 ± 1.24−2.2 ± 0.80−1.07 ± 0.820.0001
Age range 59 to 83 years+0.03 ± 1.12−0.90 ± 0.99−1.59 ± 0.83−1.39 ± 1.120.0001
SD = standard deviation, nsBB = nonselective beta blocker, sBB = selective beta blocker, SAH = systemic arterial hypertension.
Table 4. Diagnoses of osteoporosis/osteopenia in patients with BCA and their relationships with the study group.
Table 4. Diagnoses of osteoporosis/osteopenia in patients with BCA and their relationships with the study group.
Study Group
nsBB
% (n = 36)		sBB
% (n = 19)		Diuretics
% (n = 13)		No SAH
% (n = 123)		p Value
All patients
Normal94.4 (34)68.4 (13)15.4 (2)41.5 (51)0.0001
Osteopenia5.6 (2)31.6 (6)61.5 (8)48 (59)
Osteoporosis0023.1 (3)10.6 (13)
34 to 58 years old% (n = 21)% (n = 7)% (n = 3)% (n = 66)
Normal100 (21)85.7 (6)051.5 (34)0.0001
Osteopenia014.3 (1)66.7 (2)43.9 (29)
Osteoporosis0033.2 (1)4.5 (3)
59 to 83 years old% (n = 15)% (n = 12)% (n = 10)% (n = 57)
Normal86.7 (13)58.3 (7)20 (2)29.8 (17)0.002
Osteopenia13.3 (2)41.7 (5)60 (6)52.6 (30)
Osteoporosis0020 (2)17.5 (10)
nsBB = nonselective beta blocker, sBB = selective beta blocker, SAH = systemic arterial hypertension.
Table 5. Probability of a diagnosis of osteoporosis/osteopenia in relation to the study group in patients with BCa.
Table 5. Probability of a diagnosis of osteoporosis/osteopenia in relation to the study group in patients with BCa.
Osteoporosis/Osteopenia
YesNoOR (95% CI)p Value
All patients
No nsBB97.6% (83/85)60.9% (53/87)26.62 (6.13 to 115.5)0.0001
No sBB94.6% (70/74)81.5 (66/81)3.97 (1.25 to 12.50)0.01
34–58 years old
No nsBB100% (35/35)61.8% (34/55)44.25 # (2.57 to 759.9)0.0001
No sBB94.7% (36/38)86.8% (33/38)2.72 (0.49 to 15.0)0.21
59–83 years old
No nsBB96% (48/50)59.4% (19/32)16.42 (3.38 to 79.77)0.0001
No sBB94.4% (34/36)76.7% (33/43)5.15 (1.04 to 25.31)0.02
OR = odds ratio, # = the OR was calculated by adding 0.5 to each value, CI = 95% confidence interval.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mejía-Barradas, C.M.; Amador-Martínez, A.; Lara-Padilla, E.; Cárdenas-Rodríguez, N.; Ignacio-Mejía, I.; Martínez-López, V.; Ibañez-Cervantes, G.; Picado-Garcia, O.d.J.; Domínguez, B.; Bandala, C. Effects of Selective and Nonselective Beta Blockers on Bone Mineral Density in Mexican Patients with Breast Cancer. Cancers 2024, 16, 2891. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16162891

AMA Style

Mejía-Barradas CM, Amador-Martínez A, Lara-Padilla E, Cárdenas-Rodríguez N, Ignacio-Mejía I, Martínez-López V, Ibañez-Cervantes G, Picado-Garcia OdJ, Domínguez B, Bandala C. Effects of Selective and Nonselective Beta Blockers on Bone Mineral Density in Mexican Patients with Breast Cancer. Cancers. 2024; 16(16):2891. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16162891

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mejía-Barradas, César Miguel, Ana Amador-Martínez, Eleazar Lara-Padilla, Noemí Cárdenas-Rodríguez, Iván Ignacio-Mejía, Valentín Martínez-López, Gabriela Ibañez-Cervantes, Orlando de Jesús Picado-Garcia, Brayan Domínguez, and Cindy Bandala. 2024. "Effects of Selective and Nonselective Beta Blockers on Bone Mineral Density in Mexican Patients with Breast Cancer" Cancers 16, no. 16: 2891. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16162891

APA Style

Mejía-Barradas, C. M., Amador-Martínez, A., Lara-Padilla, E., Cárdenas-Rodríguez, N., Ignacio-Mejía, I., Martínez-López, V., Ibañez-Cervantes, G., Picado-Garcia, O. d. J., Domínguez, B., & Bandala, C. (2024). Effects of Selective and Nonselective Beta Blockers on Bone Mineral Density in Mexican Patients with Breast Cancer. Cancers, 16(16), 2891. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16162891

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop