Presenter Status
Fellow
Abstract Type
Research
Primary Mentor
Dr. Jennifer Boyd
Start Date
15-5-2025 11:30 AM
End Date
15-5-2025 1:30 PM
Presentation Type
Poster Presentation
Description
With evolving technologies leading to better cancer cure rate, the number of childhood cancer survivors has increased. There has been increasing reports of later endocrine effects including growth hormone deficiency (GHD). Our aim is to investigate the influence of adding aromatase inhibitors (AI) to growth hormone (GH) therapy in childhood cancer survivors with growth hormone deficiency (GHD). A retrospective chart review was performed looking at children between ages 0 and 18 years with history of malignancy and subsequent diagnosis of GHD at our institution. Fifty-nine children were included in this study. Participants were classified into 3 groups: (1) the target group included children with prior history of malignancy and GHD who were treated with both growth hormone therapy and aromatase inhibitor (GH+AI); (2) control 1 group were children with a prior history of malignancy and GHD who were treated with GH therapy alone; and (3) control 2 group were children with GHD without a prior history of malignancy treated with GH+AI. There were 13, 19, and 27 patients in the target, Control 1, and Control 2 group, respectively. While baseline characteristics were similar among the 3 groups, the following factors differed: GH peak level (median 2.8 ng/mL, 4.2 ng/mL, 6.1 ng/mL, p=0.041), GH dose (median 0.2 mg/kg/week, 0.3 mg/kg/week, 0.3 mg/kg/week, p=0.038), and duration of GH therapy in years until final adult height (7.8 years, 6 years, 4.1 years, p=0.016). After controlling for the height z score at the first endocrinology visit, target group was on average 14.5 cm shorter (95% confidence interval (CI) 10.3 – 18.7) than their midparental height, control 1 was 5.6 cm shorter (95% CI 1.8 – 9.5), and control 2 was 4.0 cm shorter (95% CI 1.2 – 6.9). In children with malignancy and GHD, there was no benefit of being on GH+AI (target group) compared to GH alone (control 1). It is possible that this effect is due to the smaller GH dose used in the target group. Nevertheless, this is the first study that addresses the use of AI in childhood cancer survivors with GHD.
Included in
Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism Commons, Higher Education and Teaching Commons, Oncology Commons, Pediatrics Commons
Growth Hormone Deficiency in Childhood Cancer Survivors: Response to Growth Hormone Therapy and Aromatase Inhibitors Compared to Growth Hormone Therapy Alone.
With evolving technologies leading to better cancer cure rate, the number of childhood cancer survivors has increased. There has been increasing reports of later endocrine effects including growth hormone deficiency (GHD). Our aim is to investigate the influence of adding aromatase inhibitors (AI) to growth hormone (GH) therapy in childhood cancer survivors with growth hormone deficiency (GHD). A retrospective chart review was performed looking at children between ages 0 and 18 years with history of malignancy and subsequent diagnosis of GHD at our institution. Fifty-nine children were included in this study. Participants were classified into 3 groups: (1) the target group included children with prior history of malignancy and GHD who were treated with both growth hormone therapy and aromatase inhibitor (GH+AI); (2) control 1 group were children with a prior history of malignancy and GHD who were treated with GH therapy alone; and (3) control 2 group were children with GHD without a prior history of malignancy treated with GH+AI. There were 13, 19, and 27 patients in the target, Control 1, and Control 2 group, respectively. While baseline characteristics were similar among the 3 groups, the following factors differed: GH peak level (median 2.8 ng/mL, 4.2 ng/mL, 6.1 ng/mL, p=0.041), GH dose (median 0.2 mg/kg/week, 0.3 mg/kg/week, 0.3 mg/kg/week, p=0.038), and duration of GH therapy in years until final adult height (7.8 years, 6 years, 4.1 years, p=0.016). After controlling for the height z score at the first endocrinology visit, target group was on average 14.5 cm shorter (95% confidence interval (CI) 10.3 – 18.7) than their midparental height, control 1 was 5.6 cm shorter (95% CI 1.8 – 9.5), and control 2 was 4.0 cm shorter (95% CI 1.2 – 6.9). In children with malignancy and GHD, there was no benefit of being on GH+AI (target group) compared to GH alone (control 1). It is possible that this effect is due to the smaller GH dose used in the target group. Nevertheless, this is the first study that addresses the use of AI in childhood cancer survivors with GHD.
