Effects of zoledronic acid on bone mineral density in premenopausal women receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies for HR+ breast cancer: the ProBONE II study

Hormone Receptor Positive Breast Cancer in Young Women: A Review

The global incidence of hormone-positive breast cancer (HR+ BC) in young women is rising, though the underlying reasons remain unclear. HR+ disease in younger women appears to represent a distinct clinical entity compared to that in older women, exhibiting distinct clinicopathological characteristics, outcomes and responses to treatment. Despite these differences, there is a paucity of large-volume data focusing on young women with HR+ in contemporary literature. Hormone receptor positive breast cancer in young women is associated with poorer prognoses compared to older women. Additionally, early age onset breast cancer presents unique challenges, including concerns related to fertility, the toxic effects of therapeutic agents, and specific surgical considerations. The purpose of this review is to report the existing literature on HR+ disease in young women.

Bone-modifying agents for reducing bone loss in women with early and locally advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are amongst the bone-modifying agents used as supportive treatment in women with breast cancer who do not have bone metastases. These agents aim to reduce bone loss and the risk of fractures. Bisphosphonates have demonstrated survival benefits, particularly in postmenopausal women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the effects of different bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment to reduce bone mineral density loss and osteoporotic fractures in women with breast cancer without bone metastases and generate a ranking of treatment options using network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by electronically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase until January 2023. We searched various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for women with breast cancer without bone metastases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes were bone mineral density, quality of life, overall fractures, overall survival and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven trials (35,163 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 34 trials (33,793 participants) could be considered in the NMA (8 different treatment options). Bone mineral density We estimated that the bone mineral density of participants with no treatment/placebo measured as total T-score was -1.34. Evidence from the NMA (9 trials; 1166 participants) suggests that treatment with ibandronate (T-score -0.77; MD 0.57, 95% CI -0.05 to 1.19) may slightly increase bone mineral density (low certainty) and treatment with zoledronic acid (T-score -0.45; MD 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16) probably slightly increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Risedronate (T-score -1.08; MD 0.26, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.84) may result in little to no difference compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). We are uncertain whether alendronate (T-score 2.36; MD 3.70, 95% CI -2.01 to 9.41) increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Quality of life No quantitative analyses could be performed for quality of life, as only three studies reported this outcome. All three studies showed only minimal differences between the respective interventions examined. Overall fracture rate We estimated that 70 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo had fractures. Evidence from the NMA (16 trials; 19,492 participants) indicates that treatment with clodronate or ibandronate (42 of 1000; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92; 40 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86, respectively) decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (high certainty). Denosumab or zoledronic acid (51 of 1000; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.01; 55 of 1000; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.11, respectively) probably slightly decreases the number of fractures; and risedronate (39 of 1000; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.16) probably decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Pamidronate (106 of 1000; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.06) probably increases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Overall survival We estimated that 920 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo survived overall. Evidence from the NMA (17 trials; 30,991 participants) suggests that clodronate (924 of 1000; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17), denosumab (927 of 1000; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21), ibandronate (915 of 1000; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34) and zoledronic acid (925 of 1000; HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14) may result in little to no difference regarding overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Additionally, we are uncertain whether pamidronate (905 of 1000; HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.78) decreases overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Osteonecrosis of the jaw We estimated that 1 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 23,527 participants) suggests that denosumab (25 of 1000; RR 24.70, 95% CI 9.56 to 63.83), ibandronate (6 of 1000; RR 5.77, 95% CI 2.04 to 16.35) and zoledronic acid (9 of 1000; RR 9.41, 95% CI 3.54 to 24.99) probably increases the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Additionally, clodronate (3 of 1000; RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.83 to 8.50) may increase the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Renal impairment We estimated that 14 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed renal impairment. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 22,469 participants) suggests that ibandronate (28 of 1000; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.88) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Zoledronic acid (21 of 1000; RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.58) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment while clodronate (12 of 1000; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39) and denosumab (11 of 1000; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19) probably results in little to no difference regarding the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When considering bone-modifying agents for managing bone loss in women with early or locally advanced breast cancer, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Our findings suggest that bisphosphonates (excluding alendronate and pamidronate) or denosumab compared to no treatment or placebo likely results in increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture rates. Our survival analysis that included pre and postmenopausal women showed little to no difference regarding overall survival. These treatments may lead to more adverse events. Therefore, forming an overall judgement of the best ranked bone-modifying agent is challenging. More head-to-head comparisons, especially comparing denosumab with any bisphosphonate, are needed to address gaps and validate the findings of this review.

Dilemmas in the Management of Osteoporosis in Younger Adults

Osteoporosis in premenopausal women and men younger than 50 years is challenging to diagnose and treat. There are many barriers to optimal management of osteoporosis in younger adults, further enhanced by a limited research focus on this cohort. Herein we describe dilemmas commonly encountered in diagnosis, investigation, and management of osteoporosis in younger adults. We also provide a suggested framework, based on the limited available evidence and supported by clinical experience, for the diagnosis, assessment, and management of osteoporosis in this cohort. © 2021 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

New insights into the diagnosis and management of bone health in premature ovarian insufficiency

Premature ovarian insufficiency (POI), defined as a loss of ovarian function before the age of 40 years, is a life-changing diagnosis that has numerous long-term consequences. Musculoskeletal complications, including osteoporosis and fractures, are a key concern for women with POI. The risk of bone loss is influenced by the underlying etiology of POI, and the degree and duration of estrogen deficiency. A decline in muscle mass as a result of estrogen and androgen deficiency may contribute to skeletal fragility, but has not been examined in women with POI. This article aims to review musculoskeletal health in POI; summarize the traditional and novel modalities available to screen for skeletal fragility and muscle dysfunction; and provide updated evidence for available management strategies.

Bone health care in women with breast cancer

The aim of this article is to analyze and critically appraise the literature regarding optimal bone health care in women with breast cancer and, more specifically, to present (1) the causes of bone loss in breast cancer patients, (2) the appropriate screening for osteoporosis and fracture risk estimation, (3) optimal prevention and therapeutic strategies for osteoporosis and fractures, (4) the role of antiresorptive agents as adjuvant therapy for the prevention of bone metastases and increase of overall survival, and (5) current data on the possible use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) in these patients. The objective is to provide a sound pathophysiological background along with evidence-based and practical recommendations for physicians managing such women.

Incidence of fractures in young women with breast cancer - a retrospective cohort study

In recent years, cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) and increased risk of fracture has become an emerging problem as breast cancer (BC) survival has increased due to early diagnosis and improved treatments. In premenopausal women with BC, chemotherapy and tamoxifen are the treatments of choice in hormone receptor-negative and hormone receptor-positive BC respectively. Their effect on fracture risk has only been investigated in a few small-scale studies. Therefore, we investigated the fracture risk in a cohort study based on data from the Disease Analyzer database (IQVIA) and included 1761 individuals with BC and 1761 healthy women for comparison. After applying similar inclusion criteria, patients with BC were matched 1:1 to those without BC with regard to age, index year, and physician. Within 10 years of the index date, 6.4% of healthy women and 14.2% with BC sustained a fracture (log-rank p-value < 0.001), showing a positive association between breast cancer and fractures (adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=2.39, p < 0.001). When analyzing women with BC with and without tamoxifen treatment, 14.7% with and 12.9% without tamoxifen sustained a fracture. However, after adjustment, the HR was 2.58 (p < 0.001) for women on tamoxifen versus healthy women and 1.63 (p = 0.181) for women with BC without tamoxifen treatment versus healthy women. In conclusion, premenopausal women with BC with or without tamoxifen treatment had an increased incidence of fractures compared to healthy women, but this difference was only significant when comparing tamoxifen users versus healthy women. More studies are needed to identify the specific risk factors of women at high risk.

French recommendations on strategies for preventing and treating osteoporosis induced by adjuvant breast cancer therapies

Standard adjuvant therapies for breast cancer such as chemotherapy or aromatase inhibitor and LH-RH agonist hormone therapy are associated with significant survival gains but also induce bone loss by aggravating the estrogen deprivation. The bone loss may be substantial, notably during early treatment, and occurs regardless of the baseline bone mineral density values. The objective of developing these recommendations was to achieve a practical consensus among various scientific societies, based on literature review, about osteoporosis prevention and treatment in these patients. The following scientific societies contributed to the work: Société Française de Rhumatologie (SFR), Groupe de Recherche et d'Information sur les Ostéoporoses (GRIO), Groupe Européen d'Etudes des Métastases Osseuses (GEMO), Association Francophone pour les Soins Oncologiques de Support (AFSOS), Société Française de Sénologie et de Pathologie Mammaire (SFSPM), Société Française de Radiothérapie Oncologique (SFRO). Drug prescription and reimbursement modalities in France were taken into account. These recommendations apply to postmenopausal women taking systemic chemotherapy and/or aromatase inhibitor therapy, non-postmenopausal women taking LH-RH agonist therapy, and non-postmenopausal women with persistent amenorrhea 1 year after chemotherapy completion. All women in these three categories should undergo an evaluation of bone health and receive interventions to combat risk factors for bone loss. Patients with a history of severe osteoporotic fracture and/or a T-score value <-2.5 should receive osteoporosis drug therapy. The FRAX® score should be used to guide treatment decisions in patients whose T-score is between -1 and -2.5. General osteoporosis prevention measures should be applied in patients without criteria for osteoporosis drug therapy, who should undergo bone mineral density measurements 18-24 months later if the baseline T-score is<-1 and 3-5 years later if the baseline T-score is>-1. The anti-tumor effect of bisphosphonates and denosumab was not considered when establishing these recommendations.

Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: MASCC/ISOO/ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide guidance regarding best practices in the prevention and management of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in patients with cancer.

METHODS

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) and ASCO convened a multidisciplinary Expert Panel to evaluate the evidence and formulate recommendations. Guideline development involved a systematic review of the literature and a formal consensus process. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for studies of the prevention and management of MRONJ related to bone-modifying agents (BMAs) for oncologic indications published between January 2009 and December 2017. Results from an earlier systematic review (2003 to 2008) were also included.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 132 publications, only 10 of which were randomized controlled trials. Recommendations underwent two rounds of consensus voting.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Currently, MRONJ is defined by (1) current or previous treatment with a BMA or angiogenic inhibitor, (2) exposed bone or bone that can be probed through an intraoral or extraoral fistula in the maxillofacial region and that has persisted for longer than 8 weeks, and (3) no history of radiation therapy to the jaws or metastatic disease to the jaws. In patients who initiate a BMA, preventive care includes comprehensive dental assessments, discussion of modifiable risk factors, and avoidance of elective dentoalveolar surgery (ie, surgery that involves the teeth or contiguous alveolar bone) during BMA treatment. It remains uncertain whether BMAs should be discontinued before dentoalveolar surgery. Staging of MRONJ should be performed by a clinician with experience in the management of MRONJ. Conservative measures comprise the initial approach to MRONJ treatment. Ongoing collaboration among the dentist, dental specialist, and oncologist is essential to optimal patient care.

The incidence and relative risk of adverse events in patients treated with bisphosphonate therapy for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Adjuvant bisphosphonates reduce the rate of breast cancer recurrence in the bone and improve breast cancer survival. However, the risk of adverse events associated with bisphosphonate therapy for breast cancer remains poorly defined.

Methods:

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science libraries. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated to evaluate the adverse events of the meta-analytic results. Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) incidence was calculated using the random effect model (D+L pooled) for meta-analysis.

Results:

A total of 47 studies comprising 20,607 patients were included; 23 randomized controlled studies (RCTs) provided data of adverse events for bisphosphonate therapy versus without bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates were significantly associated with influenza-like illness (RR = 4.52), fatigue (RR = 1.08), fever (RR = 1.82), dyspepsia (RR = 1.25), anorexia (RR = 1.29), and urinary tract infection (RR = 1.32). No differences were observed in other adverse events. We combined the incidence of ONJ in 24 retrospective studies to analyze the incidence of ONJ using bisphosphonates. The pooled probability of ONJ toxicity in the bisphosphonates group was 2%.

Conclusions:

Bisphosphonates were significantly associated with influenza-like illness, fatigue, fever, dyspepsia, anorexia, and urinary tract infection. Furthermore, bisphosphonates increase the risk of ONJ toxicity.

Interdisciplinary Screening, Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Breast Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/045OL, December 2017) - Part 2 with Recommendations for the Therapy of Primary, Recurrent and Advanced Breast Cancer

Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Method The process of updating the S3 guideline published in 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines. They were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and with the results of a systematic search of literature databases followed by the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point and used them to develop suggestions for recommendations and statements, which were then modified and graded in a structured consensus process procedure. Recommendations Part 2 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the therapy of primary, recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Loco-regional therapies are de-escalated in the current guideline. In addition to reducing the safety margins for surgical procedures, the guideline also recommends reducing the radicality of axillary surgery. The choice and extent of systemic therapy depends on the respective tumor biology. New substances are becoming available, particularly to treat metastatic breast cancer.

Prevention of breast cancer treatment-induced bone loss in premenopausal women treated with zoledronic acid: Final 5-year results from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ProBONE II trial

PURPOSE

Premenopausal women receiving chemotherapy or endocrine treatment for early breast cancer are at increased risk for cancer treatment induced bone loss (CTIBL). The aim of the randomized, double-blind ProBONE II trial was to investigate whether a 2-year adjuvant treatment with 4 mg intravenous zoledronic acid (ZOL) every 3 months versus placebo would prevent CTIBL after a five-year period.

METHODS

Thirty-one of the 34 participants in the ZOL arm and thirty-four of the 36 participants in the placebo arm were followed-up to the 5-year visit and completed the study as planned. The changes in Bone Mass Density (BMD) were assessed at baseline and each visit after treatment initiation.

RESULTS

After 24 months, BMD at the lumbar spine showed a 2.9% increase in patients treated with ZOL vs. a 7.1% decrease in placebo-treated participants compared to baseline (p < 0.001). Over the 60-month study period, we found a decrease of 2.2% vs. 7.3% in the BMD at the lumbar spine in patients receiving ZOL and placebo respectively (p < 0.001). Over the 60-month study period, BMD in the placebo arm showed a continuous decrease at all sites (p < 0001), whereas patients treated with ZOL reached baseline BMD-values at the femoral neck and total hip.

CONCLUSIONS

In ProBone II, a 2-year treatment with ZOL 4 mg intravenous every 3 months prevented cancer treatment induced bone loss in premenopausal women with breast cancer and maintained the BMD up to 3 years post-treatment.

Cancer Treatment-Induced Bone Loss in Women With Breast Cancer and Men With Prostate Cancer

Cancer and cancer therapies can have a negative impact on bone health. Because cancer is a common diagnosis, survivorship concerns for osteoporosis and fragility fractures are an important component of care. This review addresses management of bone health in nonmetastatic cancer survivorship with a focus on breast cancer and prostate cancer.

Bisphosphonates and other bone agents for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Bone is the most common site of metastatic disease associated with breast cancer (BC). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and novel targeted therapies such as denosumab inhibit other key bone metabolism pathways. We have studied these agents in both early breast cancer and advanced breast cancer settings. This is an update of the review originally published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2005 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and other bone agents in addition to anti-cancer treatment: (i) in women with early breast cancer (EBC); (ii) in women with advanced breast cancer without bone metastases (ABC); and (iii) in women with metastatic breast cancer and bone metastases (BCBM).

SEARCH METHODS

In this review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: (a) one treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent with the same treatment without a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent; (b) treatment with one bisphosphonate versus treatment with a different bisphosphonate; (c) treatment with a bisphosphonate versus another bone-acting agent of a different mechanism of action (e.g. denosumab); and (d) immediate treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent versus delayed treatment of the same bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was bone metastases for EBC and ABC, and a skeletal-related event (SRE) for BCBM. We derived risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the meta-analyses used random-effects models. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and disease-free survival for EBC; we derived hazard ratios (HRs) for these time-to-event outcomes where possible. We collected toxicity and quality-of-life information. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes in each treatment setting.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 RCTs involving 37,302 women.In women with EBC, bisphosphonates were associated with a reduced risk of bone metastases compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate (RR 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03, 11 studies; 15,005 women; moderate-quality evidence with no significant heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates provided an overall survival benefit with time-to-event data (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; P = 0.04; 9 studies; 13,949 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity). Subgroup analysis by menopausal status showed a survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.90; P = 0.001; 4 studies; 6048 women; high-quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity) but no survival benefit for premenopausal women (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22; P = 0.78; 2 studies; 3501 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). There was evidence of no effect of bisphosphonates on disease-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% 0.87 to 1.02; P = 0.13; 7 studies; 12,578 women; high-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity present) however subgroup analyses showed a disease-free survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women only (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 8314 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates did not significantly reduce the incidence of fractures when compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08, P = 0.13, 6 studies, 7602 women; moderate-quality evidence due to wide confidence intervals). We await mature overall survival and disease-free survival results for denosumab trials.In women with ABC without clinically evident bone metastases, there was no evidence of an effect of bisphosphonates on bone metastases (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43; P = 0.86; 3 studies; 330 women; moderate-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) or overall survival (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; P = 0.28; 3 studies; 330 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates however the confidence intervals were wide. One study reported a trend towards an extended period of time without a SRE with bisphosphonate compared to placebo (low-quality evidence). One study reported quality of life and there was no apparent difference in scores between bisphosphonate and placebo (moderate-quality evidence).In women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduced the SRE risk by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003; 9 studies; 2810 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity) compared with placebo/no bisphosphonates. This benefit persisted when administering either intravenous or oral bisphosphonates versus placebo. Bisphosphonates delayed the median time to a SRE with a median ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.58; P < 0.00001; 9 studies; 2891 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) and reduced bone pain (in 6 out of 11 studies; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate. Treatment with bisphosphonates did not appear to affect overall survival (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; P = 0.85; 7 studies; 1935 women; moderate-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity). Quality-of-life scores were slightly better with bisphosphonates than placebo at comparable time points (in three out of five studies; moderate-quality evidence) however scores decreased during the course of the studies. Denosumab reduced the risk of developing a SRE compared with bisphosphonates by 22% (RR 0.78, 0.72 to 0.85; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2345 women). One study reported data on overall survival and observed no difference in survival between denosumab and bisphosphonate.Reported toxicities across all settings were generally mild. Osteonecrosis of the jaw was rare, occurring less than 0.5% in the adjuvant setting (high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For women with EBC, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of bone metastases and provide an overall survival benefit compared to placebo or no bisphosphonates. There is preliminary evidence suggestive that bisphosphonates provide an overall survival and disease-free survival benefit in postmenopausal women only when compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate. This was not a planned subgroup for these early trials, and we await the completion of new large clinical trials assessing benefit for postmenopausal women. For women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of developing SREs, delay the median time to an SRE, and appear to reduce bone pain compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate.

Evaluation and management of skeletal disease in cancer care

Recently, there have been considerable advancements in cancer therapies thereby prolonging the life of cancer survivors. However, these recent advancements present new challenges in the management of bone disease in cancer survivors. Bone acts as a fertile soil for cancer seeding and bone health is often compromised because of increased inflammatory cytokines in cancer, direct cancer metastasis and toxic effects of anti-cancer therapies. This effect is more pronounced in elderly population who already have compromised bone mineral density leading to increased skeletal related events and bone pain. Timely diagnosis and effective interventions are essential for reducing bone-related morbidity in cancer survivors. Also, a complex interdependence exists between cancer related bone disease and tumor growth, creating a vicious circle of extensive bone destruction and cancer progression. Hence, maintenance of bone health and integrity plays a pivotal role in comprehensive cancer care. The bone-targeted treatments have been shown to preserve bone health, and modify the course of the underlying cancer. Management of long-term bone health requires a broad knowledge base that endocrinologists, oncologists and other care team members should be aware of. The manuscript highlights the skeletal effects of cancer, adjuvant therapies used for hormone-responsive cancers, chemotherapy induced bone loss and steps for accurate diagnosis and management of bone disease in cancer survivors by bridging the gaps in the comprehensive cancer care.

Use of Adjuvant Bisphosphonates and Other Bone-Modifying Agents in Breast Cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario and American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

Purpose To make recommendations regarding the use of bisphosphonates and other bone-modifying agents as adjuvant therapy for patients with breast cancer. Methods Cancer Care Ontario and ASCO convened a Working Group and Expert Panel to develop evidence-based recommendations informed by a systematic review of the literature. Results Adjuvant bisphosphonates were found to reduce bone recurrence and improve survival in postmenopausal patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer. In this guideline, postmenopausal includes patients with natural menopause or that induced by ovarian suppression or ablation. Absolute benefit is greater in patients who are at higher risk of recurrence, and almost all trials were conducted in patients who also received systemic therapy. Most studies evaluated zoledronic acid or clodronate, and data are extremely limited for other bisphosphonates. While denosumab was found to reduce fractures, long-term survival data are still required. Recommendations It is recommended that, if available, zoledronic acid (4 mg intravenously every 6 months) or clodronate (1,600 mg/d orally) be considered as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal patients with breast cancer who are deemed candidates for adjuvant systemic therapy. Further research comparing different bone-modifying agents, doses, dosing intervals, and durations is required. Risk factors for osteonecrosis of the jaw and renal impairment should be assessed, and any pending dental or oral health problems should be dealt with prior to starting treatment. Data for adjuvant denosumab look promising but are currently insufficient to make any recommendation. Use of these agents to reduce fragility fractures in patients with low bone mineral density is beyond the scope of the guideline. Recommendations are not meant to restrict such use of bone-modifying agents in these situations. Additional information at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-adjuvant-bisphosphonates-guideline , www.asco.org/guidelineswiki , https://www.cancercareontario.ca/guidelines-advice/types-of-cancer/breast .

ENDOCRINE DILEMMA: Managing menopausal symptoms after breast cancer

Managing the symptoms of menopause after a diagnosis of breast cancer offers some unique clinical challenges. For some women, vasomotor symptoms can be severe and debilitating, and hormone therapy is at least relatively contraindicated. Non-oestrogen therapies for hot flushes include SSRIs, clonidine, gabapentin and perhaps black cohosh extracts. Vulvovaginal atrophy can usually be alleviated by simple moisturizers, although some may need specialized physiotherapy such as vaginal dilators. In a small number, topical oestrogens may be the only treatment that works. The CO2 laser may be a novel, non-oestrogen therapy to alleviate this unpleasant symptom. Bone loss can be accelerated in some patients on AIs or those who had early menopause induced by chemotherapy.

New insights into endocrine therapy for young women with breast cancer

Managing estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer in young women (<40 years) requires a multidisciplinary/personalized approach, covering both clinical and psychosocial aspects. Five years of tamoxifen has been the standard adjuvant endocrine therapy for many years. Recent data from the adjuvant randomized trials TEXT-SOFT show that the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression significantly reduces recurrences as compared with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression. The ATLAS and aTToM trials represent the first evidence of a beneficial effect of extended endocrine therapy with tamoxifen in premenopausal women. Outside of a clinical trial, no data support neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in young women. In the metastatic setting, tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors, both with ovarian suppression/ablation, should be the preferred choice, unless rapid tumor shrinkage is needed. No data are available with fulvestrant in young patients.

Effects of zoledronic acid versus placebo on bone mineral density and bone texture analysis assessed by the trabecular bone score in premenopausal women with breast cancer treatment-induced bone loss: results of the ProBONE II substudy

Changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and trabecular bone score (TBS) were assessed in 70 patients who received either zoledronate (ZOL) (n = 34) or placebo (n = 36) for 2 years. In premenopausal women with breast cancer treatment-induced bone loss, 24 months of intravenous ZOL treatment significantly increased the lumbar spine BMD and the TBS.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 4 mg intravenous zoledronate (ZOL) versus placebo (PLB), every 3 months, on the lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) and the trabecular bone score (TBS) in premenopausal women with breast cancer (BC) treatment-induced bone loss. The TBS is a gray-level texture measurement which is related to the bone microarchitecture and considered to be independent of the BMD.

METHODS

Changes in BMD and TBS were assessed in 70 patients who were recruited in the double-blind, placebo-controlled ProBONE-II trial and randomized to receive either ZOL (n = 34) or PLB (n = 36) for 2 years. The changes were assessed at baseline and at 12 and 24 months after treatment initiation.

RESULTS

Patients receiving ZOL showed a mean increase in LS BMD from the baseline to 12 (2.17%) and 24 months (3.14%) of treatment and a mean increase in the TBS of 2.41 and 0.75%, respectively. Conversely, patients receiving PLB showed a mean decrease in the LS BMD from the baseline to 12 (-5.02%) and 24 (-6.43%) months and a mean decrease of -0.52 and -2.16% in the TBS, respectively. Changes in the BMD and the TBS from the baseline to 12 and 24 months were all significantly different for ZOL compared to PLB (p < 0.005). Furthermore, BMD and TBS showed a moderate correlation ranging from 0.28 (p = 0.087) to 0.47 (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

In premenopausal women with BC, 24 months of intravenous ZOL treatment significantly increased the LS BMD as well as the TBS.

Effects of the long-term administration of alendronate on the mechanical properties of the basal bone and on osseointegration

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of the long-term administration of alendronate on the mechanical properties of the basal bone and on osseointegration.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred and sixty female rats were randomly allocated into two equally sized groups: the control (CTL) group, which received the subcutaneous administration of saline solution, and the alendronate (ALD) group, which received the subcutaneous administration of alendronate (1 mg/kg/week). After 120 days of these therapies, one implant was placed in each rat tibia. Ten animals in each group were euthanized at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 45, or 60 days after surgery. The tibias with implants evaluated regarding the removal torque, bone-implant contact (BIC), the bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO), and Ca/P ratio. The femurs were evaluated regarding bone mineral density (BMD) and using mechanical tests to evaluate the maximal force of fracture, stiffness, and tenacity.

RESULTS

The ALD group presented statistically significant higher BMD (all periods except 15 days), maximal force of fracture (at 20, 30, and 45 days), tenacity (at 10, 20, 30, and 45 days), stiffness (45 days), removal torque (at 20, 25 and 30 days), BIC (at 20 and 60 days), and BAFO (at 20, 30, and 45 days) than the CTL group. No differences were found between the groups regarding the Ca/P ratio.

CONCLUSION

Previous long-term therapy with alendronate caused an increase in the BMD, maximal force of fracture of the bone without changing the inorganic composition and elastic deformability of this tissue. Furthermore, the ALD therapy enhanced osseointegration.