Pamidronate treatment in patients with malignant osteolytic bone disease and pain: a prospective randomized double-blind trial

Bisphosphonates in Oncology: Physiopathologic Bases and Clinical Activity

Osteoclastic activation is the ultimate way of bone resorption in neoplasia, induced by the combined effects of tumor-secreted humoral factors (especially parathyroid hormone-related peptides) and osteoclastic-osteoblastic interaction. Bisphosphonates inhibit the osteoclast activity and reduce bone resorption and are a valuable supportive measure for bone disease of neoplasms. Experimental models also suggest an activity of bisphosphonates against cancer cells. Controlled studies, especially in advanced breast cancer and multiple myeloma, indicate different effectiveness against the distinct skeletal-related events. Intravenous clodronate and, especially, pamidronate and zoledronate are the first-choice drugs for hypercalcemia, and they play a significant role in reducing metastatic bone pain. Their prolonged use delays, without hampering, the progression of bone disease, including the appearance of osteolysis and the occurrence of pathologic fractures. This effect is probably more valuable when bisphosphonates are administered early in the course of the disease. The evidence that adjuvant bisphosphonates improve survival needs to be confirmed in ongoing studies. Although poorly absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract, oral bisphosphonates are effective in preventing and treating cancer-induced osteoporosis in long-living patients with operable breast cancer. At present, there is little hope that newer bisphosphonates are more effective than those currently used.

Serum Levels of Tartrate-Resistant Acid Phosphatase-5B in Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Pamidronate

A novel immunoassay specific for the osteoclast-produced TRAP isoform 5b has been developed recently. By means of this assay we studied the usefulness of serum TRAP-5b in monitoring the response to palliative treatment with pamidronate in breast cancer patients with bone metastases. We correlated serum TRAP-5b levels with pain intensity and intake of analgesics to assess the possible utility of the marker in identifying patients who could benefit from pamidronate treatment.

Twenty-eight advanced breast cancer patients with bone metastases entered the study. Patients were treated according to the following schedule: two two-week cycles of 60 mg/week pamidronate IV, with a three-week interval in between (six infusions over seven weeks), followed by one infusion every three weeks for a total of 24 infusions over a treatment period of 61 weeks. Blood samples were taken before the start of treatment and before each infusion during two treatment cycles. To measure serum TRAP levels we employed the new immunoassay kit BoneTRAP® produced by Suomen Bioanalytiikka Oy (SBA), Oulu, Finland. In order to assess the usefulness of this marker in evaluating the response to pamidronate treatment we divided patients into two groups (group A, worsened; group B, improved) with respect to pain trend and analgesic intake. Our results did not show any statistically significant difference in baseline serum TRAP levels in the two groups. However, one week after the first pamidronate infusion TRAP-5b serum levels decreased by 39% and 18% in groups A and B, respectively (p=0.01); these levels persisted throughout the treatment period. In conclusion, a decrease in TRAP-5b serum levels may reflect the pharmacological activity of pamidronate and seems to predict pain relief and a reduction in analgesic consumption.

Evidence on the analgesic role of bisphosphonates and denosumab in the treatment of pain due to bone metastases: A systematic review within the European Association for Palliative Care guidelines project

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates and denosumab are well-established therapies to reduce the frequency and severity of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastasis. However, the analgesic effect of these medications on bone pain is uncertain.

AIM

To identify, critically appraise and synthesize existing evidence to answer the following questions: 'In adult patients with metastatic bone pain, what is the evidence that bisphosphonates and denosumab are effective and safe in controlling pain?' and 'What is the most appropriate schedule of bisphosphonate/denosumab administration to control bone pain?'. This review also updates the 2002 Cochrane review 'Bisphosphonates for the relief of pain secondary to bone metastases'.

DESIGN

Standard systematic review and narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched for relevant articles published through 31 January 2014. A manual search was also performed. Study inclusion criteria were: a) conducted in adult patients; b) randomized controlled trial or meta-analisys; c) reported efficacy of bisphosphonates or denosumab on pain and/or decribed side effects versus placebo or other bisphosphonate; and d) English language.

RESULTS

The database search yielded 1585 studies, of which 43 (enrolling 8595 and 7590 patients, respectively, in bisphosphonate and denosumab trials) met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two (79%) of the 28 placebo-controlled trials found no analgesic benefit for bisphosphonates. None of the denosumab studies assessed direct pain relief.

CONCLUSION

Evidence to support an analgesic role for bisphosphonates and denosumab is weak. Bisphosphonates and denosumab appear to be beneficial in preventing pain by delaying the onset of bone pain rather than by producing an analgesic effect per se.

How are palliative care cancer populations characterized in randomized controlled trials? A literature review

CONTEXT

The difficulties in defining a palliative care patient accentuate the need to provide stringent descriptions of the patient population in palliative care research.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic literature review with the aim of identifying which key variables have been used to describe adult palliative care cancer populations in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The data sources used were MEDLINE (1950 to January 25, 2010) and Embase (1980 to January 25, 2010), limited to RCTs in adult cancer patients with incurable disease. Forty-three variables were systematically extracted from the eligible articles.

RESULTS

The review includes 336 articles reporting RCTs in palliative care cancer patients. Age (98%), gender (90%), cancer diagnosis (89%), performance status (45%), and survival (45%) were the most frequently reported variables. A large number of other variables were much less frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

A substantial variation exists in how palliative care cancer populations are described in RCTs. Few variables are consistently registered and reported. There is a clear need to standardize the reporting. The results from this work will serve as the basis for an international Delphi process with the aim of reaching consensus on a minimum set of descriptors to characterize a palliative care cancer population.

The impact of pamidronate and chemotherapy on survival times in dogs with appendicular primary bone tumors treated with palliative radiation therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess survival times in dogs that received palliative radiation therapy (RT) alone, and in combination with chemotherapy, pamidronate, or both for primary appendicular bone tumors and determine whether the addition of these adjunctive therapies affects survival.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

ANIMALS

Dogs (n = 50) with primary appendicular bone tumors.

METHODS

Dogs were divided into the following treatment groups: RT alone, RT + chemotherapy, RT+ pamidronate, and RT+ chemotherapy + pamidronate. Dogs were considered for analysis if they had a known euthanasia date or follow-up data were available for at least 120 days from the time of diagnosis. Survival time was defined as the time from admission to euthanasia. Cox proportional hazard models and Kaplan-Meier survival functions were used. A P value of less than .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Fifty dogs were considered for survival analysis. Median survival times (MSTs) were longest for dogs receiving RT and chemotherapy (307 days; 95% CI: 279, 831) and shortest in dogs receiving RT and pamidronate (69 days; 95% CI: 47, 112 days). The difference in MST between dogs who received pamidronate and those who did not in this population was statistically significant in a univariate (P = .039) and multivariate analysis (P = .0015). The addition of chemotherapy into any protocol improved survival (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy should be recommended in addition to a palliative RT protocol to improve survival of dogs with primary appendicular bone tumors. When combined with RT ± chemotherapy, pamidronate decreased MST and should not be included in a standard protocol.

Optimising the use of bone-targeted agents in patients with metastatic cancers: a practical guide for medical oncologists

Bone metastases can be associated with a significant worsening of patient morbidity and mortality. Bisphosphonates have been extensively researched and shown to delay the onset and reduce the incidence of complications from bone metastases. The most commonly used bisphosphonates are intravenous pamidronate, intravenous ibandronate, intravenous zoledronic acid and oral/intravenous clodronate. Several bone-targeted agents with innovative mechanisms of action are currently being developed. These include receptor activator of nuclear factor-kB ligand (RANKL) inhibitors, CCR1 inhibitors, Src inhibitors, DKK1-neutralising antibodies, activin antagonists and endothelin-1 inhibitors. In an era of individualised medicine, oncologists are being faced with an increasing number of questions when dealing with bone-targeted agents. These questions not only include the choice of which drug to use (i.e. bisphosphonates or RANKL inhibitor) but also the best treatment strategy to use. This review will provide medical oncologists with a practical guide to the use of bone-targeted agents.

The role of bisphosphonates in the management of patients that have cancer

Bisphosphonates are pharmacologic agents widely used in people for managing pathologic bone resorptive conditions. Based on their physicochemical properties, bisphosphonates concentrate within areas of active bone remodeling and induce osteoclast apoptosis. Appropriate use of bisphosphonates for treating companion animals requires a thorough understanding of how bisphosphonates exert their biologic effects. This review article highlights general properties of bisphosphonates, including their pharmacology, mechanisms of action, adverse side effects, anticancer mechanisms, surrogate markers for assessing response, and potential clinical utility for treating dogs and cats diagnosed with malignant skeletal tumors.

Bisphosphonates for malignancy-related bone disease: current status, future developments

This review relates to the efficacy and safety of bisphosphonates in metastatic bone disease. It discusses practical recommendations and possible future indications for bisphosphonate therapy. The current aims of bisphosphonates for metastatic bone disease are to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs), reduce bone pain and improve quality of life. Phase III clinical trials of clodronate and pamidronate have established their efficacy against bone complications in patients with breast cancer and multiple myeloma, while randomized trials have shown SRE reductions with zoledronic acid in patients with breast cancer and multiple myeloma, prostate cancer, and lung and other solid tumors. These bisphosphonates also have some effect on metastatic bone pain. Ibandronate is a new aminobisphosphonate, available in more than 40 countries outside of the US as intravenous and oral formulations for the prevention of skeletal events in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases. Phase III studies have shown that both intravenously and orally administered ibandronate have efficacy for the prevention of skeletal events and for the reduction of metastatic bone pain. In addition to efficacy, the long-term tolerability of bisphosphonates in metastatic bone disease influences drug selection. Besides their use in patients with established bone metastases, recent and ongoing research suggests that bisphosphonates also have clinical benefit in the adjuvant setting, and for the treatment of cancer-treatment-induced bone loss. Such interesting new developments may underpin a new era of bisphosphonate use sometime in the near future.

Cancer pain assessment in clinical trials. A review of the literature (1999-2002)

The aim of this review was to evaluate the methods of pain measurement in controlled clinical trials in oncology published between 1999 and 2002. An electronic literature search strategy was used according to established criteria applied to the Medline database and PubMed search engine. Articles were selected to include only studies that had chronic cancer pain as the primary or secondary objective of a controlled clinical trial. A specific evaluation scheme was used to examine how pain measurement methods were chosen and implemented in the study procedures. The search strategy identified 613 articles, and 68 were selected for evaluation. Most articles (69%) chose unidimensional pain measurement tools, such as visual analogue scales, numerical rating scales and verbal rating scales, whereas others used questionnaires. The implementation of the pain assessment method was problematic in many studies, especially as far as time frame of pain assessment (70%), administration modalities (46%), and use of non-validated measurement methods (10%). Design of study and data analysis were often unclear about the definition of pain outcome measure (40%), patient compliance with pain assessment (98%), and impact of missing data (56%). Statistical techniques were seldom appropriate to the type of data collected and often inadequate to describe the pain variable under study. It is clear from this review that most authors were aware of the need of valid pain measurement tools to be used in clinical trials. However, too often these tools were not appropriately used in the trial, or at least their use was not described with sufficient accuracy in the trial methods.

Review of ibandronate in the treatment of metastatic bone disease: experience from phase III trials

BACKGROUND

Metastatic bone disease is a serious clinical problem in patients with advanced cancer. Bisphosphonates inhibit the activity of osteoclasts and are the treatment of choice for bone metastases.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the efficacy and safety data from Phase III trials of ibandronate in metastatic bone disease.

METHODS

Phase III data (available as of June 2004) for ibandronate were reviewed. Literature searches using the MEDLINE database and abstracts from scientific meetings were used to obtain data from Phase III trials of ibandronate.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, patients with bone metastases from breast cancer receiving IV ibandronate (6 mg infused over 1-2 hours every 3-4 weeks) or oral ibandronate (50 mg/d for up to 96 weeks) had a statistically significant reduction in skeletal complications, as measured by the Skeletal Morbidity Period Rate (P = 0.004 vs placebo). Multivariate Poisson regression analysis of the data showed that the risk of a new bone event was reduced by 40% with IV ibandronate 6 mg and by 38% with oral ibandronate 50 mg, compared with placebo (P < or = 0.003). Both formulations also reduced bone pain below baseline levels over 2 years (P < or = 0.001 vs placebo). IV and oral ibandronate were well tolerated, with adverse-event profiles comparable to placebo and no significant renal toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

IV and oral ibandronate provide meaningful clinical benefits in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. Both formulations reduce the risk of skeletal events and provide sustained relief from metastatic bone pain. With its favorable efficacy and safety profile, and the added convenience of the oral formulation, ibandronate provides improved treatment options for managing metastatic bone disease.

Efficacy and Safety of Ibandronate in the Treatment of Opioid-Resistant Bone Pain Associated With Metastatic Bone Disease: A Pilot Study

Purpose

Bone metastases are associated with severe and sometimes intractable pain, compromising patient quality of life (QOL). This open-label pilot study investigated the effects of short-term intensive treatment with intravenous (IV) ibandronate on opioid-resistant bone pain in patients with skeletal metastases.

Patients and Methods

Eighteen patients with advanced tumors and metastatic bone disease received nonstandard treatment with 4 mg of ibandronate administered IV (2-hour infusion) for 4 consecutive days (16-mg total dose). Baseline opioid analgesic use was equivalent to 400 mg/d of morphine. Patients were assessed for 6 weeks or until death. Changes from baseline were determined for bone pain, opioid consumption, patient functioning, QOL, performance status, and biochemical markers of calcium metabolism and bone turnover. Renal function was assessed by serum urea and creatinine measurement.

Results

Short-term, intensive ibandronate treatment significantly reduced bone pain scores within 7 days (P < .001). Pain reductions were sustained over the study period. Ibandronate significantly improved QOL, patient functioning, and performance status (P < .05). Mean values of the urinary cross-links pyridinoline and deoxypyridinoline tended to increase after day 21, returning close to baseline values by day 42. There was no correlation between the change in crosslinks values and the change in pain scores after ibandronate treatment. Ibandronate was well tolerated, with no evidence of renal toxicity.

Conclusion

Nonstandard, intensive treatment with IV ibandronate seems to have a marked analgesic effect in patients with opioid-resistant bone pain from metastatic bone disease. Further investigation is warranted.

Cancer patient compliance in the self-administration of a pain assessment tool

Accurate pain assessment is considered essential for effective management of cancer pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the compliance of hospitalized patients with chronic cancer pain, referred to an inpatient palliative care consultation service, with self-assessment of pain intensity by means of a daily pain form. The form was distributed daily by the pain consult nurse and required three daily pain intensity measurements on 0 to 10 numerical scales, separately for pain at rest and pain on movement. Of 174 consecutive patients, 106 (61%) participated in the study and were followed up for a median of 10.6 days (range 1-32 days). Compliance was defined as the number of assessment forms completed over the number of evaluation days available for each patient. Mean compliance was 58%. The main reasons for not completing the form were related to subjective psychological variables (44%), physical distress (26%), and absence of pain (16%). Lack of understanding of the method was reported as the main reason for non-compliance by only 1% of patients.

Advances in supportive care of patients with cancer and bone metastases: nursing implications of zoledronic acid

The knowledge and training of nursing staff is essential for the safety and comfort of patients receiving i.v. therapies. The use of i.v. bisphosphonates as an adjunct to standard antineoplastic therapies in patients with advanced cancer is becoming widespread. Zoledronic acid and pamidronate (Zometa and Aredia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ) are nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates. Pamidronate has been the standard of care for patients with osteolytic bone lesions from breast cancer or multiple myeloma. However, zoledronic acid, which has demonstrated increased potency and a broad clinical utility, is emerging as the new standard of care. In addition to treating hypercalcemia of malignancy, zoledronic acid is approved for treating patients with bone metastases (osteolytic or osteoblastic) from a wide range of solid tumors, including breast, prostate, and lung cancers, or osteolytic bone lesions from multiple myeloma. Zoledronic acid (4 mg via a 15-minute infusion) has a safety profile comparable with pamidronate (90 mg via a two-hour infusion) and has demonstrated comparable or superior efficacy to that of pamidronate in every patient population tested. The shorter infusion time of zoledronic acid compared with that of pamidronate may provide added convenience, but safety guidelines should be followed for all i.v. bisphosphonate therapies. These guidelines and nursing care of patients receiving i.v. bisphosphonates are reviewed.

American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines: the role of bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma

PURPOSE

To determine clinical practice guidelines for the use of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of lytic bone disease in multiple myeloma and to determine their respective role relative to other conventional therapies for this condition.

METHODS

An expert multidisciplinary Panel reviewed pertinent information from the published literature through January 2002. Values for levels of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned by expert reviewers and approved by the Panel. Expert consensus was used if there were insufficient published data. The Panel addressed which patients to treat and when to treat them in the course of their disease. Additionally, specific drug delivery issues, duration of therapy, initiation of treatment and management of treatment of lytic bone disease was reviewed and compared with other forms of therapy for lytic bone lesions. Finally, the Panel discussed patient and physician expectations associated with this therapy for bony metastases, as well as public policy implications related to the use of bisphosphonates. The guidelines underwent external review by selected physicians, by the Health Services Research Committee members, and by the ASCO Board of Directors.

RESULTS

The available evidence involving randomized controlled trials is modest but supports that oral clodronate, intravenous pamidronate, and intravenous zoledronic acid are superior to placebo in reducing skeletal complications. A reduction in vertebral fractures has consistently been seen across all studies. No agent has shown a definitive survival benefit. Intravenous zoledronic acid has recently been shown to be as effective as intravenous pamidronate. Because there are no direct comparisons between clodronate and pamidronate or zoledronic acid, the superiority of one agent cannot be definitively established. However, the panel recommends only intravenous pamidronate or zoledronic acid in light of the use of the time to first skeletal event as the primary end point and more complete assessment of bony complications in studies evaluating it. Additionally, clodronate is not available in the United States. The choice between pamidronate and zoledronic acid will depend on choosing between the higher drug cost of zoledronic acid, with its shorter, more convenient infusion time (15 minutes), versus the less expensive drug, pamidronate, with its longer infusion time (2 hours).

CONCLUSION

Bisphosphonates provide a meaningful supportive benefit to multiple myeloma patients with lytic bone disease. However, further research on bisphosphonates is warranted, including the following: (1) when to start and stop therapy, (2) how to integrate their use with other treatments for lytic bone disease, (3) how to evaluate their role in myeloma patients without lytic bone involvement, (4) how to distinguish between symptomatic and asymptomatic bony events, and (5) how to better determine their cost-benefit consequence.

Bisphosphonates for the relief of pain secondary to bone metastases

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates form part of standard therapy for hypercalcemia and the prevention of skeletal events in some cancers. However, the role of bisphosphonates in pain relief for bony metastases remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of bisphosphonates for the relief of pain from bone metastases.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE (1966-1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), CancerLit (1966-1999), the Cochrane library (Issue 1, 2000) and the Oxford Pain Database were searched using the strategy devised by the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group with additional terms 'diphosphonate', 'bisphosphonate', 'multiple myeloma' and 'bone neoplasms'. (Last search: January 2000).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of bisphosphonates compared with open, blinded, or different doses/types of bisphosphonates in cancer patients were included where pain and/or analgesic consumption were outcome measures. Studies where pain was reported only by observers were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Article eligibility, quality assessment and data extraction were undertaken by both reviewers. The proportions of patients with pain relief at 4, 8 and 12 weeks were assessed. The proportion of patients with analgesic reduction, the mean pain score, mean analgesic consumption, adverse drug reactions, and quality of life data were compared as secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty randomized controlled studies (21 blinded, four open and five active control) with a total of 3682 subjects were included. For each outcome, there were few studies with available data. For the proportion of patients with pain relief (eight studies) pooled data showed benefits for the treatment group, with an NNT at 4 weeks of 11[95% CI 6-36] and at 12 weeks of 7 [95% CI 5-12]. In terms of adverse drug reactions, the NNH was 16 [95% CI 12-27] for discontinuation of therapy. Nausea and vomiting were reported in 24 studies with a non-significant trend for greater risk in the treatment group. One study showed a small improvement in quality of life for the treatment group at 4 weeks. The small number of studies in each subgroup with relevant data limited our ability to explore the most effective bisphosphonates and their relative effectiveness for different primary neoplasms.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence to support the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in providing some pain relief for bone metastases. There is insufficient evidence to recommend bisphosphonates for immediate effect; as first line therapy; to define the most effective bisphosphonates or their relative effectiveness for different primary neoplasms. Bisphosphonates should be considered where analgesics and/or radiotherapy are inadequate for the management of painful bone metastases.

Novel therapeutic approaches to cancer patients with bone metastasis

Bone metastases are a common event in advanced cancer. Breast, lung, prostate and thyroid neoplasms have striking osteotropism. Bone metastatic cancer may be associated with catastrophic consequences for the patients. Therefore, new strategies are warranted in order to reduce the incidence of bone metastases and to palliative established skeletal disease. External beam radiation therapy, endocrine treatments, chemotherapy, bisphosphonates and radioisotopes are all important. Bisphosphonates have become the treatment of choice for tumor-induced hypercalcaemia and more recently they have been used alone or in combination with cytotoxic agents in the palliative treatment of patients with bone metastases. The results are encouraging. Currently, new bisphosphonates that are a hundred times more powerful with respect to clodronate and pamidronate are under investigation. The treatment of metastases to bone and mechanisms of pain relief after radiation therapy are poorly understood. Up to date, there are not standard criteria for the irradiation of bone metastases and bone pain relief may be reached using a variety of fractionation schemes. Radionuclide therapy is the systemic use of radioisotopes for bone pain. It is currently regarded as suitable for comparison with wide-field irradiation, but appears to have major disadvantages in terms of pain relief and toxicity.

Adjunctive agents in the management of chronic pain

Chronic pain syndromes include cancer-related pain, postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and central poststroke pain and are common in the elderly. Adjunctive (or adjuvant) analgesics, defined as drugs that do not contain acetaminophen and those not classified as nonsteroidal antiinflammatory or opioid agents, play a role in the management of chronic pain. The term "adjunctive" (or "adjuvant") is a misnomer as several of these agents may constitute first-line therapy for many chronic pain syndromes. Tricyclic antidepressants have formed the backbone of therapy for chronic neuropathic pain for years. However, the difficulty with using agents of this class, due to their clinically significant adverse-event potential, has led to the evaluation of other agents, most notably, the antiepileptic drugs. The most useful are gabapentin, carbamazepine, and lamotrigine. In selected patients, baclofen, mexiletine, and clonidine may be useful as well. Cancer-related pain may respond substantially to corticosteroids, and pain associated with bone metastases to parenteral bisphosphonates and strontium. Practitioners should consider these alternative agents when treating chronic pain.

Malignant bone pain: pathophysiology and treatments

Metastatic involvement of the bone is one of the most frequent causes of pain in cancer patients and represents one of the first signs of widespread neoplastic disease. The pain may originate directly from the bone, from nerve root compression, or from muscle spasms in the area of the lesions. The mechanism of metastatic bone pain is mainly somatic (nociceptive), even though, in some cases, neuropathic and visceral stimulations may overlap. The conventional symptomatic treatment of metastatic bone pain requires the use of multidisciplinary therapies, such as radiotherapy, in association with systemic treatment (hormonotherapy, chemotherapy, radioisotopes) with the support of analgesic therapy. Recently, studies have indicated the use of bisphosphonates in the treatment of pain and in the prevention of skeletal complications in patients with metastatic bone disease. In some patients, pharmacologic treatment, radiotherapy, and radioisotopes administered alone or in association are not able to manage pain adequately. The role of neuroinvasive techniques in treating metastatic bone pain is debated. The clinical conditions of the patient, his life expectancy, and quality of life must guide the physician in the choice of the best possible therapy.

The role of disodium pamidronate in the management of bone pain due to malignancy

A number of controlled studies have recently demonstrated the role of disodium pamidronate in the prevention of skeletal complications in patients with metastatic bone disease due to breast cancer and multiple myeloma. They have also shown that it relieves pain and is well tolerated. The aim of this open prospective study was to evaluate the acceptability of a new schedule of pamidronate infusion and to assess pain, analgesic consumption and the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) in patients with metastatic bone pain treated with pamidronate in association or not with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy. Patients with different types of cancer and at least one painful bone metastasis were treated with two cycles of 60 mg intravenous (iv) pamidronate weekly for three consecutive doses, with a 3-week interval between the two cycles (six infusions over 7 weeks), followed by one infusion every 3 weeks for a total of 24 infusions. Two hundred patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 94 received at least the first six infusions; 25 patients received all 24 infusions. Pamidronate was well tolerated in the majority of the patients both during the first six infusions and during the whole study period. In the patients under study, pain intensity decreased compared with T0 after the first two infusions (second week of treatment). The mean equivalent daily dose of oral morphine required ranged from 21.5 to 41.5 mg/day and was low and stable during the study. For the patients who remained in the study, the KPS remained around 70 during the whole treatment period and intrasubject analysis showed a substantial stability of the KPS within each subject. A first fracture occurred within 321 days in 25% of the whole population under study. Pamidronate represents a further valid therapy to add to an already consolidated list of therapies such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy, hormone therapy and orthopaedic intervention in the pain management of patients with bone metastases. Future studies are necessary to evaluate the role of pamidronate and the appropriate schedule in patients with advanced or terminal cancer who are no longer being treated with oncological therapies.

Advances in cancer pain management

Control of malignant pain and related symptoms is paramount to clinical success in caring for cancer patients. To achieve the best quality of life for patients and families, oncologists and palliative care clinicians must work together to understand problems related to psychologic, social, and spiritual pain. Pain is the primary problem targeted for control using the World Health Organization's (WHO) analgesic ladder. This article focuses on increased knowledge of analgesic action that may enable expansion of the WHO analgesic ladder to fulfill the broader objectives of palliative medicine. We discuss clinical experience with several classes of drugs that are currently used to treat cancer pain: 1) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, with emphasis on cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors; 2) opioid analgesics, with specific emphasis on methadone and its newly recognized value in cancer pain; 3) ketamine, an antagonist at N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors; and 4) bisphosphonates, used for pain resulting from bone metastases. New concepts that compare molecular actions of morphine at excitatory opioid receptors, and methadone at nonopioid receptor systems, are presented to underscore the importance of balancing central nervous system excitatory (anti-analgesic) versus inhibitory (analgesic) influences.

Advances in cancer pain management

Control of malignant pain and related symptoms is paramount to clinical success in caring for cancer patients. To achieve the best quality of life for patients and families, oncologists and palliative care clinicians must work together to understand problems related to psychologic, social, and spiritual pain. Pain is the primary problem targeted for control using the World Health Organization's (WHO) analgesic ladder. This article focuses on increased knowledge of analgesic action that may enable expansion of the WHO analgesic ladder to fulfill the broader objectives of palliative medicine. We discuss clinical experience with several classes of drugs that are currently used to treat cancer pain: 1) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), with emphasis on cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors; 2) opioid analgesics, with specific emphasis on methadone and its newly recognized value in cancer pain; 3) ketamine, an antagonist at N-methyl d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors; and 4) bisphosphonates, used for pain resulting from bone metastases. New concepts that compare molecular actions of morphine at excitatory opioid receptors, and methadone at non-opioid receptor systems, are presented to underscore the importance of balancing central nervous system excitatory (anti-analgesic) versus inhibitory (analgesic) influences.

American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the role of bisphosphonates in breast cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology Bisphosphonates Expert Panel

PURPOSE

To determine clinical practice guidelines for the use of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of bone metastases in breast cancer and their role relative to other therapies for this condition.

METHODS

An expert multidisciplinary panel reviewed pertinent information from the published literature and meeting abstracts through May 1999. Additional data collected as part of randomized trials and submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration were also reviewed, and investigators were contacted for more recent information. Values for levels of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned by expert reviewers and approved by the panel. Expert consensus was used if there were insufficient published data. The panel addressed which patients to treat and when in their course of disease, specific drug delivery issues, duration of therapy, management of bony metastases with other therapies, and the public policy implications. The guideline underwent external review by selected physicians, members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee, and the ASCO Board of Directors.

RESULTS

Bisphosphonates have not had an impact on the most reliable cancer end point: overall survival. The benefits have been reductions in skeletal complications, ie, pathologic fractures, surgery for fracture or impending fracture, radiation, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia. Intravenous (IV) pamidronate 90 mg delivered over 1 to 2 hours every 3 to 4 weeks is recommended in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have imaging evidence of lytic destruction of bone and who are concurrently receiving systemic therapy with hormonal therapy or chemotherapy. For women with only an abnormal bone scan but without bony destruction by imaging studies or localized pain, there is insufficient evidence to suggest starting bisphosphonates. Starting bisphosphonates in patients without evidence of bony metastasis, even in the presence of other extraskeletal metastases, is not recommended. Studies of bisphosphonates in the adjuvant setting have yielded inconsistent results. Starting bisphosphonates in patients at any stage of their nonosseous disease, outside of clinical trials, despite a high risk for future bone metastasis, is currently not recommended. Oral bisphosphonates are one of several options which can be used for preservation of bone density in premenopausal patients with treatment-induced menopause. The panel suggests that, once initiated, IV bisphosphonates be continued until evidence of substantial decline in a patient's general performance status. The panel stresses that clinical judgment must guide what is a substantial decline. There is no evidence addressing the consequences of stopping bisphosphonates after one or more adverse skeletal events. Symptoms in the spine, pelvis, or femur require careful evaluation for spinal cord compression and pathologic fracture before bisphosphonate use and if symptoms recur, persist, or worsen during therapy. The panel recommends that current standards of care for cancer pain, analgesics and local radiation therapy, not be displaced by bisphosphonates. IV pamidronate is recommended in women with pain caused by osteolytic metastasis to relieve pain when used concurrently with systemic chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy, since it was associated with a modest pain control benefit in controlled trials.

CONCLUSION

Bisphosphonates provide a meaningful supportive but not life-prolonging benefit to many patients with bone metastases from cancer. Further research is warranted to identify clinical predictors of when to start and stop therapy, to integrate their use with other treatments for bone metastases, to identify their role in the adjuvant setting in preventing bone metastases, and to better determine their cost-benefit consequences.