Comparison between zoledronic acid and clodronate in the treatment of prostate cancer patients with bone metastases

Balancing Hormone Therapy: Mitigating Adverse Effects of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy and Exploring Alternatives in Prostate Cancer Management

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is well established as the standard of care in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) management; however, ADT has significant adverse effects (AEs) that must be addressed. This review aims to highlight opportunities to mitigate AEs of ADT and explore alternatives in PCa management. Specifically, we discuss behavioral and pharmacologic strategies for mitigating ADT AEs as well as ADT-sparing approaches for hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant PCa. Equipped with effective mitigation strategies and possible alternatives, clinicians and researchers can optimize health-related quality of life for patients currently receiving ADT for PCa and consider treatments that spare patients from AEs of ADT.

Novel Therapeutic Targets on the Horizon: An Analysis of Clinical Trials on Therapies for Bone Metastasis in Prostate Cancer

In the absence of early detection and initial treatment, prostate cancer often progresses to an advanced stage, frequently spreading to the bones and significantly impacting patients' well-being and healthcare resources. Therefore, managing patients with prostate cancer that has spread to the bones often involves using bone-targeted medications like bisphosphonates and denosumab to enhance bone structure and minimize skeletal complications. Additionally, researchers are studying the tumor microenvironment and biomarkers to understand the mechanisms and potential treatment targets for bone metastases in prostate cancer. A literature search was conducted to identify clinical studies from 2013 to 2023 that focused on pain, performance status, or quality of life as primary outcomes. The analysis included details such as patient recruitment, prior palliative therapies, baseline characteristics, follow-up, and outcome reporting. The goal was to highlight the advancements and trends in bone metastasis research in prostate cancer over the past decade, with the aim of developing strategies to prevent and treat bone metastases and improve the quality of life and survival rates for prostate cancer patients.

Prostate cancer bone metastases biology and clinical management (Review)

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most prominent causes of cancer-related mortality in the male population. A highly impactful prognostic factor for patients diagnosed with PCa is the presence or absence of bone metastases. The formation of secondary tumours at the bone is the most commonly observed site for the establishment of PCa metastases and is associated with reduced survival of patients in addition to a cohort of life-debilitating symptoms, including mobility issues and chronic pain. Despite the prevalence of this disease presentation and the high medical relevance of bone metastases, the mechanisms underlying the formation of metastases to the bone and the understanding of what drives the osteotropism exhibited by prostate tumours remain to be fully elucidated. This lack of in-depth understanding manifests in limited effective treatment options for patients with advanced metastatic PCa and culminates in the low rate of survival observed for this sub-set of patients. The present review aims to summarise the most recent promising advances in the understanding of how and why prostate tumours metastasise to the bone, with the ultimate aim of highlighting novel treatment and prognostic targets, which may provide the opportunity to improve the diagnosis and treatment of patients with PCa with bone metastases.

Management of bone metastasis with zoledronic acid: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

While considered the mainstay of treatment for specific bone metastases, ZA is used predominantly to treat osteolytic lesions. The purpose of this network meta-analysis is to compare ZA to other treatment options in its ability to improve specific clinical outcomes in patients with bone metastases secondary to any primary tumor.

Methods

PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to May 5th, 2022. Keywords used were solid tumor, lung neoplasm, kidney neoplasm, breast neoplasm, prostate neoplasm, ZA and bone metastasis. Every randomized controlled trial and non-randomized quasi-experimental study of systemic ZA administration for patients with bone metastases and any comparator were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was done on the primary outcomes including number of SREs, time to developing a first on-study SRE, overall survival, and disease progression-free survival. Secondary outcome was pain at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment.

Results

Our search yielded 3861 titles with 27 meeting inclusion criteria. For the number of SRE, ZA in combination with chemotherapy or hormone therapy was statistically superior to placebo (OR 0.079; 95 % CrI: 0.022-0.27). For the time to the first on study SRE, the relative effectiveness of ZA 4 mg was statistically superior to placebo (HR 0.58; 95 % CrI:0.48-0.77). At 3 and 6 months, ZA 4 mg was significantly superior to placebo for reducing pain with a SMD of -0.85 (95 % CrI:-1.6, -0.0025) and -2.6 (95 % CrI:-4.7, -0.52) respectively.

Conclusions

This systematic review shows the benefits of ZA in decreasing the incidence of SREs, increasing the time to the first on-study SRE, and reducing the pain level at 3 and 6 months.

Epidemiology of spinal metastases, metastatic epidural spinal cord compression and pathologic vertebral compression fractures in patients with solid tumors: A systematic review

•

The clinical incidence of spinal metastases is 15.67%, two thirds are metastases from breast-, prostate- or lung cancer.

•

9.6% of patients with spinal metastases develop metastatic epidural spinal cord compression.

•

1 out of 8 (12.6%) of patients with spinal metastases suffer of pathologic vertebral compression fractures.

Introduction

Spinal metastases (SM) are a frequent complication of cancer and may lead to pathologic vertebral compression fractures (pVCF) and/or metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC). Based on autopsy studies, it is estimated that about one third of all cancer patients will develop SM. These data may not provide a correct estimation of the incidence in clinical practice.

Objective

This systematic review (SR) aims to provide a more accurate estimation of the incidence of SM, MESCC and pVCF in a clinical setting.

Methods

We performed a SR of papers regarding epidemiology of SM, pVCF, and MESCC in patients with solid tumors conform PRISMA guidelines. A search was conducted in the PubMed and Web of Science database using the terms epidemiology, prevalence, incidence, global burden of disease, cost of disease, spinal metastas*, metastatic epidural spinal cord compression, pathologic fracture, vertebral compression fracture, vertebral metastas* and spinal neoplasms. Papers published between 1975 and august 2021 were included. Quality was evaluated by the STROBE criteria.

Results

While 56 studies were included, none of them reports the actual definition used for MESCC and pVCF, inevitably introducing heterogenity. The overall cumulative incidence of SM and MESCC is 15.67% and 2.84% respectively in patients with a solid tumor. We calculated a mean cumulative incidence in patients with SM of 9.56% (95% CI 5.70%-13.42%) for MESCC and 12.63% (95% CI 7.00%-18.25%) for pVCF. Studies show an important delay between onset of symptoms and diagnosis.

Conclusions

While the overall cumulative incidence for clinically diagnosed SM in patients with a solid tumor is 15.67%, autopsy studies reveal that SM are present in 30% by the time they die, suggesting underdiagnosing of SM. Approximately 1 out of 10 patients with SM will develop MESCC and another 12.6% will develop a pVCF. Understanding these epidemiologic data, should increase awareness for first symptoms, allowing early diagnosis and subsequent treatment, thus improving overall outcome.

Bisphosphonates or RANK-ligand-inhibitors for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Different bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men with prostate cancer and bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to the bone, and hypercalcemia lead to morbidity, a poor performance status, and impaired quality of life. Efficacy and acceptability of the bone-targeted therapy is therefore of high relevance. Until now recommendations in guidelines on which bone-modifying agents should be used are rare and inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and RANKL-inhibitors as supportive treatment for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to their safety and efficacy using network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by electronically searching the bibliographic databases Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until 23 March 2020. We searched the Cochrane Library and various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases. We included men with castration-restrictive and castration-sensitive prostate cancer and conducted subgroup analyses according to this criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined proportion of participants with pain response and the adverse events renal impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were SREs in total and each separately (see above), mortality, quality of life, and further adverse events such as grade 3 to 4 adverse events, hypocalcemia, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. We conducted network meta-analysis and generated treatment rankings for all outcomes, except quality of life due to insufficient reporting on this outcome. We compiled ranking plots to compare single outcomes of efficacy against outcomes of acceptability of the bone-modifying agents. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials could be considered in the quantitative analysis, of which six bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid, risedronate, pamidronate, alendronate, etidronate, or clodronate) were compared with each other, the RANKL-inhibitor denosumab, or no treatment/placebo. By conducting network meta-analysis we were able to compare all of these reported agents directly and/or indirectly within the network for each outcome. In the abstract only the comparisons of zoledronic acid and denosumab against the main comparator (no treatment/placebo) are described for outcomes that were predefined as most relevant and that also appear in the 'Summary of findings' table. Other results, as well as results of subgroup analyses regarding castration status of participants, are displayed in the Results section of the full text. Treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases the proportion of participants with pain response when compared to no treatment/placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.32; per 1000 participants 121 more (19 less to 349 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 1013 participants). For this outcome none of the trials reported results for the comparison with denosumab. The adverse event renal impairment probably occurs more often when treated with zoledronic acid compared to treatment/placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.45; per 1000 participants 78 more (10 more to 180 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 6 trials including 1769 participants). Results for denosumab could not be included for this outcome, since zero events cannot be considered in the network meta-analysis, therefore it does not appear in the ranking. Treatment with denosumab results in increased occurrence of the adverse event ONJ (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 11.24; per 1000 participants 30 more (1 more to 125 more); high-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 3006 participants) compared to no treatment/placebo. When comparing zoledronic acid to no treatment/placebo, the confidence intervals include the possibility of benefit or harm, therefore treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases ONJ (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.87; per 1000 participants 11 more (3 less to 47 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 3006 participants). Compared to no treatment/placebo, treatment with zoledronic acid (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and denosumab (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) may result in a reduction of the total number of SREs (per 1000 participants 75 fewer (131 fewer to 14 fewer) and 131 fewer (215 fewer to 19 fewer); both low-certainty evidence; 12 trials, 5240 participants). Treatment with zoledronic acid and denosumab likely neither reduces nor increases mortality when compared to no treatment/placebo (zoledronic acid RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; per 1000 participants 48 fewer (97 fewer to 5 more); denosumab RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; per 1000 participants 34 fewer (111 fewer to 54 more); both moderate-certainty evidence; 13 trials, 5494 participants). Due to insufficient reporting, no network meta-analysis was possible for the outcome quality of life. One study with 1904 participants comparing zoledronic acid and denosumab showed that more zoledronic acid-treated participants than denosumab-treated participants experienced a greater than or equal to five-point decrease in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General total scores over a range of 18 months (average relative difference = 6.8%, range -9.4% to 14.6%) or worsening of cancer-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When considering bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment, one has to balance between efficacy and acceptability. Results suggest that Zoledronic acid likely increases both the proportion of participants with pain response, and the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events However, more trials with head-to-head comparisons including all potential agents are needed to draw the whole picture and proof the results of this analysis.

Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer: ASCO Endorsement of a Cancer Care Ontario Guideline

PURPOSE

In 2017, Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care released the Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer guideline. This guideline included recommendations across a relatively broad clinical spectrum within prostate cancer. Topics addressed ranged from management of osteoporotic fracture risk in nonmetastatic disease to management of men with castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to bone. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations.

METHODS

The Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Expert Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations.

RESULTS

The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer guideline were clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO wholly endorses the Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The ASCO Expert Panel endorses all the original guideline recommendations as written and offers a series of discussion points to guide practice for clinicians as they manage bone-related risks within this patient population.

The Current Role of Osteoclast Inhibitors in Patients with Prostate Cancer

Purpose

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most frequently diagnosed malignancies worldwide. Hormonal deprivation therapy is a well-established treatment for locally advanced or metastatic diseases but exposes patients to the risk of osteoporosis and fragility fractures. Furthermore, the tropism of the PCa cells to osseous metastases increases the incidence of skeletal-related events (SREs).

Methods

A nonsystematic review of the international literature was performed in respect to the use of osteoclast inhibitors zoledronic acid (ZA) and denosumab (DEN) in PCa patients.

Results

DEN and ZA have proved their efficacy in preventing osteoporosis and bone mass loss in patients treated with hormonal therapy with no proven superiority of one agent over the other. However, the effectiveness in reducing fragility fractures has been proved only for DEN so far. In metastatic-free castrate-sensitive high-risk PCa patients, ZA has not shown any efficacy in preventing osseous metastasis, and evidence is lacking in favor or against the use of DEN. The use of osteoclasts inhibitors had no evident positive effect in overall and disease-specific survival in this group of patients. In advanced castrate-refractory malignancy, DEN has shown clinical superiority over ZA in preventing new SRE but not in overall survival.

Conclusion

Superiority of DEN over ZA has been proved only in advanced castrate refractory disease in terms of preventing new SRE. In the rest of the cases, the selection of either agent should be based on the clinical condition of each patient and the cost of the treatment.

Monitoring changes in quality of life in patients with lung cancer under treatment with chemotherapy and co administration of zoledronic acid by using specialized questionnaires

Background: Due to the severity of the primary disease in patients with lung cancer, quality of life (QoL) is often overlooked. Factors that form QoL should be taken in consideration when planning the appropriate treatment and determining therapy targets, because of the increasing frequency of bone metastasis leading to high levels of pain. Purpose of this study is to assess quality of life in patients with lung cancer, before and after treatment combined with zoledronic acid.

Methods and materials: QoL was assessed in 80 patients (49 males-31 females), of which 45 developed bone metastasis. Prior and post treatment (with co administration of zoledronic acid) seven reliable scales: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality index (PSQI), Epworth Sleeping Scale (ess), Dyspnea Scale (ds), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Fact-G scale for sleep quality and EQ-5D for general health condition.

Results: Statistically positive correlations were verified between PSQI-DS, PSQI-FSS, BPI-ESS, DS-FSS, DS-BPI and BPI-FSS (p<0,005) prior and post treatment. Patients sleep quality was improved, pain levels decreased and betterment in quality of life was marked (p<0,001). Although significant decrease in fatigue levels was observed (p<0,001) there has been an increase in dyspnea symptoms (p<0,001).

Conclusions: Significant improvement was apparent when zoledronic acid was co administered in any treatment in patients with lung cancer. Sleep quality, fatigue and pain parameters also improved, with no positive impact on the symptoms of dyspnea.

Bisphosphonates for advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The prevalence and incidence of pain and skeletal complications of metastatic bone disease such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression and hypercalcemia is high and an important contributor to morbidity, poor performance status and decreased quality of life. Moreover, pathologic fractures are associated with increased risk of death in people with disseminated malignancies. Therefore, prevention of pain and fractures are important goals in men with prostate cancer at risk for skeletal complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of bisphosphonates in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by electronic search of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and MEDLINE on 13 July 2017 and trial registries. We handsearched the Proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology (to July 2017) and reference lists of all eligible trials identified. This is an update of a review last published in 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled studies comparing the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined the proportion of participants with pain response as the primary end point; secondary outcomes were skeletal-related events, mortality, quality of life, adverse events, analgesic consumption and disease progression. We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 trials reporting on 4843 participants comparing the effect of bisphosphonate administration to control regimens.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

there was no clear difference in the proportion of participants with pain response (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.43; P = 0.20; I² = 0%; 3 trials; 876 participants; low quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in a pain response in 40 more participants per 1000 (19 fewer to 114 more).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

bisphosphonates probably reduced the incidence of skeletal-related events in participants with prostate cancer metastatic to bone (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; P = 0.27; I² = 19%; 9 trials; 3153 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 58 fewer SREs per 1000 (85 fewer to 27 fewer).We found no clinically relevant differences in mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; P = 0.43; I² = 1%; 9 trials; 2450 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 16 fewer deaths per 1000 (47 fewer to 21 more).Outcome definition of quality of life and the measurement tools varied greatly across trials and we were unable to extract any quantitative data for meta-analysis.Bisphosphonates probably increased the number of participants affected by nausea (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; P = 0.05; I² = 0%; 9 trials; 3008 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in seven more cases of nausea per 1000 (0 fewer to 14 more). Bisphosphonates probably increased the number of renal adverse events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.46; P = 0.01; I² = 0%; 7 trials; 1794 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 22 more renal adverse events per 1000 (4 more to 50 more). We found no clear difference in the number of participants with osteonecrosis of the jaw between groups (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.90; P = 0.17; I² = 0%; 5 trials; 1626 participants; very low quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in seven more cases with osteonecrosis of the jaw per 1000 (2 fewer to 29 more). We observed no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of participants with decreased analgesic consumption (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.63; P = 0.28; I² = 37%; 4 trials; 416 participants). Statistical analysis revealed that bisphosphonates probably reduced the number of participants with disease progression (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.98; P = 0.006; I² = 0%; 7 trials; 2115 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 36 fewer cases of disease progression per 1000 (71 fewer to 7 fewer).Findings of our predefined subgroup and sensitivity analyses were no different from those of the primary analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low quality evidence, there may be no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of men with pain response between bisphosphonates and control regimens in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer. Bisphosphonates probably decrease the number of skeletal-related events and disease progression. These benefits need to be weighed against the increased risk of renal impairment and nausea in men receiving bisphosphonates. Future studies should explicitly evaluate patient important outcomes such as quality of life and pain by using standardized and comparable assessment tools.

Bone Health and Bone-targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer: a Programme in Evidence-based Care - Cancer Care Ontario Clinical Practice Guideline

AIMS

To make recommendations with respect to bone health and bone-targeted therapies in men with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was carried out by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to January 2016. Systematic reviews and randomised-controlled trials were considered for inclusion if they involved therapies directed at improving bone health or outcomes such as skeletal-related events, pain and quality of life in patients with prostate cancer either with or without metastases to bone. Therapies included medications, supplements or lifestyle modifications alone or in combination and were compared with placebo, no treatment or other agents. Disease-targeted agents such as androgen receptor-targeted and chemotherapeutic agents were excluded. Recommendations were reviewed by internal and external review groups.

RESULTS

In men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy, baseline bone mineral density testing is encouraged. Denosumab should be considered for reducing the risk of fracture in men on androgen deprivation therapy with an increased fracture risk. Bisphosphonates were effective in improving bone mineral density, but the effect on fracture was inconclusive. No medication is recommended to prevent the development of first bone metastasis. Denosumab and zoledronic acid are recommended for preventing or delaying skeletal-related events in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Radium-223 is recommended for reducing symptomatic skeletal events and prolonging survival in men with symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations represent a current standard of care that is feasible to implement, with outcomes valued by clinicians and patients.

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.

Bisphosphonates for cancer treatment: Mechanisms of action and lessons from clinical trials

A growing body of evidence points toward an important anti-cancer effect of bisphosphonates, a group of inexpensive, safe, potent, and long-term stable pharmacologicals that are widely used as osteoporosis drugs. To date, they are already used in the prevention of complications of bone metastases. Because the bisphosphonates can also reduce mortality in among other multiple myeloma, breast, and prostate cancer patients, they are now thoroughly studied in oncology. In particular, the more potent nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates have the potential to improve prognosis. The first part of this review will elaborate on the direct and indirect anti-tumoral effects of bisphosphonates, including induction of tumor cell apoptosis, inhibition of tumor cell adhesion and invasion, anti-angiogenesis, synergism with anti-neoplastic drugs, and enhancement of immune surveillance (e.g., through activation of γδ T cells and targeting macrophages). In the second part, we shed light on the current clinical position of bisphosphonates in the treatment of hematological and solid malignancies, as well as on ongoing and completed clinical trials investigating the therapeutic effect of bisphosphonates in cancer. Based on these recent data, the role of bisphosphonates is expected to further expand in the near future outside the field of osteoporosis and to open up new avenues in the treatment of malignancies.

Contemporary pharmacotherapy for the prevention of skeletal complications in patients with prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Bones represent the most common metastatic sites in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, and in addition with androgen deprivation therapy, they represent the causative reasons of bone mineral density loss and the onset of skeletal-related events.

AREAS COVERED

An extensive search of PubMed/Medline was performed to identify randomized, Phase II/III controlled trials reporting results regarding the prevention of skeletal morbidity in patients with PCa.

EXPERT OPINION

Preventing bone health is an imperative issue for preserving quality of life and elongate survival and, thus, a concerted effort should be made to monitor skeletal changes and to apply treatment for preventing bone loss. Although several agents have received approval for routine use, it is of paramount importance to identify the appropriate patients who would mostly be benefited by the use of these agents with attention to documenting the toxicity and economic implications. Additionally, it remains to be justified the frequency of administration in order to balance the efficacy and the potential complications.

Docetaxel with or without zoledronic acid for castration-resistant prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid (ZA) in the combination of docetaxel-based chemotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer with bone metastases.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study in recruiting 105 prostate cancer patients with bone metastases from 2008 to 2010. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, 53 in the docetaxel-based chemotherapy + ZA(Group A) and 52 in the docetaxel-based chemotherapy + placebo(Group B). The different outcome between patients treated with chemotherapy combined with ZA and those with chemotherapy alone was evaluated. The Cox multivariate analyses of clinical features and different treatment methods of the 105 patients were conducted.

RESULTS

There was a response of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in 33 (62.3 %) in Group A and 28 (53.8 %) in Group B (P = 0.20). The combined approach group had better bone progression-free survival (BPFS) (9.0 vs. 6.0 months, P < 0.05) and overall survival (OS) (19.0 vs. 15.0 months, P = 0.02), but no statistical evidence of benefit was observed in terms of PSA response. Cox multivariate analysis identified the following independent prognostic factors: received ZA, high Hb level and more than 6 cycles of chemotherapy. There were no clinical relevant differences in the frequencies of adverse events between these two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Zoledronic acid treatment combined with docetaxel-based chemotherapy could have a better bone pain control and improve BPFS and OS for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases. The PSA response and SREs rate are similar.