Risedronate may preserve bone microarchitecture in breast cancer survivors on aromatase inhibitors: A randomized, controlled clinical trial

Effect of bisphosphonate and denosumab treatment on TBS in Japanese breast cancer patients with AIBL

INTRODUCTION

Bisphosphonates and denosumab increase bone mineral density (BMD) for osteoporosis treatment in patients with aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss (AIBL). This study aimed to directly compare bisphosphonates with denosumab in treating patients with AIBL and to determine the effect of denosumab on the trabecular bone score (TBS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-nine patients with AIBL receiving osteoporosis treatment (21 in the bisphosphonates group and 18 in the denosumab group) were retrospectively evaluated for changes in lumbar spine and femoral BMD, lumbar spine bone quality (assessed by TBS), and blood bone metabolic markers. The Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests were used for statistical evaluation.

RESULTS

After 24 months of treatment, the lumbar spine BMD change rate was 5.82 ± 1.10% with bisphosphonates and 10.49 ± 1.20% with denosumab, with the change rate of denosumab significantly increasing over that of bisphosphonates. The change rate in femoral BMD was 2.69 ± 1.16% with bisphosphonates and 2.95 ± 1.26% with denosumab, with no significant difference between the two groups. The rate of decrease in tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase isoform 5b was significantly higher in the denosumab group. The change rate in TBS at 24 months of treatment was 0.53 ± 1.26% in the bisphosphonates group and 1.08 ± 1.33% in the denosumab group, with no significant difference between the two groups. After 24 months, TBS remained stable.

CONCLUSION

Both bisphosphonates and denosumab may increase BMD, improve bone metabolism, and inhibit bone quality loss in patients with AIBL.

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.

Denosumab improves trabecular bone score in relationship with decrease in fracture risk of women exposed to aromatase inhibitors

PURPOSE

Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a gray-level textural metric that has shown to correlate with risk of fractures in several forms of osteoporosis. The value of TBS in predicting fractures and the effects of bone-active drugs on TBS in aromatase inhibitors (AIs)-induced osteoporosis are still largely unknown. The primary objective of this retrospective study was to assess the effects of denosumab and bisphosphonates (BPs) on TBS and vertebral fractures (VFs) in women exposed to AIs.

METHODS

241 consecutive women (median age 58 years) with early breast cancer undergoing treatment with AIs were evaluated for TBS, bone mineral density (BMD) and morphometric VFs at baseline and after 18-24 months of follow-up. During the study period, 139 women (57.7%) received denosumab 60 mg every 6 months, 53 (22.0%) BPs, whereas 49 women (20.3%) were not treated with bone-active drugs.

RESULTS

Denosumab significantly increased TBS values (from 1.270 to 1.323; P < 0.001) accompanied by a significant decrease in risk of VFs (odds ratio 0.282; P = 0.021). During treatment with BPs, TBS did not significantly change (P = 0.849) and incidence of VFs was not significantly different from women untreated with bone-active drugs (P = 0.427). In the whole population, women with incident VFs showed higher decrease in TBS vs. non-fractured women (P = 0.003), without significant differences in changes of BMD at any skeletal site.

CONCLUSIONS

TBS variation predicts fracture risk in AIs treated women. Denosumab is effective to induce early increase of TBS and reduction in risk of VFs.

Update on the clinical use of trabecular bone score (TBS) in the management of osteoporosis: results of an expert group meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO), and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) under the auspices of WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging

PURPOSE

Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a grey-level textural measurement acquired from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry lumbar spine images and is a validated index of bone microarchitecture. In 2015, a Working Group of the European Society on Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) published a review of the TBS literature, concluding that TBS predicts hip and major osteoporotic fracture, at least partly independent of bone mineral density (BMD) and clinical risk factors. It was also concluded that TBS is potentially amenable to change as a result of pharmacological therapy. Further evidence on the utility of TBS has since accumulated in both primary and secondary osteoporosis, and the introduction of FRAX and BMD T-score adjustment for TBS has accelerated adoption. This position paper therefore presents a review of the updated scientific literature and provides expert consensus statements and corresponding operational guidelines for the use of TBS.

METHODS

An Expert Working Group was convened by the ESCEO and a systematic review of the evidence undertaken, with defined search strategies for four key topics with respect to the potential use of TBS: (1) fracture prediction in men and women; (2) initiating and monitoring treatment in postmenopausal osteoporosis; (3) fracture prediction in secondary osteoporosis; and (4) treatment monitoring in secondary osteoporosis. Statements to guide the clinical use of TBS were derived from the review and graded by consensus using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

A total of 96 articles were reviewed and included data on the use of TBS for fracture prediction in men and women, from over 20 countries. The updated evidence shows that TBS enhances fracture risk prediction in both primary and secondary osteoporosis, and can, when taken with BMD and clinical risk factors, inform treatment initiation and the choice of antiosteoporosis treatment. Evidence also indicates that TBS provides useful adjunctive information in monitoring treatment with long-term denosumab and anabolic agents. All expert consensus statements were voted as strongly recommended.

CONCLUSION

The addition of TBS assessment to FRAX and/or BMD enhances fracture risk prediction in primary and secondary osteoporosis, adding useful information for treatment decision-making and monitoring. The expert consensus statements provided in this paper can be used to guide the integration of TBS in clinical practice for the assessment and management of osteoporosis. An example of an operational approach is provided in the appendix. This position paper presents an up-to-date review of the evidence base, synthesised through expert consensus statements, which informs the implementation of Trabecular Bone Score in clinical practice.

Bone loss induced by cancer treatments in breast and prostate cancer patients

Cancer and cancer therapies are a major factor risk for osteoporosis due to bone loss and deterioration of bone microarchitecture. Both factors contribute to a decrease in bone strength and, consequently, increased bone fragility and risk of fracture. Cancer-associated bone loss is a multifactorial process, and optimal interdisciplinary management of skeletal health, accurate assessment of bone density, and early diagnosis are essential when making decisions aimed at reducing bone loss and fracture risk in patients who have received or are receiving treatment for cancer. In this document, a multidisciplinary group of experts collected the latest evidence on the pathophysiology of osteoporosis and its prevention, diagnosis, and treatment with the support of the Spanish scientific society SEOM. The aim was to provide an up-to-date and in-depth view of osteoporotic risk and its consequences, and to present a series of recommendations aimed at optimizing the management of bone health in the context of cancer.

Quantitative ultrasound and DXA measurements in aromatase inhibitor-treated breast cancer women receiving denosumab

PURPOSE

Denosumab has been proven to reduce fracture risk in breast cancer (BC) women under aromatase inhibitors (AIs). Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) provides information on the structure and elastic properties of bone. Our aim was to assess bone health by phalangeal QUS and by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and to evaluate bone turnover in AIs-treated BC women receiving denosumab.

METHODS

35 Postmenopausal BC women on AIs were recruited (mean age 61.2 ± 4.5 years) and treated with denosumab 60 mg administered subcutaneously every 6 months. Phalangeal QUS parameters [Amplitude Dependent Speed of Sound (AD-SoS), Ultrasound Bone Profile Index (UBPI), Bone Transmission Time (BTT)] and DXA at lumbar spine and femoral neck were performed. Serum C-telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX) and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) were also measured. The main outcomes were compared with a control group not receiving denosumab (n = 39).

RESULTS

In patients treated with denosumab, differently from controls, QUS and DXA measurements improved after 24 months, and a reduction of CTX and BSAP was detected at 12 and 24 months in comparison to baseline (P < 0.05). The percent changes (Δ) of QUS measurements were significantly associated with ΔBMD at femoral neck, and ΔCTX and ΔBSAP were associated with ΔBMD at lumbar spine (r = -0.39, P = 0.02; r = -0.49, P = 0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Denosumab preserves bone health as assessed by phalangeal QUS and DXA. Since inexpensive and radiation-free, phalangeal QUS may be considered in the follow-up of AIs-treated BC women receiving denosumab.

Trabecular Bone Score: A New DXA-Derived Measurement for Fracture Risk Assessment

Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a novel method that assesses skeletal texture from spine dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) images. TBS improves fracture-risk prediction beyond that provided by DXA bone mineral density (BMD) and clinical risk factors, and can be incorporated to the Word Health Organization Fracture Risk Assessment tool (FRAX®) to enhance fracture prediction. There is insufficient evidence that TBS can be used to monitor treatment with bisphosphonates. TBS may be particularly helpful to assess fracture risk in diabetes. This article reviews technical and clinical aspects of TBS and its potential utility as a clinical tool to predict fracture risk.