Phase 2 placebo-controlled, single-blind trial to evaluate the impact of oral ibandronate on bone mineral density in osteopenic breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors: 5-year results of the single-centre BONADIUV trial

Bone Health Management in Men Commencing Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer and Women Commencing Anti-Oestrogen Therapy for Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Survival of patients with prostate and breast cancer, the commonest cancer in men and women, respectively, has markedly improved with advances in early diagnosis, treatment and multi-disciplinary care by the oncology and surgical community. However, the use of increasingly potent endocrine therapies may cause bone loss, resulting in secondary osteoporosis.

REVIEW

This review summarises the current management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss in this group of patients at high risk of osteoporotic fractures with their attendant morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Bone health is an increasingly important part of cancer survivorship. Radiation and medical oncologists, urologists, bone health experts, general practitioners, healthcare professional bodies and bone health and cancer consumer organisations should increase awareness of the potential adverse effect of endocrine therapy on bone health. While this should never delay cancer treatment, bone health should be part of routine care for men and women receiving endocrine therapy for prostate and breast cancer.

Navigating skeletal wellness after breast cancer

Breast cancer is the leading cause of death in the female population. Hormone receptor-positive cancers are usually treated with surgery in combination with endocrine therapy. The latter is known to lower estrogen levels, contributing, therefore, to loss of bone density (BMD) and higher risk of fracture. Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) can regulate the bone-related adverse effects of cancer treatment. In premenopausal women, intravenous zoledronate effectively prevents bone loss. However, the evidence regarding its ability to reduce disease recurrence remains inconclusive. In postmenopausal women, denosumab demonstrates the most substantial evidence for fracture prevention, supported by one well-powered randomized controlled trial, but has not been shown to confer anticancer benefits. While bisphosphonates effectively prevent and reduce clinical vertebra fractures, their impact on overall fracture risk is unclear. In clinical practice, management of bone health in this group of patients starts with stratification for the risk of fracture. This can be done using the FRAX algorithm; measurements of bone mineral density can help to optimize stratification for individuals at higher fracture risk. Caution is advised when interpreting the results, as the FRAX algorithm has been considered to underestimate the true fracture risk in this population, given that the algorithm has not been adjusted for the effect of anti-cancer agents. Nowadays, clodronate, ibandronate, and zoledronic acid are recommended for bone protection in this group of patients, while denosumab is not. Further research is required to highlight the optimal BMA according to patient characteristics.

Can Bisphosphonate Therapy Reduce Overall Mortality in Patients With Osteoporosis? A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

For patients with osteoporosis, bisphosphonate therapy can reduce the risk of fractures, but its effect on reducing mortality remains unclear. Previous studies on this topic have produced conflicting results and generally have been too small to definitively answer the question of whether bisphosphonate therapy reduces mortality. Therefore, a meta-analysis may help us arrive at a more conclusive answer.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In a large meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we asked: (1) Does bisphosphonate use reduce mortality? (2) Is there a subgroup effect based on whether different bisphosphonate drugs were used (zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate), different geographic regions where the study took place (Europe, the Americas, and Asia), whether the study was limited to postmenopausal female patients, or whether the trials lasted 3 years or longer?

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using multiple databases, including Embase, Web of Science, Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with each database searched up to November 20, 2023 (which also was the date of our last search), following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We included randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials with participants diagnosed with osteoporosis and receiving bisphosphonate treatment. We excluded papers posted to preprint servers, other unpublished work, conference abstracts, and papers that were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov but were not yet published. We collected 2263 records. After excluding records due to study type, study content not meeting the inclusion criteria, and duplicates, our meta-analysis included 47 placebo-controlled RCTs involving 59,437 participants. Data extraction, quality assessment, and statistical analyses were performed. The evaluation of randomized trials for potential bias was conducted using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This assessment encompassed factors such as sequence generation, allocation concealment, subject blinding, outcome assessor blinding, incomplete outcome data, and reporting bias. Some studies did not provide explicit details regarding random sequence generation, leading to a high risk of selection bias. A few studies, due to their open-label nature, were unable to achieve double-blind conditions for both the subjects and the researchers, resulting in intermediate performance bias. Nevertheless, the overall study quality was high. Due to the low heterogeneity among the studies, as evidenced by the low statistical heterogeneity (that is, a low I 2 statistic), we opted for a fixed-effects model, indicating that the effect size is consistent across the studies. In such cases, the fixed-effects model can provide more precise estimates. According to the results of the funnel plot, we did not find evidence of publication bias.

RESULTS

The use of bisphosphonates did not reduce the overall risk of mortality in patients with osteoporosis (risk ratio 0.95 [95% CI 0.88 to 1.03]). Subgroup analyses involving different bisphosphonate drugs (zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate), regions (Europe, the Americas, and Asia), diverse populations (postmenopausal female patients and other patients), and trials lasting 3 years or longer revealed no associations with reduced overall mortality.

CONCLUSION

Based on our comprehensive meta-analysis, there is high-quality evidence suggesting that bisphosphonate therapy for patients with osteoporosis does not reduce the overall risk of mortality despite its effectiveness in reducing the risk of fractures. The primary consideration for prescribing bisphosphonates to individuals with osteoporosis should continue to be centered on reducing fracture risk, aligning with clinical guidelines. Long-term studies are needed to investigate potential effects on mortality during extended treatment periods.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

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.

Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study

Background

Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice.

Objectives

1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities.

Methods

The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates.

Results

Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting.

Conclusions

Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs.

Future work

Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting.

Limitations

Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The recent progress of endocrine therapy-induced osteoporosis in estrogen-positive breast cancer therapy

Breast cancer is a significant global health concern, and the discovery of endocrine therapy has played a crucial role in the treatment of estrogen-positive breast cancer. However, these therapies are often associated with osteoporosis-related adverse events, which increase the risk of fractures in breast cancer patients and can result in limited mobility and reduced quality of life. Previous studies have shown that osteoporosis is essential side effects of the breast cancer therapy, although the exact mechanisms remain mostly unclear. Current clinical treatments, such as bisphosphonates, cause side effects and may impact the therapeutic response to endocrine drugs. In this review, we explore the likelihood of endocrine therapy-induced osteoporosis in estrogen-positive breast cancer therapy and discuss the involved mechanisms as well as the therapeutic potential of drugs and drug combination strategies.

Management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) in patients with breast cancer or prostate cancer

Breast cancer and prostate cancer are sex hormone-dependent cancers, and estrogen or androgen suppression therapy is the standard treatment. Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL): bone loss and osteoporosis have become important side effects of these therapies. To summarize the current evidences, (1) Endocrine therapy for breast cancer and prostate cancer is associated with a significant decrease in bone mineral density. (2) Aromatase inhibitors (AI) for breast cancer are associated with a significant increase in fractures, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer is likely to be associated with an increase in fractures. (3) Administration of bisphosphonates and denosumab increases bone mass in patients undergoing endocrine therapy for breast cancer. Administration of bisphosphonates, denosumab, and SERMs increased bone mass in patients undergoing ADT therapy for prostate cancer. (4) Bisphosphonates and denosumab reduce fracture risk in patients on AI for breast cancer, and toremifene and denosumab in patients on ADT for prostate cancer.

The clinical effectiveness of denosumab (Prolia®) in patients with hormone-sensitive cancer receiving endocrine therapy, compared to bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERM), and placebo: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

This systematic review (SR) assessed the use of denosumab (Prolia®) to treat osteoporosis in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy. Denosumab was found to prevent vertebral fractures and improve bone mineral density in cancer patients with osteoporosis. This is the first SR to assess treating osteoporotic cancer patients with denosumab.

PURPOSE

This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) (bazedoxifene, raloxifene) and placebo for the treatment of osteoporosis in hormone-sensitive cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy (men with prostate cancer [MPC] on hormone ablation therapy [HAT], and women with breast cancer [WBC] on adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy [AAIT]).

METHODS

Systematic literature searches were conducted in three biomedical databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Frequentist network meta-analyses and/or pairwise meta-analyses were performed on predetermined outcomes (i.e., vertebral/nonvertebral fractures, bone mineral density [BMD], mortality, treatment-related adverse events [AEs], serious AEs [SAEs], withdrawal due to treatment-related AEs).

RESULTS

A total of 14 RCTs (15 publications) were included. Denosumab was found to prevent vertebral fractures in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy, relative to placebo. Similarly, denosumab, zoledronate, and alendronate improved BMD at the femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) in MPC on HAT, relative to placebo. Denosumab, ibandronate and risedronate improved BMD at the LS and total hip (TH) in WBC on AAIT, relative to placebo. Denosumab and risedronate improved trochanteric (TRO) BMD in WBC on AAIT, relative to placebo. Similarly, denosumab improved FN BMD in WBC on AAIT.

CONCLUSION

In MPC on HAT, denosumab (relative to placebo) was effective at preventing vertebral fractures and improving BMD at the FN and LS. Moreover, in WBC on AAIT, denosumab (relative to placebo) improved BMD at the FN, LS, TH, and TRO, as well as prevent vertebral fracture.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Bisphosphonates for the Prevention of Fragility Fractures: An Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analyses

Bisphosphonates have been found to be effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, their comparative effectiveness in populations at risk has yet to be defined. In light of recent clinical trials, we aimed to compare four bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronate) and to identify which are the most effective for the prevention of fragility fractures. This is an update of a systematic review previously published as part of a NICE HTA report. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis, updating the estimates regarding the comparative effectiveness of the aforementioned bisphosphonates. Studies identified from published and unpublished sources between 2014 and 2021 were added to the studies identified in the previous review. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently undertaken by two reviewers. Outcomes were fractures, femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), mortality, and adverse events. We identified 25 additional trials, resulting in a total population of 47,007 participants. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo with zoledronate being the most effective treatment in preventing vertebral fractures (hazard ratio [HR] 0.38; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.28-0.49). Zoledronate (HR 0.71; 95% CrI, 0.61-0.81) and risedronate (HR 0.70; 95% CrI, 0.53-0.84) were found to be the most effective treatments in preventing nonvertebral fractures. All treatments were associated with increases in femoral neck BMD versus placebo with zoledronate being the most effective treatment mean difference (MD 4.02; 95% CrI, 3.2-4.84). There was a paucity of data regarding hip and wrist fractures. Depending on its cost-effectiveness, zoledronate could be considered a first-line option for people at increased risk of fragility fractures. © 2022 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Effect of antiresorptive therapy on aromatase inhibitor induced bone loss in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are routinely used to treat postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Although AIs improve breast cancer outcomes, they increase the risk of osteoporosis and fractures. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the effect of antiresorptive drugs on AI induced bone loss in postmenopausal women with non-metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

We searched four databases until November 4th 2020. We included Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antiresorptive drugs in postmenopausal women with breast cancer treated with AI. Two authors screened studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias independently and in duplicate.

RESULTS

We identified 14 RCTs: 7 on zoledronic acid, 6 on oral bisphosphonates and 1 on denosumab. The mean difference in bone mineral density (BMD) was 5% at the lumbar spine and 4% at the total hip, at 12 months, favoring zoledronic acid compared to control. The certainty of the evidence was low for lumbar spine and moderate for total hip BMD. Similarly, the mean difference was 3% at the lumbar spine and 2% at the total hip, favoring oral bisphosphonates with moderate certainty. The mean difference was 6% at the lumbar spine, and 4% at the total hip BMD favoring denosumab compared to placebo. In addition, zoledronic acid resulted in a mean difference in bone turnover marker levels of -35-41%, and the relarive risk for morphometric vertebral fractures was 0.7 [0.3-1.4], compared to control. Denosumab reduced fracture incidence by 50% compared to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Evidence suggests a protective effect of antiresorptive drugs on BMD and bone turnover markers in postmenopausal women with non-metastatic breast cancer on AI. However, data on fracture risk reduction remains unclear.

Efficacy of Antiresorptive Drugs on Bone Mineral Density in Post-Menopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer Receiving Adjuvant Aromatase Inhibitors: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) is a frequent complication of breast cancer therapies affecting both disability and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). To date, there is still a lack of consensus about the most effective approach that would improve bone health and HRQoL. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to summarize the evidence on the effects of antiresorptive drugs on CTIBL in patients with early breast cancer.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to April 30, 2021 to identify RCTs satisfying the following PICO model: P) Participants: postmenopausal women with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AI), age >18 years; I) Intervention: antiresorptive drugs (i.e. bisphosphonates and/or denosumab); C) Comparator: any comparator; O) Outcome: bone mineral density (BMD) modifications. Moreover, a quality assessment was performed according to the Jadad scale.

Results

Out of the initial 2415 records, 21 papers (15 studies) were included in the data synthesis. According to the Jadad scale, 6 studies obtained a score of 5, 1 study obtained a score of 4, 13 studies obtained a score of 3, and 1 study with score 1. Although both bisphosphonates and denosumab showed to increase BMD, only denosumab showed significant advantages on fractures.

Conclusions

Bone health management in patients with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant AIs remains challenging, and the optimal therapeutic approach is not standardized. Further studies are needed to investigate CTIBL, focusing on both the need for antiresorptive drugs and their duration based on individual patients’ characteristics.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42021267107.

Bisphosphonates and breast cancer survival: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of 81508 participants from 23 prospective epidemiological studies

BACKGROUND

We assessed the effect of bisphosphonates (BPs) on breast cancer (BCa) patient survival and explored how long the effect can persist after treatment.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of prospective studies including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. We performed extensive sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the findings.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs and eight cohorts with 81508 BCa patients were identified. A significant beneficial effect of BPs on BCa survival was found (RR, 0.725; 95% CI, 0.627-0.839), and the TSA results also suggested firm evidence for this beneficial effect. Both summarized results from RCTs and cohorts provided firm evidence for this effect, although the effect estimates were stronger from cohorts than RCTs (RR, 0.892; 95% CI, 0.829-0.961; 0.570; 95% CI, 0.436-0.745; respectively). This beneficial effect was confirmed for bone-metastases (RR, 0.713; 95% CI, 0.602-0.843) and postmenopausal women (RR, 0.737; 95% CI, 0.640-0.850). Importantly, our results demonstrated that this beneficial effect was retained at least 1-2 years after treatment completion (RR, 0.780; 95% CI, 0.638-0.954) and could persist for up to more than 4 years after treatment completion (RR, 0.906; 95% CI, 0.832-0.987). Extensive sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of our results. The GRADE quality of evidence was generally judged to be moderate to high.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provides firm evidence for a significant beneficial effect of BPs on BCa survival in patients with early-stage BCa, and this effect was retained at least 1-2 years after BP treatment completion.

Updated guidance on the management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) in pre- and postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Adjuvant endocrine therapy induces bone loss and increases fracture risk in women with hormone-receptor positive, early-stage breast cancer (EBC). We aimed to update a previous position statement on the management of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) induced bone loss and now included premenopausal women.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of the medical databases from January 2017 to May 2020 and assessed 144 new studies.

RESULTS

Extended use of AIs beyond 5 years leads to persistent bone loss in breast cancer extended adjuvant trials and meta-analyses. In addition to bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) and trabecular bone score (TBS) were shown to independently predict fracture risk in real life prospective studies. FRAX® tool does not seem to be reliable for assessing fracture risk in CTIBL. In premenopausal women, there is strong evidence that intravenous zoledronate prevents bone loss but weak conflicting evidence on reducing disease recurrence from independent randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In postmenopausal women, the strongest evidence for fracture prevention is for denosumab based on a well-powered RCT while there is strong evidence for bisphosphonates (BPs) to prevent and reduce CTIBL but no convincing data on fractures. Adjuvant denosumab has failed to show anticancer benefits in a large, well-designed RCT.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Extended use of AIs and persistent bone loss from recent data reinforce the need to evaluate fracture risk in EBC women initiated on AIs. Fracture risk should be assessed with clinical risk factors and BMD along with VFA, but FRAX is not adapted to CTIBL. Anti-resorptive therapy should be considered in those with a BMD T-score < -2.0 SD or with ≥ 2 clinical risk factors including a BMD T-score < -1.0 SD. In premenopausal women, intravenous zoledronate is the only drug reported to prevent bone loss and may have additional anticancer benefits. In postmenopausal women, either denosumab or BPs can be prescribed for fracture prevention with pertinent attention to the rebound phenomenon after stopping denosumab. Adjuvant BPs, in contrast to denosumab, have shown high level evidence for reducing breast cancer recurrence in high-risk post-MP women which should be taken into account when choosing between these two.

Managing Common Estrogen Deprivation Side Effects in HR+ Breast Cancer: an Evidence-Based Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The article reviews the consequences of estrogen deprivation during endocrine therapy for breast cancer and provides an update on alternative therapies for the management of symptoms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Endocrine therapy has progressed substantially in recent years, and its use is recommended for all breast cancer patients expressing hormone receptors. The main adverse events of this treatment can be controlled with medications and nonpharmacological measures. Antidepressants are effective in controlling vasomotor symptoms. Vaginal discomfort can be treated with local lubricants and pelvic floor physiotherapy, which may help in sexual dysfunction. Pathophysiological mechanisms of musculoskeletal symptoms during aromatase inhibitors treatment are not well understood, but some studies evaluating treatment with duloxetine, yoga, and acupuncture have shown some benefits. For prevention of bone loss, patients with risk factors should be offered bisphosphonates or denosumab. Individualization of treatment is crucial. Consideration should be given to therapy effects on quality of life, and strategies for controlling associated symptoms should be offered.