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

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.