Adoption of adjuvant bisphosphonates for early breast cancer into standard clinical practice: Challenges and lessons learnt from comparison of the UK and Australian experience

A randomised trial comparing 6-monthly adjuvant zoledronate with a single one-time dose in patients with early breast cancer

PURPOSE

While adjuvant bisphosphonate use in early breast cancer (EBC) is associated with improvements in breast cancer-specific outcomes, questions remain around optimal bisphosphonate type, dose and scheduling. We evaluated a single zoledronate infusion in a prospective randomised trial.

METHODS

Postmenopausal patients with EBC were randomised to receive a single infusion of zoledronate (4 mg IV) or 6-monthly treatment for 3 years. Outcomes measured were; Quality of Life (QoL; EQ-5D-5L), bisphosphonate-related toxicities, including acute phase reactions (APRs), recurrence-free survival (RFS), bone metastasis-free survival (BMFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

211 patients were randomized to either a single infusion (n = 107) or six-monthly treatment (n = 104). After 3 years of follow up there were no significant differences between the arms for QoL and most toxicity endpoints. APRs following zoledronate occurred in 81% (171/211) of patients (77.6% in single infusion arm and 84.6% in the 6-monthly group). While the frequency of APRs decreased over 3 years in the 6-monthly arm, they still remain common. Of 34/104 (32.7%) patients who discontinued zoledronate early in the 6-monthly treatment group, the most common reason was APRs (16/34, 47%). At the 3 year follow up, there were no differences between arms for RFS, BMFS or OS.

CONCLUSION

A single infusion of zoledronate was associated with increased patient convenience, less toxicity, and lower rates of treatment discontinuation. Despite the common clinical impression that APRs decrease with time, this was not observed when patients were specifically questioned. While the study is not powered for non-inferiority, longer-term follow-up for confirmation of RFS and OS rates is ongoing.

Benefit of adjuvant bisphosphonates in early breast cancer treated with contemporary systemic therapy: A meta-analysis of randomized control trials

Background

The absolute and relative benefits of adjuvant bisphosphonates on disease-free survival and overall survival in patients receiving contemporary systemic therapy for early breast cancer is uncertain.

Methods

Data from randomized trials of adjuvant bisphosphonates that recruited patients exclusively after 2000 and reported disease free survival and overall survival was utilized. Five-year disease-free survival and overall survival in bisphosphonates and control group along with associated hazard ratios were extracted. Absolute data were weighted by sample size and hazard ratios were pooled using inverse variance and random effects modelling. Meta-regression comprising linear regression weighted by sample size (mixed effects) was performed to explore association between disease and treatment related factors and absolute differences in benefit from bisphosphonates.

Results

Eleven trials comprising 24023 patients were included in the analysis. For disease free survival, pooled hazard ratio was 0.89 (0.81-0.97, p = 0.008) with a 1.5 % weighted mean difference favoring bisphosphonates over control. There was no significant overall survival benefit (0.92, 0.82-1.03, p = 0.16). Among patients receiving anthracycline and taxane based chemotherapy, there were no differences in either disease free survival (0.95, 0.80-1.12) or overall survival (1.04, 0.81-1.32). Meta-regression showed lower benefits in higher risk patients (node-positive, larger tumor size, estrogen receptor-, grade 3 or those receiving chemotherapy). Overall, 1 % (95 % CI 0.75-1.15) of patients experienced osteonecrosis of jaw related to zoledronic acid.

Conclusions

Compared to the Early Breast Cancer Trialist's Collaborative Group meta-analysis, benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonates is lower in recent trials especially in higher risk patients receiving contemporary chemotherapy. The balance between benefits and risks of adjuvant bisphosphonates should be considered in individual patients.

The role of bone modifying agents for secondary osteoporosis prevention and pain control in post-menopausal osteopenic breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant aromatase inhibitors

Introduction

Hormonal therapy (HT) blocks the hormone-mediated growth signal dramatically reducing estrogenic levels with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) becoming a crucial component of the treatment mainstay in patients with early breast cancer (BC). Postmenopausal BC patients receiving HT present with a significant risk of secondary osteoporosis with AIs further reducing estrogen levels and ultimately leading to an accelerated rate of bone resorption and thus decreased bone mineral density (BMD). This was an observational retrospective clinical study that consecutively enrolled early BC patients with osteopenia to compare the impact of alendronate versus denosumab on secondary osteoporosis prevention and pain control.

Methods

We identified two groups of patients treated with denosumab 60 mg by subcutaneous injection once every six months or alendronate 70 mg orally once a week. All the patients underwent a baseline physiatric evaluation (T0) and underwent a follow-up visit after 18 months (T1) together with femoral and vertebral Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) exam evaluating T-Score marks. From September 2015 to December 2019 a total of 50 early (stage I-III) BC patients were considered eligible and consecutively enrolled in our study if they met pre-specified inclusion criteria.

Results

In the entire observed population, the addition of treatment with alendronate or denosumab led to a significant T-score improvement at the lumbar spine level (-1.92 vs -1.52, p=0.03), with a comparable contribution from alendronate (-1.60 vs -1.45, p=0.07) and denosumab (-2.26 vs -1.58, p=0.07). Regarding the femoral region, neither alendronate (-0.98 vs -1.07, p=0.23) nor denosumab (-1.39 vs -1.34, p=0.81) were able to produce any statistically relevant effect. However, concerning pain control, BMAs had a significant impact on reducing NRS scoresin the general population (T1 3.94 vs. baseline 4.32, p=0.007), with a likelyspecific contribution from alendronate (T1 3.52 vs. baseline 3.88, p=0.004) compared to denosumab (T1 4.36 vs baseline 4.76, p=0.12), without any differences in analgesic therapy assumption over time (p=0.93).

Discussion

Both alendronate and denosumab significantly contributed to preventing secondary osteoporosis in early BC patients with low BMD undergoing AIs, mostly at the lumbar spine level. Moreover, alendronate seemed to significantly impact pain control in such patients further supporting alendronate as a cost-effective option in this frail setting, although BMAs particularities should be carefully considered on an individual basis according to specific clinical contexts.

The effect of multidisciplinary team on survival rates of women with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Breast cancer is quite frequent all around the world. This disease was responsible for an estimated 2.1 million malignancies in 2022, making it the seventh-highest cause of cancer deaths globally. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) care policy was developed in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1995 to enhance the quality of care for cancer patients. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis study is to assess the effects of MDT on breast cancer survival rates.

Methods

This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020. Systematic search was conducted in several international databases including Google Scholar, PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Proquest from 2012 to 2022. The authors used RevMan 5.4 to do the meta-analysis of the pooled hazard ratio. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to measure the risk of bias. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale evaluated participant selection, comparability, and reporting of results using eight subscale items. Egger's test funnel plot was used to assess the potential publication bias for this study.

Results

A total of 1187 studies were identified from research database. The authors found a total of six studies from six different countries (China, the UK, Taiwan, Australia, Africa, and France) included for this study. Based on the meta-analysis of the pooled hazard ratio of the included studies, the authors found that the overall effect size of the study was 0.80 (CI 95%: 0.73-0.88).

Conclusions

Breast cancer patients who participated in well-organized MDT discussions had a greater survival rate than those who did not.

Does the number of 6-monthly adjuvant zoledronate infusions received affect treatment efficacy for early breast cancer? A sub-study of ABCSG-12

BACKGROUND

The widespread adoption of adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy for postmenopausal early breast cancer (EBC) patients was based on results of the Early Breast Cancer Trialist Group (EBCTCG) meta-analysis. Despite multiple regimens evaluated, there was no signal of varying efficacy with type, dose/dose intensity of bisphosphonate administration. We evaluated the effect of early treatment cessation using long-term outcome data from the ABCSG-12 trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

ABCSG-12 randomized 1803 hormone-receptor positive EBC patients on ovarian suppression between 1999 and 2006 to receive 4 mg zoledronic acid 6-monthly or not (and tamoxifen or anastrozole, 2:2 factorial design). In the current study, we evaluated whether the number of zoledronate infusions had an impact on breast cancer-specific outcomes. We hypothesized that amongst patients who received at least one zoledronate infusion, the number of infusions had no effect on outcomes. Time-to-event endpoints were analysed with Cox models and Kaplan Meier curves starting from a 3-year landmark. BMD analysis was restricted to patients who participated in the BMD sub-study.

RESULTS

725 patients who received at least one zoledronate infusion were included in the time-to-event analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in disease-free or overall survival in the patients who received ≤6 zoledronate infusions (n = 170) compared to those who received ≥7 zoledronate infusions (n = 555).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable to efforts to de-escalate treatment duration in metastatic bone disease, there was no evidence to indicate that a reduced number of zoledronate infusions is associated with reduced adjuvant efficacy. Further studies to define optimal regimens of adjuvant bone-targeted therapies are required.

Translational researchers' training and development needs, preferences, and barriers: A survey in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre in the United Kingdom

The objective was to identify translational researchers’ training and development needs, preferences, and barriers to attending training. This cross‐sectional study involved an online questionnaire survey. The research population comprised a convenience sample of translational researchers and support staff (N = 798) affiliated with the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. The response rate was 24%. Of 189 respondents, 114 were women (60%) and 75 were men (40%). The respondents were mainly research scientists (31%), medical doctors and dentists (17%), and research nurses and midwives (16%). Many of the respondents had attended at least one training course in the last year (68%). Training in statistics and data analysis was the most common training received (20%). Leadership training was the most wanted training (25%). Morning was the most preferred time of training (60%). Half a day was the ideal duration of a training course (41%). The main teaching hospital site was the most preferred location of training (46%). An interactive workshop was the most favored delivery style of training (52%). Most common barriers to attending training were the lack of time (31%), work (21%) and clinical commitments (19%), and family and childcare responsibilities (14%). Some differences in training needs, preferences, and barriers were found by gender and role, though these were not statistically significant. Translational researchers want short, easily accessible, and interactive training sessions during the working day. The training needs, preferences, and barriers to attending training need to be considered while developing inclusive training programs in biomedical research settings.