Changes in bone mineral density at 3 years in postmenopausal women receiving anastrozole and risedronate in the IBIS-II bone substudy: an international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Long-term effects of aromatase inhibitor withdrawal on bone mineral density in early breast cancer patients: 10-year follow-up results of the BREX study

PURPOSE

We aimed to provide long-term bone mineral density (BMD) data on early breast cancer patients of the BREX (Breast Cancer and Exercise) study. The effects of exercise and adjuvant endocrine treatment 10 years after randomization were analyzed, with special emphasis on aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy discontinuation at 5 years.

METHODS

The BREX study randomized 573 pre- and postmenopausal breast cancer patients into a 1-year supervised exercise program or a control group. 372 patients were included into the current follow-up analysis. BMD (g/cm2) was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at lumbar spine (LS), left femoral neck (FN), and the total hip. Separate groups were displayed according to baseline menopausal status, and whether the patient had discontinued AI therapy at 5 years or not.

RESULTS

The BMD change from 5 to 10 years did not significantly differ between the two randomized arms. AI discontinuation at 5 years had statistically significant BMD effects. The FN BMD continued to decrease in patients who discontinued AI therapy during the first 5-year off-treatment, but the decrease was three-fold less than in patients without AI withdrawal (- 1.4% v. - 3.8%). The LS BMD increased (+ 2.6%) in patients with AI withdrawal during the first 5 years following treatment discontinuation, while a BMD decrease (-1.3%) was seen in patients without AI withdrawal.

CONCLUSION

This study is to our knowledge the first to quantify the long-term impact of AI withdrawal on BMD. Bone loss associated with AI therapy seems partially reversible after stopping treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ (Identifier Number NCT00639210).

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.

Body composition changes during breast cancer preventive treatment with anastrozole: Findings from the IBIS-II trial

Background

Uptake to anastrozole for breast cancer prevention is low, partly due to women's concerns about side effects including gains in weight and specifically gains in body fat. Previous evidence does not link anastrozole with gains in weight, but there is a lack of data on any effects on body composition i.e. changes in fat and fat free mass. Here we assess association of anastrozole with body composition changes in a prospective sub-study from the second international breast intervention trial (IBIS-II).

Methods

Participants had DXA scans at baseline and for five years of anastrozole/placebo and beyond (between March 2004 and September 2017. Primary outcomes were changes in body weight, body fat and fat free mass at 9-18 months. A linear model was used to estimate the size of a differential effect in these outcomes by randomised treatment allocation adjusted for baseline value and time since last scan, age, 10-year breast cancer risk, smoking and HRT status.

Results

203 postmenopausal women were recruited (n = 95 anastrozole, n = 108 placebo), mean age 58 years (SD = 5.4), BMI 28.0 kg/m2 (SD = 5.5). There was no evidence of a strong association between anastrozole or placebo and endpoints at 9-18 months; effect size (95 %CI) for anastrozole minus placebo for body weight (per/kg) -0.11 (-1.29-1.08); body fat 0.11 (-0.75-0.96) and fat free mass -0.30 (-0.79-0.19).

Conclusions

There is unlikely to be a clinically significant change to body composition with anastrozole for breast cancer prevention.

Suboptimal Plasma Vitamin C Is Associated with Lower Bone Mineral Density in Young and Early Middle-Aged Men: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study

Background: This study was conducted to evaluate associations between bone mineral density (BMD) and four selected circulating nutrients, particularly vitamin C, among adults aged 20−49 years. Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, the lumbar spine BMD of 866 men and 589 women were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and divided into tertiles, respectively. Logistic regressions were used to identify the predictors of low BMD by comparing subjects with the highest BMD to those with the lowest. Results: Multivariate logistic regressions identified suboptimal plasma vitamin C (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16, 2.31), suboptimal serum vitamin B12 (AOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.02, 4.12), and low BMI (BMI < 23) (AOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.12, 2.53) as independent predictors for low BMD in men. In women, low BMI was the only independent predictor for low BMD. Plasma vitamin C, categorized as suboptimal (≤8.8 mg/L) and sufficient (>8.8 mg/L), was positively significantly correlated with the lumbar spine BMD in men, but there was no association in women. Conclusions: Plasma vitamin C, categorized as suboptimal and sufficient, was positively associated with the lumbar spine BMD in young and early middle-aged men. A well-designed cohort study is needed to confirm the findings.

Rational and study design of Randomized Controlled Trial of Dietary Supplementation with prune (dried plums) on bone density, geometry, and estimated bone strength in postmenopausal women: The Prune study

The use of non-pharmacological alternatives to pharmacological interventions, e.g., nutritional therapy, to improve or maintain bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women has gained traction over the past decade, but limited data exist regarding its efficacy. This paper describes the design of the Prune Study, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that explored the effectiveness of a 12-month intervention of daily prune consumption on bone density, bone structure and strength estimates, bone turnover, various biomarkers of immune function, inflammation, and cardiovascular health, as well as phenolic and gut microbiota analyses. Postmenopausal women between the ages of 55–75 years were randomized into either control group (no prune consumption; n = 78), 50g prune (50g prune/day; n = 79), or 100g prune (100g prune/day; n = 78). All participants received 1200 mg calcium +800 IU vitamin D₃ daily as standard of care. The Prune Study is the largest and most comprehensive investigation of a dose response of prune consumption on bone health, biomarkers of immune function, inflammation, and cardiovascular health, as well as detailed phenolic and gut microbiota analyses in postmenopausal women. 235 women were randomized and 183 women completed the entire study. The findings of this study will help expand our current understanding of clinical implications and mechanisms underlying the resultant health effects of prune as a functional food therapy.

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.

Art of prevention: The importance of dermatologic care when using aromatase inhibitors

As of January 2021, there are more than 3.8 million women in the United States with a history of breast cancer. The current standard of care for breast cancer involves surgical resection, radiation therapy, adjuvant endocrine therapy, and/or adjuvant chemotherapy. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the gold standard for endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women. Dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) associated with AIs are rare but have been reported in the literature. Commonly reported dAEs include unspecified rash, pruritus, alopecia, vulvovaginal atrophy, vasculitis, and autoimmune/connective tissue disorders. Appropriate preventative strategies and careful management considerations have the potential to optimize the comprehensive care of patients with cancer and improve quality of life. Furthermore, prevention of dAEs can lead to a reduction in cancer treatment interruptions and discontinuations. Herein, we characterize dAEs of AIs and discuss preventative management to reduce the incidence of AI therapy interruption.

Protective effect of bisphosphonate on the cortical bone at key locations of the femur in aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss: A three-dimensional cortical bone mapping study

•

Aromatase inhibitor use was associated with cortical bone loss in the hip.

•

Bisphosphonate protected hip cortical bone against aromatase inhibitor use.

•

The effect was prominent at the superior femoral neck and greater trochanter.

Aromatase inhibitor treatment in breast cancer is associated with accelerated bone loss and an increased risk of fracture. Bisphosphonates (BPs) are the mainstay treatment of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss (AIBL), which might improve femoral bone at key locations prone to fracture. To test this hypothesis, we performed three-dimensional cortical bone mapping based on quantitative computed tomography (QCT) scans in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer who were receiving aromatase inhibitors. Data of subjects who had both baseline and at least one follow-up QCT at Severance Hospital (South Korea) between 2005 and 2015 were analyzed (BP users, n = 93; BP non-users, n = 203). After exclusion of BP users with low medication persistence (proportion of days covered: <50%), BP users and non-users were 1:1 matched (n = 54 for each group) in terms of age, lumbar spine volumetric bone mineral density (LSvBMD), femoral neck areal BMD (FNaBMD), and total hip areal BMD (THaBMD). During a median follow-up of 2.1 years, BP use attenuated bone loss in LSvBMD (+7.2% vs. −3.8%, p < 0.001), FNaBMD (+1.3% vs. −2.7%, p < 0.001), and THaBMD (-0.3% vs. −2.5%, p = 0.024). BP had a protective effect on cortical parameters of femoral bone: estimated cortical thickness (CTh) (+3.3% vs. + 0.1%, p = 0.007) and cortical mass surface density (CMSD, cortical mass per unit surface area was calculated by multiplying cortical BMD with CTh) (+3.4% vs. −0.3%, p < 0.001). CMSD increased by up to 15% at key locations such as the superior part of the femoral neck and greater trochanter. BP prevented the thinning of average CTh of the femoral neck (-1.4% vs. −6.1%, p < 0.001), particularly at the superior anterior quadrant of femoral neck (absolute difference: +12.8% point vs. non-users). Compared to BP non-users, BP users had improved cross-sectional moment of inertia (+4.4% vs. −0.7%, p = 0.001) and less increase in buckling ratio (+1.3% vs. + 7.5%, p < 0.001). In summary, BP use prevented cortical bone deficits observed in AIBL at key locations of the proximal femur.

Therapeutic Options in the Management of Aromatase Inhibitor-Associated Bone Loss

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most commonly occurring cancer in women worldwide. Early breast cancer is a kind of invasive neoplasm that has not proliferated beyond the breast or the axillary lymph nodes. Current therapeutic strategies for breast cancer mainly include local therapies such as surgery or radiotherapy and systemic therapies like chemotherapy, endocrine, and targeted therapy.Nowadays, the adjuvant treatment for hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer in postmenopausal women remains the main effective systemic therapy which can improve disease-free survival and overall survival; it involves several endocrine treatment regimens including selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), aromatase inhibitors (AIs), or a combination of them. AIs have been shown to be more effective in preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer when compared with tamoxifen, thus representing the standard of care for adjuvant endocrine therapy. Although AIs are usually well-tolerated, they can have some side effects. Apart from the appearance of arthralgias or myalgias and cardiovascular events, AI therapies, reducing already low endogenous postmenopausal estradiol levels, cause increased bone loss and increase fracture risk in postmenopausal women.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the therapeutic options in the management of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss (AIBL).

METHODS

We reviewed the current literature dealing with different therapeutic options in the treatment of AIBL.

RESULTS

Clinical practice guidelines recommend a careful evaluation of skeletal health in all women with breast cancer before AI therapy initiation. Adequate calcium and vitamin D intake have also been suggested. Pharmacological attempts to minimize AI-related bone loss have focused on the use of antiresorptive agents, such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, to protect bone integrity and reduce the risk of fractures. Furthermore, clinical trials have shown that by making the bone microenvironment less susceptible to breast cancer metastasis, these drugs are able to increase disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

AI, thatare the pillar of the systemic treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, are associated with different side effects, and in particular osteoporosis and fractures. Both bisphosphonates and denosumab are able to prevent this negative effect.

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.

CYP19A1 rs10046 Pharmacogenetics in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Aromatase Inhibitors: One-year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Significant individual variation in bone loss associated with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) emphasizes the importance of identifying postmenopausal breast cancer patients at high risk for this adverse effect. The study explores the clinical relevance of genetic variation in the Cytochrome P450 19A1 (CYP19A1) gene in a subset of South African patients during the first year of taking AIs for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer.

METHODS

The study population consisted of ER-positive breast cancer patients on AIs, followed in real-life clinical practice. Body mass index was measured and bone mineral density (BMD) was determined at baseline and at month 12. CYP19A1 genotyping was performed using real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis of rs10046, extended to Sanger sequencing and whole exome sequencing in 10 patients with more than 5% bone loss at month 12 at the lumbar spine.

RESULTS

After 12 months of AI treatment, 72 patients had completed BMD and were successfully genotyped. Ten patients (14%) experienced more than 5% bone loss at the lumbar spine over the study period. Genotyping for CYP19A1 rs10046 revealed that patients with two copies of the A-allele were 10.79 times more likely to have an ordinal category change of having an increased percentage of bone loss or no increase at the lumbar spine, compared to patients with the GA or GG genotypes (CI of 1.771- 65.830, p=0.01). None of the 34 patients without lumbar spine bone loss at month 12 were homozygous for the functional CYP19A1 polymorphism. At the total hip region, patients with the AA genotype were 7. 37 times more likely to have an ordinal category change of having an increased percentage of bone loss or no increase (CI of 1.101- 49.336, p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

Homozygosity for the CYP19A1 rs10046 A-allele may provide information, in addition to clinical and biochemical factors that may be considered in risk stratification to optimize bone health in postmenopausal breast cancer women on AIs. Further investigation is required to place the clinical effect observed for a single CYP19A1 gene variant in a genomic context.

Cancer Treatment-Induced Bone Loss (CTIBL): State of the Art and Proper Management in Breast Cancer Patients on Endocrine Therapy

OPINION STATEMENT

About 70-80% of early breast cancer (BC) patients receive adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for at least 5 years. ET includes in the majority of cases the use of aromatase inhibitors, as upfront or switch strategy, that lead to impaired bone health. Given the high incidence and also the high prevalence of BC, cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) represents the most common long-term adverse event experimented by patients with hormone receptor positive tumours. CTIBL is responsible for osteoporosis occurrence and, as a consequence, fragility fractures that may negatively affect quality of life and survival expectancy. As recommended by main international guidelines, BC women on aromatase inhibitors should be carefully assessed for their fracture risk at baseline and periodically reassessed during adjuvant ET in order to early detect significant worsening in terms of bone health. Antiresorptive agents, together with adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D, should be administered in BC patients during all course of ET, especially in those at high risk of osteoporotic fractures, as calculated by tools available for clinicians. Bisphosphonates, such as zoledronate or pamidronate, and anti-RANKL antibody, denosumab, are the two classes of antiresorptive drugs used in clinical practice with similar efficacy in preventing bone loss induced by aromatase inhibitor therapy. The choice between them, in the absence of direct comparison, should be based on patients' preference and compliance; the different safety profile is mainly related to the route of administration, although both types of drugs are manageable with due care, since most of the adverse events are predictable and preventable. Despite advances in management of CTIBL, several issues such as the optimal time of starting antiresorptive agents and the duration of treatment remain unanswered. Future clinical trials as well as increased awareness of bone health are needed to improve prevention, assessment and treatment of CTIBL in these long-term survivor patients.

Off-treatment bone mineral density changes in postmenopausal women receiving anastrozole for 5 years: 7-year results from the IBIS-II prevention trial

BACKGROUND

Anastrozole has been associated with substantial accelerated bone mineral density (BMD) loss during active treatment.

METHODS

One thousand four hundred and ten women were included in a BMD substudy and stratified into three strata according to their baseline T-score at spine or femoral neck. The primary objective of this analysis was to investigate whether DXA BMD at the spine and hip changed two years after treatment cessation (between years 5 and 7) in those who did not receive risedronate.

RESULTS

Five- and seven-year BMD data were available for a total of 528 women who did not receive risedronate. In women with normal BMD at baseline, an increase in BMD at the lumbar spine after anastrozole withdrawal was observed 1.25% (95% CI 0.73 to 1.77) (P = 0.0004), which was larger than in those on placebo (0.14% (-0.29 to 0.56))). At the hip, BMD remained unchanged between years 5 and 7 for those previously on anastrozole but continued to a decrease in those who had been randomised to placebo (-1.35% (-1.70 to -0.98)).

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first results reporting BMD changes after stopping anastrozole in a breast cancer prevention setting. Our results show that the negative effects of anastrozole on BMD in the preventive setting are partially reversible.

The Evolving Complexity of Treating Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2 (HER2)-Negative Breast Cancer: Special Considerations in Older Breast Cancer Patients-Part I: Early-Stage Disease

The median age for breast cancer diagnosis is 62 years, but a disproportionate number of patients are over the age of 75 years and the majority of those have hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-negative cancers. This review provides a logical algorithm to guide providers through the many complicated issues involved in adjuvant systemic therapy decisions in older patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. For this subtype of breast cancer, the mainstay of treatment is surgery and adjuvant endocrine therapy with tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor (AI). Adjuvant chemotherapy is added to the treatment regimen when the benefits of treatment are deemed to outweigh the risks, making the risk-benefit discussion particularly important in older women. Traditional tools for cancer risk assessment and genomic expression profiles (GEPs) are under-utilized in older patients, but yield equally useful information about cancer prognosis as they do in younger patients. Additionally, there are tools that estimate life-limiting toxicity risk from chemotherapy and life expectancy, which are both important issues in the risk-benefit discussion. For very low-risk cancers, such as non-invasive and small lymph node (LN)-negative cancers, the benefits of any adjuvant therapy is likely outweighed by the risks, but endocrine therapy might be considered to prevent future new breast cancers. For invasive tumors that are > 5 mm (T1b or larger) or involve LNs, adjuvant endocrine therapy is recommended. Generally, AIs should be included, though tamoxifen is effective and should be offered when AIs are not tolerated. Bone-preserving agents and high-dose vitamin D are options to preserve bone density or treat osteoporosis, especially in older women who are taking AIs. Where the risk-reducing benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy outweighs the toxicity risk, adjuvant chemotherapy should be considered. Adjuvant chemotherapy has similar benefits in older and younger patients and standard regimens are preferred. Several exciting clinic trials are underway and have included older patients, including those adding molecularly targeted agents, cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and everolimus, to endocrine therapy in the adjuvant setting. The high incidence of breast cancer in older women should drive us to design clinical trials for this population and emphasize their inclusion in ongoing trials as much as possible.

Osteoporosis: A Long-Term and Late-Effect of Breast Cancer Treatments

Simple Summary

Osteoporosis is a prevalent condition affecting 200 million individuals world-wide. Estimates are about one in three women will experience a fragility fracture of hip, spine or wrist. Common breast cancer treatments, such as aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal women and chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure in premenopausal women, cause bone loss that in some women will lead to osteoporosis and fragility fractures. Fragility fractures cause morbidity and mortality and are entirely preventable. Prevention or treatment of osteoporosis includes lifestyle modifications (e.g., reducing smoking and excessive alcohol consumption, and increasing physical activity), taking calcium and vitamin D3, screening for osteoporosis with dual-energy absorptiometry, and treatment, if clinically indicated, with ether oral bisphosphonates, intravenous zoledronic acid, or subcutaneous denosumab. This chapter reviews the pathogenesis of osteoporosis, the magnitude of bone loss related to common breast cancer treatments, osteoporosis risk factor assessment and screening, and the specific drugs to treat or prevent osteoporosis.

Abstract

Osteoporosis is both a long-term effect (occurs during treatment and extends after treatment) and a late-effect (occurs after treatment ends) of breast cancer treatments. The worldwide prevalence of osteoporosis is estimated to be some 200 million patients. About one in three postmenopausal women will experience an osteoporotic (or fragility) fracture of the hip, spine, or wrist. breast cancer treatments, including gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure (CIOF), and aromatase inhibitors (AIs), cause bone loss and increase the risks of osteoporosis. Also, breast cancer is a disease of aging, and most of the “one in eight” lifetime risks of breast cancer are in women in their sixth, seventh, and eighth decades. The majority of women diagnosed with breast cancers today will be long-term survivors and experience personal cures. It is the coalescence of osteoporosis with breast cancer, two common and age-related conditions that make osteoporosis relevant in women with breast cancer throughout the continuum from diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. It is critical to remember that women (and men) will lose bone after age thirty years. However, only certain women will lose bone of sufficient magnitude to merit treatment with anti-osteoporosis drugs. The narrative review is intended for medical, surgical, radiation oncologists, and other mid-level providers, and provides an overview of bone loss and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Artesunate promotes osteoblast differentiation through miR-34a/DKK1 axis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is characterised by impairment of microarchitecture and bone mass. Therapeutic strategy promoting osteoblast differentiation is considered as a promising direction for the treatment of osteoporosis. Artesunate (ART) is related to osteoporosis, but the relationship between ART and osteogenic differentiation is still unknown.

METHODS

Cells proliferation were measured by MTT, ALP activity assay and Alizarin Red S staining were used to assess osteogenic differentiation of hBMSCs. Western blotting and qRT-PCR were applied for measuring expression of protein and mRNA, respectively. The relationship between miR-34a and Dickkopf-1 (DKK1) was detected by dual luciferase reporter assay.

RESULTS

The expression of osteoblasts differentiation related proteins (Runx2, OCN, and OPN) were significantly increased by ART. And ART accelerates the osteoblasts differentiation of hBMSCs through promoting Wnt signaling pathway by DKK1 inhibition. Significant higher expression of miR-34a and lower expression of DKK1 could be induced by ART. We firstly proved that miR-34a could bind DKK1 specifically.

CONCLUSION

ART could promote osteoblast differentiation through miR-34a/DKK1/Wnt pathway. Therefore, our findings may provide a new thought for the treatment of osteoporosis by ART through osteoblast differentiation promotion.

Bone health care in women with breast cancer

The aim of this article is to analyze and critically appraise the literature regarding optimal bone health care in women with breast cancer and, more specifically, to present (1) the causes of bone loss in breast cancer patients, (2) the appropriate screening for osteoporosis and fracture risk estimation, (3) optimal prevention and therapeutic strategies for osteoporosis and fractures, (4) the role of antiresorptive agents as adjuvant therapy for the prevention of bone metastases and increase of overall survival, and (5) current data on the possible use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) in these patients. The objective is to provide a sound pathophysiological background along with evidence-based and practical recommendations for physicians managing such women.

Use of Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer Risk Reduction: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update the ASCO guideline on pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction and provide guidance on clinical issues that arise when deciding to use endocrine therapy for breast cancer risk reduction.

METHODS

An Expert Panel conducted targeted systematic literature reviews to identify new studies.

RESULTS

A randomized clinical trial that evaluated the use of anastrozole for reduction of estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers in postmenopausal women at increased risk of developing breast cancer provided the predominant basis for the update.

UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS

In postmenopausal women at increased risk, the choice of endocrine therapy now includes anastrozole (1 mg/day) in addition to exemestane (25 mg/day), raloxifene (60 mg/day), or tamoxifen (20 mg/day). The decision regarding choice of endocrine therapy should take into consideration age, baseline comorbidities, and adverse effect profiles. Clinicians should not prescribe anastrozole, exemestane, or raloxifene for breast cancer risk reduction to premenopausal women. Tamoxifen 20 mg/day for 5 years is still considered standard of care for risk reduction in premenopausal women who are at least 35 years old and have completed childbearing. Data on low-dose tamoxifen as an alternative to the standard dose for both pre- and postmenopausal women with intraepithelial neoplasia are discussed in the Clinical Considerations section of this article. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Management of Osteoporosis in Survivors of Adult Cancers With Nonmetastatic Disease: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

The aim of this work is to provide evidence-based guidance on the management of osteoporosis in survivors of adult cancer.

METHODS

ASCO convened a multidisciplinary Expert Panel to develop guideline recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

The literature search of the 2018 systematic review by the US Preventive Services Task Force in the noncancer population was used as the evidentiary base upon which the Expert Panel based many of its recommendations. A total of 61 additional studies on topics and populations not covered in the US Preventive Services Task Force review were also included. Patients with cancer with metastatic disease and cancer survival outcomes related to bone-modifying agents are not included in this guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Patients with nonmetastatic cancer may be at risk for osteoporotic fractures due to baseline risks or due to the added risks that are associated with their cancer therapy. Clinicians are advised to assess fracture risk using established tools. For those patients with substantial risk of osteoporotic fracture, the clinician should obtain a bone mineral density test. The bone health of all patients may benefit from optimizing nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle. When a pharmacologic agent is indicated, bisphosphonates or denosumab at osteoporosis-indicated dosages are the preferred interventions.

Breast Cancer Chemoprevention: A Practical Guide for the Primary Care Provider

Several organizations, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the United States Preventive Services Task Force, recommend incorporation of breast cancer risk-based counseling and chemoprevention into routine well-woman care. However, primary care providers report both discomfort with and a lack of medical knowledge on this topic. In this review we present a practical, evidence-based guide for incorporating breast cancer risk assessment and chemoprevention into routine care. We advocate a stepwise approach consisting of: (1) risk assessment and communication, (2) selection of appropriate chemoprevention based on risk-benefit analysis, (3) shared decision-making regarding chemoprevention, and (4) management of chemoprevention side effects. We encourage providers to identify high-risk women and refer them to genetic counseling or a high-risk breast cancer clinic. For women who are not considered high risk, we suggest using the Gail model to estimate a woman's 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer. Usually, the benefits of chemoprevention outweigh the risks of chemoprevention once a woman's 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer reaches 3%. For these women there are several factors that need to be considered when selecting a chemoprevention agent, including patient preference, thrombotic history, menopausal status, absence or presence of a uterus, and bone mineral density. We advocate an evidence-based shared decision-making approach that reflects the woman's individual preferences when communicating risk and counseling about chemoprevention. After starting a chemoprevention agent, close follow-up is important as side effects of chemoprevention are common, including vasomotor symptoms and arthralgias. We also review evidence-based management of chemoprevention side effects.

Medication Use to Reduce Risk of Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

IMPORTANCE

Breast cancer is the most common nonskin cancer among women in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death. The median age at diagnosis is 62 years, and an estimated 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lifetime. African American women are more likely to die of breast cancer compared with women of other races.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on medications for risk reduction of primary breast cancer.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The USPSTF reviewed evidence on the accuracy of risk assessment methods to identify women who could benefit from risk-reducing medications for breast cancer, as well as evidence on the effectiveness, adverse effects, and subgroup variations of these medications. The USPSTF reviewed evidence from randomized trials, observational studies, and diagnostic accuracy studies of risk stratification models in women without preexisting breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.

FINDINGS

The USPSTF found convincing evidence that risk assessment tools can predict the number of cases of breast cancer expected to develop in a population. However, these risk assessment tools perform modestly at best in discriminating between individual women who will or will not develop breast cancer. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that risk-reducing medications (tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors) provide at least a moderate benefit in reducing risk for invasive estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer. The USPSTF found that the benefits of taking tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors to reduce risk for breast cancer are no greater than small in women not at increased risk for the disease. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that tamoxifen and raloxifene and adequate evidence that aromatase inhibitors are associated with small to moderate harms. Overall, the USPSTF determined that the net benefit of taking medications to reduce risk of breast cancer is larger in women who have a greater risk for developing breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

The USPSTF recommends that clinicians offer to prescribe risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, to women who are at increased risk for breast cancer and at low risk for adverse medication effects. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against the routine use of risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, in women who are not at increased risk for breast cancer. (D recommendation) This recommendation applies to asymptomatic women 35 years and older, including women with previous benign breast lesions on biopsy (such as atypical ductal or lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ). This recommendation does not apply to women who have a current or previous diagnosis of breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.

Medication Use for the Risk Reduction of Primary Breast Cancer in Women: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Medications to reduce risk of breast cancer are effective for women at increased risk but also cause adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force systematic review on medications to reduce risk of primary (first diagnosis) invasive breast cancer in women.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and MEDLINE (January 1, 2013, to February 1, 2019); manual review of reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Discriminatory accuracy studies of breast cancer risk assessment methods; randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors for primary breast cancer prevention; studies of medication adverse effects.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Investigators abstracted data on methods, participant characteristics, eligibility criteria, outcome ascertainment, and follow-up. Results of individual trials were combined by using a profile likelihood random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Probability of breast cancer in individuals (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]); incidence of breast cancer, fractures, thromboembolic events, coronary heart disease events, stroke, endometrial cancer, and cataracts; and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 46 studies (82 articles [>5 million participants]) were included. Eighteen risk assessment methods in 25 studies reported low accuracy in predicting the probability of breast cancer in individuals (AUC, 0.55-0.65). In placebo-controlled trials, tamoxifen (risk ratio [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.84]; 4 trials [n = 28 421]), raloxifene (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.24-0.80]; 2 trials [n = 17 806]), and the aromatase inhibitors exemestane and anastrozole (RR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.26-0.70]; 2 trials [n = 8424]) were associated with a lower incidence of invasive breast cancer. Risk for invasive breast cancer was higher for raloxifene than tamoxifen in 1 trial after long-term follow-up (RR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05-1.47]; n = 19 747). Raloxifene was associated with lower risk for vertebral fractures (RR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.73]; 2 trials [n = 16 929]) and tamoxifen was associated with lower risk for nonvertebral fractures (RR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.45-0.98]; 1 trial [n = 13 388]) compared with placebo. Tamoxifen and raloxifene were associated with increased thromboembolic events compared with placebo; tamoxifen was associated with more events than raloxifene. Tamoxifen was associated with higher risk of endometrial cancer and cataracts compared with placebo. Symptomatic effects (eg, vasomotor, musculoskeletal) varied by medication.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors were associated with lower risk of primary invasive breast cancer in women but also were associated with adverse effects that differed between medications. Risk stratification methods to identify patients with increased breast cancer risk demonstrated low accuracy.

Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

IMPORTANCE

Potentially harmful mutations of the breast cancer susceptibility 1 and 2 genes (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk for breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. For women in the United States, breast cancer is the most common cancer after nonmelanoma skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death. In the general population, BRCA1/2 mutations occur in an estimated 1 in 300 to 500 women and account for 5% to 10% of breast cancer cases and 15% of ovarian cancer cases.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations in asymptomatic women who have never been diagnosed with BRCA-related cancer, as well as those with a previous diagnosis of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer who have completed treatment and are considered cancer free. In addition, the USPSTF reviewed interventions to reduce the risk for breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer in women with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations, including intensive cancer screening, medications, and risk-reducing surgery.

FINDINGS

For women whose family or personal history is associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are moderate. For women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to none. Regardless of family or personal history, the USPSTF found adequate evidence that the overall harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations. (D recommendation).

Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer in Women: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Pathogenic mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 increase risks for breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer in women; interventions reduce risk in mutation carriers.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force review on benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA1/2-related cancer in women.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane libraries; MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE (January 1, 2013, to March 6, 2019, for updates; January 1, 1994, to March 6, 2019, for new key questions and populations); reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Discriminatory accuracy studies, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and observational studies of women without recently diagnosed BRCA1/2-related cancer.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data on study methods, setting, population characteristics, eligibility criteria, interventions, numbers enrolled and lost to follow-up, outcome ascertainment, and results were abstracted. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cancer incidence and mortality; discriminatory accuracy of risk assessment tools for BRCA1/2 mutations; benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and risk-reducing interventions.

RESULTS

For this review, 103 studies (110 articles; N = 92 712) were included. No studies evaluated the effectiveness of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in reducing incidence and mortality of BRCA1/2-related cancer. Fourteen studies (n = 43 813) of 8 risk assessment tools to guide referrals to genetic counseling demonstrated moderate to high accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.68-0.96). Twenty-eight studies (n = 8060) indicated that genetic counseling was associated with reduced breast cancer worry, anxiety, and depression; increased understanding of risk; and decreased intention for testing. Twenty studies (n = 4322) showed that breast cancer worry and anxiety were higher after testing for women with positive results and lower for others; understanding of risk was higher after testing. In 8 RCTs (n = 54 651), tamoxifen (relative risk [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.84]; 4 trials), raloxifene (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.24-0.80]; 2 trials), and aromatase inhibitors (RR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.26-0.70]; 2 trials) were associated with lower risks of invasive breast cancer compared with placebo; results were not specific to mutation carriers. Mastectomy was associated with 90% to 100% reduction in breast cancer incidence (6 studies; n = 2546) and 81% to 100% reduction in breast cancer mortality (1 study; n = 639); oophorectomy was associated with 69% to 100% reduction in ovarian cancer (2 studies; n = 2108); complications were common with mastectomy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among women without recently diagnosed BRCA1/2-related cancer, the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing to reduce cancer incidence and mortality have not been directly evaluated by current research.

French recommendations on strategies for preventing and treating osteoporosis induced by adjuvant breast cancer therapies

Standard adjuvant therapies for breast cancer such as chemotherapy or aromatase inhibitor and LH-RH agonist hormone therapy are associated with significant survival gains but also induce bone loss by aggravating the estrogen deprivation. The bone loss may be substantial, notably during early treatment, and occurs regardless of the baseline bone mineral density values. The objective of developing these recommendations was to achieve a practical consensus among various scientific societies, based on literature review, about osteoporosis prevention and treatment in these patients. The following scientific societies contributed to the work: Société Française de Rhumatologie (SFR), Groupe de Recherche et d'Information sur les Ostéoporoses (GRIO), Groupe Européen d'Etudes des Métastases Osseuses (GEMO), Association Francophone pour les Soins Oncologiques de Support (AFSOS), Société Française de Sénologie et de Pathologie Mammaire (SFSPM), Société Française de Radiothérapie Oncologique (SFRO). Drug prescription and reimbursement modalities in France were taken into account. These recommendations apply to postmenopausal women taking systemic chemotherapy and/or aromatase inhibitor therapy, non-postmenopausal women taking LH-RH agonist therapy, and non-postmenopausal women with persistent amenorrhea 1 year after chemotherapy completion. All women in these three categories should undergo an evaluation of bone health and receive interventions to combat risk factors for bone loss. Patients with a history of severe osteoporotic fracture and/or a T-score value <-2.5 should receive osteoporosis drug therapy. The FRAX® score should be used to guide treatment decisions in patients whose T-score is between -1 and -2.5. General osteoporosis prevention measures should be applied in patients without criteria for osteoporosis drug therapy, who should undergo bone mineral density measurements 18-24 months later if the baseline T-score is<-1 and 3-5 years later if the baseline T-score is>-1. The anti-tumor effect of bisphosphonates and denosumab was not considered when establishing these recommendations.

Comparison of risedronate versus placebo in preventing anastrozole-induced bone loss in women at high risk of developing breast cancer with osteopenia

Anastrozole has been shown to prevent breast cancer in postmenopausal women at high risk of the disease, but has been associated with substantial accelerated loss of bone mineral density (BMD) and increased fractures. Here, we investigate the effect of risedronate on BMD after 5 years of follow-up in the IBIS-II prevention trial. 1410 women were enrolled in the bone sub-study and stratified into three strata according to the lowest baseline T-score at spine or femoral neck. The objective was to compare the effect of oral risedronate (35 mg weekly) versus placebo in osteopenic women in stratum II who were randomised to anastrozole in the main study. 258 osteopenic, postmenopausal women at high risk of developing breast cancer for whom baseline and follow-up bone mineral density measurements were available. 5-year mean BMD change at the lumbar spine for osteopenic women randomised to anastrozole and risedronate was -0.4% compared to -4.2% for those not on risedronate (P < 0.0001) but not significantly different between risedronate users and non-users at the hip (P = 0.2). 5-year mean PINP change was -20% for those randomised to anastrozole and risedronate compared to 3% for those not on risedronate but on anastrozole (P < 0.0001). Our results confirm the bone loss associated with the use of anastrozole and show that anastrozole-induced BMD loss in the spine can be controlled with risedronate treatment. However, our results suggest that weekly oral risedronate is unable to completely prevent anastrozole induced bone loss at the hip.

Bone health in women with breast cancer

Women with early, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer are treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy, using aromatase inhibitors or selective estradiol receptor modulators such as tamoxifen, to deprive breast tissue from the deleterious effects of estradiol action, hence improving long-term prognosis. Aromatase inhibitors and, in premenopausal women, tamoxifen accelerate bone loss and increase fracture risk. Therefore, all women commencing endocrine therapy need a targeted work-up to assess the baseline fracture risk, and monitoring of bone health during endocrine therapy should be individualized based on this baseline risk. While high-level evidence specific to early breast cancer is lacking, non-pharmacologic measures to maintain optimal bone health such as weight-bearing exercise and calcium and vitamin D sufficiency should be implemented in all women. Antiresorptive treatment should be initiated in all women with preexisting fragility fractures (including vertebral morphometric fractures) and should be considered in women with areal bone mineral density (BMD) T-scores < -2.0 (or Z-scores in women aged <50 years) or those experiencing rapid bone loss (≥5% per year), taking into consideration the baseline BMD and other risk factors for fracture. Further clinical trial evidence is required to provide definitive guidance regarding criteria to initiate antiresorptive treatment, choice of agents, and duration of treatment, taking into account potential oncologic benefits of antiresorptive therapy on breast cancer-related outcomes.

Evaluation of osteopenia and osteoporosis in younger breast cancer survivors compared with cancer-free women: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis, an indicator of significant bone loss, has been consistently reported among older breast cancer survivors. Data are limited on the incidence of osteopenia, an earlier indicator of bone loss, and osteoporosis in younger breast cancer survivors compared with cancer-free women.

METHODS

We prospectively examined bone loss in 211 breast cancer survivors (mean age at breast cancer diagnosis = 47 years) compared with 567 cancer-free women in the same cohort with familial risk for breast cancer. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate HRs and 95% CIs of osteopenia and/or osteoporosis incidence based on physician diagnosis.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 5.8 years, 66% of breast cancer survivors and 53% of cancer-free women reported having a bone density examination, and 112 incident cases of osteopenia and/or osteoporosis were identified. Breast cancer survivors had a 68% higher risk of osteopenia and osteoporosis compared to cancer-free women (HR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.12-2.50). The association was stronger among recent survivors after only 2 years of follow-up (HR = 2.74, 95% CI = 1.37-5.47). A higher risk of osteopenia and osteoporosis was also observed among survivors aged ≤ 50 years, estrogen receptor-positive tumors, and those treated with aromatase inhibitors alone or chemotherapy plus any hormone therapy relative to cancer-free women.

CONCLUSIONS

Younger breast cancer survivors are at higher risk for osteopenia and osteoporosis compared to cancer-free women. Studies are needed to determine effective approaches to minimize bone loss in this population.

Assessment and management of bone health in women with oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy: Position statement of the Endocrine Society of Australia, the Australian and New Zealand Bone & Mineral Society, the Australasian Menopause Society and the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia

To formulate clinical consensus recommendations on bone health assessment and management of women with oestrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy, representatives appointed by relevant Australian Medical Societies used a systematic approach for adaptation of guidelines (ADAPTE) to derive an evidence-informed position statement addressing 5 key questions. Women receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors and the subset of premenopausal woman treated with tamoxifen have accelerated bone loss and increased fracture risk. Both bisphosphonates and denosumab prevent bone loss; additionally, denosumab has proven antifracture benefit. Women considering endocrine therapy need fracture risk assessment, including clinical risk factors, biochemistry and bone mineral density (BMD) measurement, with monitoring based on risk factors. Weight-bearing exercise, vitamin D and calcium sufficiency are recommended routinely. Antiresorptive treatment should be considered in women with prevalent or incident clinical or morphometric fractures, a T-score (or Z-scores in women <50 years) of <-2.0 at any site, or if annual bone loss is ≥5%, considering baseline BMD and other fracture risk factors. Duration of antiresorptive treatment can be individualized based on absolute fracture risk. Relative to their skeletal benefits, risks of adverse events with antiresorptive treatments are low. Skeletal health should be considered in the decision-making process regarding choice and duration of endocrine therapy. Before and during endocrine therapy, skeletal health should be assessed regularly, optimized by nonpharmacological intervention and where indicated antiresorptive treatment, in an individualized, multidisciplinary approach. Clinical trials are needed to better delineate long-term fracture risks of adjuvant endocrine therapy and to determine the efficacy of interventions designed to minimize these risks.

Assessment of Quality of Life and Safety in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Letrozole as an Early Adjuvant Treatment

Purpose

There are few reports from Asian countries about the long-term results of aromatase inhibitor adjuvant treatment for breast cancer. This observational study aimed to evaluate the long-term effects of letrozole in postmenopausal Korean women with operable breast cancer.

Methods

Self-reported quality of life (QoL) scores were serially assessed for 3 years during adjuvant letrozole treatment using the Korean version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast questionnaires (version 3). Changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and serum cholesterol levels were also examined.

Results

All 897 patients received the documented informed consent form and completed a baseline questionnaire before treatment. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 684 (76.3%) subjects, and 410 (45.7%) and 396 (44.1%) patients had stage I and II breast cancer, respectively. Each patient completed questionnaires at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months after enrollment. Of 897 patients, 749 (83.5%) completed the study. The dropout rate was 16.5%. The serial trial outcome index, the sum of the physical and functional well-being subscales, increased gradually and significantly from baseline during letrozole treatment (p<0.001). The mean serum cholesterol level increased significantly from 199 to 205 after 36 months (p=0.042). The mean BMD significantly decreased from −0.39 at baseline to −0.87 after 36 months (p<0.001).

Conclusion

QoL gradually improved during letrozole treatment. BMD and serum cholesterol level changes were similar to those in Western countries, indicating that adjuvant letrozole treatment is well tolerated in Korean women, with minimal ethnic variation.

Adjuvant zoledronic acid reduces fractures in breast cancer patients; an AZURE (BIG 01/04) study

The fracture impact of adjuvant bisphosphonates in breast cancer is not defined with most trials reporting changes in bone mineral density as a surrogate. The AZURE trial (ISRCTN79831382) evaluated the impact of adjuvant zoledronic acid (ZOL) on fractures. The AZURE trial is an academic, multi-centre, randomised phase III study evaluating the addition of ZOL 4 mg to standard therapy (neo/adjuvant chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy) for 5 years (administered by intravenous (iv) infusion every 3-4 weeks for 6 doses, then 3 monthly × 8 and 6 monthly × 5) in patients with stage II/III early breast cancer. Fracture data collected as part of skeletal-related adverse event reporting were analysed after a median of 84.2 months of follow-up and 966 disease-free survival (DFS) events. We assessed number of fractures, time-to-first fracture and the incidence of fractures before and after disease recurrence. Two hundred forty-four patients reported ≥1 fracture, 140 (8.3%) in the control arm (171 fractures) and 104 (6.2%) in the ZOL arm (120 fractures). Of the 291 fractures reported, 207 fractures occurred in the absence of recurrence (control 111, ZOL 96), 80 after recurrence (control 59, ZOL 21). The 5-year fracture rate was reduced from 5.9% (95%CI 4.8, 7.1%; control) to 3.8% (95%CI 2.9, 4.7%) with ZOL. ZOL significantly increased time-to-first fracture (HR 0.69, 95%CI 0.53-0.90; P = 0.0053) but the majority of fracture prevention benefit occurred after a DFS event (HR 0.3; 95%CI 0.17, 0.53; P < 0.001). Fracture benefits from ZOL were similar across menopausal sub-groups. In conclusion, adjuvant ZOL reduced the risk of clinical fractures, the majority of this protection occurred after disease recurrence.

Cancer Treatment and Bone Health

Considerable advances in oncology over recent decades have led to improved survival, while raising concerns about long-term consequences of anticancer treatments. In patients with breast or prostate malignancies, bone health is a major issue due to the high risk of bone metastases and the frequent prolonged use of hormone therapies that alter physiological bone turnover, leading to increased fracture risk. Thus, the onset of cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) should be considered by clinicians and recent guidelines should be routinely applied to these patients. In particular, baseline and periodic follow-up evaluations of bone health parameters enable the identification of patients at high risk of osteoporosis and fractures, which can be prevented by the use of bone-targeting agents (BTAs), calcium and vitamin D supplementation and modifications of lifestyle. This review will focus upon the pathophysiology of breast and prostate cancer treatment-induced bone loss and the most recent evidence about effective preventive and therapeutic strategies.

Bisphosphonates and other bone agents for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Bone is the most common site of metastatic disease associated with breast cancer (BC). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and novel targeted therapies such as denosumab inhibit other key bone metabolism pathways. We have studied these agents in both early breast cancer and advanced breast cancer settings. This is an update of the review originally published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2005 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and other bone agents in addition to anti-cancer treatment: (i) in women with early breast cancer (EBC); (ii) in women with advanced breast cancer without bone metastases (ABC); and (iii) in women with metastatic breast cancer and bone metastases (BCBM).

SEARCH METHODS

In this review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: (a) one treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent with the same treatment without a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent; (b) treatment with one bisphosphonate versus treatment with a different bisphosphonate; (c) treatment with a bisphosphonate versus another bone-acting agent of a different mechanism of action (e.g. denosumab); and (d) immediate treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent versus delayed treatment of the same bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was bone metastases for EBC and ABC, and a skeletal-related event (SRE) for BCBM. We derived risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the meta-analyses used random-effects models. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and disease-free survival for EBC; we derived hazard ratios (HRs) for these time-to-event outcomes where possible. We collected toxicity and quality-of-life information. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes in each treatment setting.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 RCTs involving 37,302 women.In women with EBC, bisphosphonates were associated with a reduced risk of bone metastases compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate (RR 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03, 11 studies; 15,005 women; moderate-quality evidence with no significant heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates provided an overall survival benefit with time-to-event data (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; P = 0.04; 9 studies; 13,949 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity). Subgroup analysis by menopausal status showed a survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.90; P = 0.001; 4 studies; 6048 women; high-quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity) but no survival benefit for premenopausal women (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22; P = 0.78; 2 studies; 3501 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). There was evidence of no effect of bisphosphonates on disease-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% 0.87 to 1.02; P = 0.13; 7 studies; 12,578 women; high-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity present) however subgroup analyses showed a disease-free survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women only (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 8314 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates did not significantly reduce the incidence of fractures when compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08, P = 0.13, 6 studies, 7602 women; moderate-quality evidence due to wide confidence intervals). We await mature overall survival and disease-free survival results for denosumab trials.In women with ABC without clinically evident bone metastases, there was no evidence of an effect of bisphosphonates on bone metastases (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43; P = 0.86; 3 studies; 330 women; moderate-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) or overall survival (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; P = 0.28; 3 studies; 330 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates however the confidence intervals were wide. One study reported a trend towards an extended period of time without a SRE with bisphosphonate compared to placebo (low-quality evidence). One study reported quality of life and there was no apparent difference in scores between bisphosphonate and placebo (moderate-quality evidence).In women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduced the SRE risk by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003; 9 studies; 2810 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity) compared with placebo/no bisphosphonates. This benefit persisted when administering either intravenous or oral bisphosphonates versus placebo. Bisphosphonates delayed the median time to a SRE with a median ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.58; P < 0.00001; 9 studies; 2891 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) and reduced bone pain (in 6 out of 11 studies; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate. Treatment with bisphosphonates did not appear to affect overall survival (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; P = 0.85; 7 studies; 1935 women; moderate-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity). Quality-of-life scores were slightly better with bisphosphonates than placebo at comparable time points (in three out of five studies; moderate-quality evidence) however scores decreased during the course of the studies. Denosumab reduced the risk of developing a SRE compared with bisphosphonates by 22% (RR 0.78, 0.72 to 0.85; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2345 women). One study reported data on overall survival and observed no difference in survival between denosumab and bisphosphonate.Reported toxicities across all settings were generally mild. Osteonecrosis of the jaw was rare, occurring less than 0.5% in the adjuvant setting (high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For women with EBC, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of bone metastases and provide an overall survival benefit compared to placebo or no bisphosphonates. There is preliminary evidence suggestive that bisphosphonates provide an overall survival and disease-free survival benefit in postmenopausal women only when compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate. This was not a planned subgroup for these early trials, and we await the completion of new large clinical trials assessing benefit for postmenopausal women. For women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of developing SREs, delay the median time to an SRE, and appear to reduce bone pain compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate.

Management of Aromatase Inhibitor-Associated Bone Loss (AIBL) in postmenopausal women with hormone sensitive breast cancer: Joint position statement of the IOF, CABS, ECTS, IEG, ESCEO IMS, and SIOG

BACKGROUND

Several guidelines have been reported for bone-directed treatment in women with early breast cancer (EBC) for averting fractures, particularly during aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Recently, a number of studies on additional fracture related risk factors, new treatment options as well as real world studies demonstrating a much higher fracture rate than suggested by randomized clinical controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, this updated algorithm was developed to better assess fracture risk and direct treatment as a position statement of several interdisciplinary cancer and bone societies involved in the management of AI-associated bone loss (AIBL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review identified recent advances in the management of AIBL. Results with individual agents were assessed based on trial design, size, follow-up, and safety.

RESULTS

Several fracture related risk factors in patients with EBC were identified. Although, the FRAX algorithm includes fracture risk factors (RF) in addition to BMD, it does not seem to adequately address the effects of AIBL. Several antiresorptive agents can prevent and treat AIBL. However, concerns regarding compliance and long-term safety remain. Overall, the evidence for fracture prevention is strongest for denosumab 60 mg s.c. every 6 months. Additionally, recent studies as well as an individual patient data meta-analysis of all available randomized trial data support additional anticancer benefits from adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal women with a 34% relative risk reduction in bone metastasis and 17% relative risk decrease in breast cancer mortality that needs to be taken into account when advising on management of AIBL.

CONCLUSIONS

In all patients initiating AI treatment, fracture risk should be assessed and recommendation with regard to exercise and calcium/vitamin D supplementation given. Bone-directed therapy should be given to all patients with a T-score<-2.0 or with a T-score of <-1.5 SD with one additional RF, or with ≥2 risk factors (without BMD) for the duration of AI treatment. Patients with T-score>-1.5 SD and no risk factors should be managed based on BMD loss during the first year and the local guidelines for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Compliance should be regularly assessed as well as BMD on treatment after 12 - 24 months. Furthermore, because of the decreased incidence of bone recurrence and breast cancer specific mortality, adjuvant bisphosphonates are recommended for all postmenopausal women at significant risk of disease recurrence.

Italian association of clinical endocrinologists (AME) position statement: drug therapy of osteoporosis

Treatment of osteoporosis is aimed to prevent fragility fractures and to stabilize or increase bone mineral density. Several drugs with different efficacy and safety profiles are available. The long-term therapeutic strategy should be planned, and the initial treatment should be selected according to the individual site-specific fracture risk and the need to give the maximal protection when the fracture risk is highest (i.e. in the late life). The present consensus focused on the strategies for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis taking into consideration all the drugs available for this purpose. A short revision of the literature about treatment of secondary osteoporosis due both to androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer and to aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer was also performed. Also premenopausal females and males with osteoporosis are frequently seen in endocrine settings. Finally particular attention was paid to the tailoring of treatment as well as to its duration.

Incorporating Biomarkers in Studies of Chemoprevention

Despite Food and Drug Administration approval of tamoxifen and raloxifene for breast cancer risk reduction and endorsement by multiple agencies, uptake of these drugs for primary prevention in the United States is only 4% for risk eligible women likely to benefit from their use. Side effects coupled with incomplete efficacy and lack of a survival advantage are the likely reasons. This disappointing uptake, after the considerable effort and expense of large Phase III cancer incidence trials required for approval, suggests that a new paradigm is required. Current prevention research is focused on (1) refining risk prediction, (2) exploring behavioral and natural product interventions, and (3) utilizing novel translational trial designs for efficacy. Risk biomarkers will play a central role in refining risk estimates from traditional models and selecting cohorts for prevention trials. Modifiable risk markers called surrogate endpoint or response biomarkers will continue to be used in Phase I and II prevention trials to determine optimal dose or exposure and likely effectiveness from an intervention. The majority of Phase II trials will continue to assess benign breast tissue for response and mechanism of action biomarkers. Co-trials are those in which human and animal cohorts receive the same effective dose and the same tissue biomarkers are assessed for modulation due to the intervention, but then additional animals are allowed to progress to cancer development. These collaborations linking biomarker modulation and cancer prevention may obviate the need for cancer incidence trials for non-prescription interventions.

Design, synthesis and in vitro evaluation of coumarin–imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine derivatives against cancer induced osteoporosis

The potential of coumarin–imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine hybrids to prevent bone loss in patients with bone metastases is discussed.

Safety of aromatase inhibitor therapy in breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy is the current preferred choice of endocrine therapy in postmenopausal estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients thanks to their improved effectiveness compared to tamoxifen. Despite the absence of increased endometrial pathology and deep venous thrombosis seen in tamoxifen-users, the safety profile of AIs consists of a variety of bothersome side effects negatively influencing daily functioning.

AREAS COVERED

Besides the well-known adverse effects on joints and bone and the vasomotor system, more neglected and latent toxicity like cognitive problems and vulvovaginal atrophy will be discussed. Concern has been raised in terms of increased risk of fractures and cardiovascular events with chronic AI use.

EXPERT OPINION

Placebo-controlled long-term studies carefully monitoring these adverse events, together with more extensive research in the etiologies, are warranted.

Prevention of bone loss with risedronate in breast cancer survivors: a randomized, controlled clinical trial

In postmenopausal women with low bone mass and hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer on an aromatase inhibitor, risedronate maintained skeletal health assessed by bone density and turnover markers. Women with the greatest decreases in bone turnover markers at 12 months had the greatest increases in bone density at 24 months.

INTRODUCTION

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs), adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer, are associated with bone loss and fractures. Our objectives were to determine if (1) oral bisphosphonate therapy can prevent bone loss in women on an AI and (2) early changes in bone turnover markers (BTM) can predict later changes in bone mineral density (BMD).

METHODS

We conducted a 2-year double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial in 109 postmenopausal women with low bone mass on an AI (anastrozole, letrozole, or exemestane) for hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. Participants were randomized to once weekly risedronate 35 mg or placebo, and all received calcium plus vitamin D. The main outcome measures included BMD, BTM [carboxy-terminal collagen crosslinks (CTX) and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (P1NP)], and safety.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven percent completed 24 months. BMD increased more in the active treatment group compared to placebo with an adjusted difference at 24 months of 3.9 ± 0.7 percentage points at the spine and 3.2 ± 0.5 percentage points at the hip (both p < 0.05). The adjusted difference between the active treatment and placebo groups were 0.09 ± 0.04 nmol/LBCE for CTX and 23.3 ± 4.8 μg/mL for P1NP (both p < 0.05). Women with greater 12-month decreases in CTX and P1NP in the active treatment group had a greater 24-month increase in spinal BMD (p < 0.05). The oral therapy was safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In postmenopausal women with low bone mass and breast cancer on an AI, the oral bisphosphonate risedronate maintained skeletal health.

Bone: Will breast cancer chemoprevention stand on 'solid bone'?

Aromatase inhibitors are the most effective agents for preventing breast cancer; however, their use is associated with bone loss and an increased risk of fractures. Sestak and colleagues show that administration of an oral bisphosphonate prevents aromatase-inhibitor-induced bone loss in postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis who are at high risk of breast cancer.