Oral ibandronate reduces the risk of skeletal complications in breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease: results from two randomised, placebo-controlled phase III studies

Assessment of the benefits of bone modifying agents in the management of advanced breast, prostate, and lung cancers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Skeletal metastases occur in approximately 80% of advanced breast, 70% of advanced prostate, and 30% of lung cancers, and place patients at increased risk of skeletal related events (SRE). Bone modifying agents (BMAs) have been shown to prevent or delay SRE development. Our objective was to summarize the role of these agents in the management of these three cancers.

RECENT FINDINGS

Total 52 studies met our inclusion criteria. These highlighted the benefit of BMAs in reducing SREs in metastatic breast and castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), with less clear impact on reducing SRE in lung cancer, or on improving progression-free and overall survival due to significant heterogeneity in trial design and outcomes. Benefits in SRE reduction occurred with bisphosphonates and denosumab, however when compared, denosumab was superior. Denosumab however is not more cost effective, and multiple trials support potential de-escalation to either 12 weekly dosing or other reduced duration.

SUMMARY

There is a large body of evidence to support the role of BMAs in reducing SREs in metastatic breast and mCRPC. Impact on survival outcomes is heterogeneous, and future large database trials would be helpful in identifying which subgroups of patients truly have survival benefit from BMAs.

Bone scintigraphy and positron emission tomography in the early diagnosis of MRONJ

Objectives

The aim of this study is to evaluate the bone scintigraphy (BS) and positron emission tomography (PET) in the early diagnosis of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ) and their possible use in the identification of patients at risk for MRONJ.

Material and methods

Thirty-one patients treated with ONJ-related drugs and who had undergone BS or PET for the evaluation of bone lesions were included in the study. The jaws of each patient were divided into four areas. For each area, the presence of pathological tracer uptake was evaluated and related to the eventual MRONJ development. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of both techniques were determined. The latency from the finding of pathological tracer uptake in BS or PET to the clinical diagnosis of MRONJ and the odds ratio were also calculated.

Results

Sensitivity and specificity of BS for MRONJ prediction were, respectively, 83.3 and 87.5%. Positive and negative predictive values were, respectively, 73.2 and 92.8%. The odds ratio was 35. Sensitivity of PET was 33.3%, specificity was 94.9%, and positive and negative predictive values were 70.0 and 80.0%, respectively. The odds ratio was 9.333. All values were statistically significant.

Conclusions

BS and PET may be accurate techniques for an early prediction of MRONJ.

Bone Metastasis in Bladder Cancer

Bladder cancer (BCa) is the 10th most common and 13th most deadly malignancy worldwide. About 5% of BCa patients present initially with metastatic disease, with bone being the most diagnosed site for distant metastasis. The overall one-year survival of patients with BCa is 84%, whereas it is only 21% in patients with bone metastasis (BM). Metastasis of BCa cells to bone occurs by epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, angiogenesis, intravasation, extravasation, and interactions with the bone microenvironment. However, the mechanism of BCa metastasis to the bone is not completely understood; it needs a further preclinical model to completely explain the process. As different imaging mechanisms, PET-CT cannot replace a radionuclide bone scan or an MRI for diagnosing BM. The management of BCa patients with BM includes chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, antibody-drug conjugates, bisphosphonates, denosumab, radioisotopes, and surgery. The objective of these treatments is to inhibit disease progression, improve overall survival, reduce skeletal-related events, relieve pain, and improve the quality of life of patients.

Oligometastatic Disease in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Update

Simple Summary

Approximately 7–50% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) develop oligometastases, which are new tumors found in another part of the body, arising from cancer cells of the original tumor that have travelled through the body. In recent years, these patients have been increasingly regarded as a distinct group that could benefit from treatment that intends to cure the disease, rather than palliative care, to achieve a better clinical outcome. Various treatment procedures have been developed for treating NSCLC patients with different oligometastatic sites. In addition, the newly proposed uniform definition for oligometastases as well as ongoing trials may lead to increased appropriate patient selection and evaluation of treatment effectiveness. The aim of this review article is to summarize the latest evidence regarding optimal management strategies for NSCLC patients with oligometastases.

Abstract

Oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a distinct entity that is different from localized and disseminated diseases. The definition of oligometastatic NSCLC varies across studies in past decades owing to the use of different imaging modalities; however, a uniform definition of oligometastatic NSCLC has been proposed, and this may facilitate trial design and evaluation of certain interventions. Patients with oligometastatic NSCLC are candidates for curative-intent management, in which local ablative treatment, such as surgery or stereotactic radiosurgery, should be instituted to improve clinical outcomes. Although current guidelines recommend that local therapy for thoracic and metastatic lesions should be considered for patients with oligometastatic NSCLC with stable disease after systemic therapy, optimal management strategies for different oligometastatic sites have not been established. Additionally, the development of personalized therapies for individual patients with oligometastatic NSCLC to improve their quality of life and overall survival should also be addressed. Here, we review relevant articles on the management of patients with oligometastatic NSCLC and categorize the disease according to the site of metastases. Ongoing trials are also summarized to determine future directions and expectations for new treatment modalities to improve patient management.

All bone metastases are not created equal: Revisiting treatment resistance in renal cell carcinoma

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common malignancy of the kidney, representing 80-90% of renal neoplasms, and is associated with a five-year overall survival rate of approximately 74%. The second most common site of metastasis is bone. As patients are living longer due to new RCC targeting agents and immunotherapy, RCC bone metastases (RCCBM) treatment failure is more prevalent. Bone metastasis formation in RCC is indicative of a more aggressive disease and worse prognosis. Osteolysis is a prominent feature and causes SRE, including pathologic fractures. Bone metastasis from other tumors such as lung, breast, and prostate cancer, are more effectively treated with bisphosphonates and denosumab, thereby decreasing the need for palliative surgical intervention. Resistance to these antiresportives in RCCBM reflects unique cellular and molecular mechanisms in the bone microenvironment that promote progression via inhibition of the anabolic reparative response. Identification of critical mechanisms underlying RCCBM induced anabolic impairment could provide needed insight into how to improve treatment outcomes for patients with RCCBM, with the goals of minimizing progression that necessitates palliative surgery and improving survival.

"The use of bisphosphonates to treat skeletal complications in solid tumours"

The skeleton is the most common site of secondary disease in breast cancer and prostate cancer, with up to 80% of patients with advanced disease developing bone metastases (BM). The proportion is also substantial in advanced lung cancer (20%-40%). Because of the high prevalence of cancers of the breast, prostate and lung, these cancers account for more than 80% of cases of metastatic bone disease occurring in solid tumours. Metastatic bone disease is associated with greatly increased bone resorption by osteoclasts, leading to moderate to severe pain and other skeletal complications, with major impact on quality of life (QoL). Skeletal Related Events (SREs) have been defined as: pathological long bone or vertebral fractures; spinal cord compression; need for radiation for pain relief or to prevent fracture/spinal cord compression, need for surgery to bone and hypercalcaemia. More recently, Symptomatic Skeletal Events (SSEs) have been defined to monitor QoL. Although there are currently no curative treatments for metastatic bone disease, patients with breast or prostate cancer and BM are now surviving for several years and sometimes longer, and prevention of SREs is the key aim to optimization of QoL. Since their discovery 50 years ago and their introduction more than 30 years ago into the field of metastatic bone disease, a range of oral and intravenous bisphosphonate drugs have made a major contribution to prevention of SREs. Large trials have clearly demonstrated the clinical value of different bisphosphonate-based drugs (including the oral drugs ibandronate and clodronate and intravenous agents such as zoledronate and pamidronate), in treatment of hypercalcaemia of malignancy and the reduction of SREs and SSEs in a range of cancers. Despite the success of denosumab in reducing osteolysis, bisphosphonates also remain mainstay drugs for treatment of metastatic bone disease. Recognizing the 50th Anniversary of the discovery of bisphosphonates, this review focuses on their continuing value in BM treatment and their future potential, for example in providing a bone-targeting vehicle for cytotoxic drugs.

Bone-modifying Agents (BMAs) in Breast Cancer

Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) are mainstays in breast cancer and prevent and treat osteoporosis in early-stage disease and reduce skeletal metastases complications in advanced disease. There is some evidence to support that BMA also prevents skeletal metastases and improves overall survival. Bone loss occurs with chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure, gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, and aromatase inhibitors. In some women, the bone loss will be of sufficient magnitude to increase the risks of osteoporosis or fractures. Recommended steps in osteoporosis prevention or treatment include risk factor assessment, taking adequate amounts of calcium and vitamin D3, and periodic evaluations with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. If clinically indicated by the T-scores and fracture-risk prediction algorithms treat with oral, IV bisphosphonates or subcutaneous denosumab (DEN). Zoledronic acid (ZA) or DEN reduces skeletal metastases complications, including pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, or the necessity for radiation or surgery to bone. Also, both of these drugs have the side-effect of osteonecrosis at a similar incidence. Monthly administration of ZA or DEN is standard, but several recent randomized trials show noninferiority between ZA monthly and every 3-month ZA. Every 3-month ZA is a new standard of care. Similar trials of the schedule of DEN are ongoing. ZA anticancer effect is only in postmenopausal women or premenopausal women rendered postmenopausal by GnRH agonists or bilateral oopherectomy. High-risk women, either postmenopausal or premenopausal, receiving GnRH/oopherctomy should consider adjuvant ZA. There are insufficient data to support DEN in this setting. Herein, this narrative review covers the mechanism of action of BMA, randomized clinical trials, and adverse events, both common and rare.

Bisphosphonates and breast cancer - From cautious palliation to saving lives

Bone metastases are common in breast cancer and may cause considerable morbidity including fractures, severe pain, nerve compression and hypercalcaemia. Alongside developments in the multidisciplinary management for patients with metastatic breast cancer, the use of bisphosphonates, and more recently denosumab, has transformed the course of advanced breast cancer for many patients resulting in a major reduction in skeletal complications, reduced bone pain and improved quality of life. Additionally, because the bone marrow microenvironment is so intimately involved in the metastatic processes required for cancer dissemination, the use of adjuvant bisphosphonates has been studied extensively over the past 25 years in many randomised trials. We now have clear evidence that bisphosphonates significantly reduce both metastasis to bone and mortality in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. Efficacy seems similar across different biological subgroups of postmenopausal breast cancer with the use of either a nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate such as intravenous zoledronate or daily oral ibandronate as well as the non-nitrogen containing agent, daily oral clodronate. In this overview of evolving role of bisphosphonates in breast cancer, focussing particularly on pamidronate and zoledronate, the long winding development road from the 1970s through to the present day is described and some of the serendipitous findings, "lucky breaks" and regulatory decisions along the way outlined.

Bone metastases

Bone is the most frequent site for metastasis for many cancers, notably for tumours originating in the breast and the prostate. Tumour cells can escape from the primary tumour site and colonize the bone microenvironment. Within the bone, these disseminated tumour cells, as well as those arising in the context of multiple myeloma, may assume a state of dormancy, remaining quiescent for years before resuming proliferation and causing overt metastasis, which causes bone destruction via activation of osteoclast-mediated osteolysis. This structural damage can lead to considerable morbidity, including pain, fractures and impaired quality of life. Although treatment of bone metastases and myeloma bone disease is rarely curative, disease control is often possible for many years through the use of systemic anticancer treatments on a background of multidisciplinary supportive care. This care should include bone-targeted agents to inhibit tumour-associated osteolysis and prevent skeletal morbidity as well as use of appropriate local treatments such as radiation therapy, orthopaedic surgery and specialist palliative care to minimize the impact of metastatic bone disease on physical functioning. In this Primer, we provide an overview of the clinical features, the pathophysiology and the specific treatment approaches to prevent and treat bone metastases from solid tumours as well as myeloma bone disease.

Identification of Drug Candidates for Breast Cancer Therapy Through Scaffold Repurposing: A Brief Review

Conventional drug discovery is a time consuming and expensive expedition with less clinical preference achievement proportion intended for breast cancer therapy. Even if numerous novel approaches to the conformation of drugs have been introduced for breast cancer therapy, they are yet to be implemented in clinical practice. This tempting strategy facilitates a remarkable chance to take the entire benefit of existing drugs. Despite drug repurposing significantly decrease the investigational period and cost, it has got many objections and issues. Scaffold repurposing is an approach that procures a novel significance on the decrepit motto of "to commencement with a pristine drug" . Hence, we move into a probable and nearer approach, the exploitation of scaffolds, which was originally developed for other purposes, including anti-tumor activity. In this review, we summarize different drugs and scaffolds used in breast cancer therapy.

Phase III Randomized Trial of Bisphosphonates as Adjuvant Therapy in Breast Cancer: S0307

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant bisphosphonates, when given in a low-estrogen environment, can decrease breast cancer recurrence and death. Treatment guidelines include recommendations for adjuvant bisphosphonates in postmenopausal patients. SWOG/Alliance/Canadian Cancer Trials Group/ECOG-ACRIN/NRG Oncology study S0307 compared the efficacy of three bisphosphonates in early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

Patients with stage I-III breast cancer were randomly assigned to 3 years of intravenous zoledronic acid, oral clodronate, or oral ibandronate. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) with overall survival as a secondary outcome. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

A total of 6097 patients enrolled. Median age was 52.7 years. Prior to being randomly assigned, 73.2% patients indicated preference for oral vs intravenous formulation. DFS did not differ across arms in a log-rank test (P = .49); 5-year DFS was 88.3% (zoledronic acid: 95% confidence interval [CI] = 86.9% to 89.6%), 87.6% (clodronate: 95% CI = 86.1% to 88.9%), and 87.4% (ibandronate: 95% CI = 85.6% to 88.9%). Additionally, 5-year overall survival did not differ between arms (log rank P = .50) and was 92.6% (zoledronic acid: 95% CI = 91.4% to 93.6%), 92.4% (clodronate: 95% CI = 91.2% to 93.5%), and 92.9% (ibandronate: 95% CI = 91.5% to 94.1%). Bone as first site of recurrence did not differ between arms (P = .93). Analyses based on age and tumor subtypes showed no treatment differences. Grade 3/4 toxicity was 8.8% (zoledronic acid), 8.3% (clodronate), and 10.5% (ibandronate). Osteonecrosis of the jaw was highest for zoledronic acid (1.26%) compared with clodronate (0.36%) and ibandronate (0.77%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of differences in efficacy by type of bisphosphonate, either in overall analysis or subgroups. Despite an increased rate of osteonecrosis of the jaw with zoledronic acid, overall toxicity grade differed little across arms. Given that patients expressed preference for oral formulation, efforts to make oral agents available in the United States should be considered.

Cholesterol and beyond - The role of the mevalonate pathway in cancer biology

Cancer is a multifaceted global disease. Transformation of a normal to a malignant cell takes several steps, including somatic mutations, epigenetic alterations, metabolic reprogramming and loss of cell growth control. Recently, the mevalonate pathway has emerged as a crucial regulator of tumor biology and a potential therapeutic target. This pathway controls cholesterol production and posttranslational modifications of Rho-GTPases, both of which are linked to several key steps of tumor progression. Inhibitors of the mevalonate pathway induce pleiotropic antitumor-effects in several human malignancies, identifying the pathway as an attractive candidate for novel therapies. In this review, we will provide an overview about the role and regulation of the mevalonate pathway in certain aspects of cancer initiation and progression and its potential for therapeutic intervention in oncology.

Skeletal Metastases of Unknown Primary: Biological Landscape and Clinical Overview

Skeletal metastases of unknown primary (SMUP) represent a clinical challenge in dealing with patients diagnosed with bone metastases. Management of these patients has improved significantly in the past few years. however, it is fraught with a lack of evidence. While some patients have achieved impressive gains, a more systematic and tailored treatment is required. Nevertheless, in real-life practice, the outlook at the beginning of treatment for SMUP is decidedly somber. An incomplete translational relevance of pathological and clinical data on the mortality and morbidity rate has had unsatisfactory consequences for SMUP patients and their physicians. We examined several approaches to confront the available evidence; three key points emerged. The characterization of the SMUP biological profile is essential to driving clinical decisions by integrating genetic and molecular profiles into a multi-step diagnostic work-up. Nonetheless, a pragmatic investigation plan and therapy of SMUP cannot follow a single template; it must be adapted to different pathophysiological dynamics and coordinated with efforts of a systematic algorithm and high-quality data derived from statistically powered clinical trials. The discussion in this review points out that greater efforts are required to face the unmet needs present in SMUP patients in oncology.

Adult Cancer Pain, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

In recent years, the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Adult Cancer Pain have undergone substantial revisions focusing on the appropriate and safe prescription of opioid analgesics, optimization of nonopioid analgesics and adjuvant medications, and integration of nonpharmacologic methods of cancer pain management. This selection highlights some of these changes, covering topics on management of adult cancer pain including pharmacologic interventions, nonpharmacologic interventions, and treatment of specific cancer pain syndromes. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Adult Cancer Pain addresses additional aspects of this topic, including pathophysiologic classification of cancer pain syndromes, comprehensive pain assessment, management of pain crisis, ongoing care for cancer pain, pain in cancer survivors, and specialty consultations.

Management of bone health in solid tumours: From bisphosphonates to a monoclonal antibody

Patients with solid tumours are at risk of impaired bone health from metastases and cancer therapy-induced bone loss (CTIBL). We review medical management of bone health in patients with solid tumours over the past 30 years, from first-generation bisphosphonates to the receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand (RANKL)-targeted monoclonal antibody, denosumab. In the 1980s, first-generation bisphosphonates were shown to reduce the incidence of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with breast cancer. Subsequently, more potent second- and third-generation bisphosphonates were developed, particularly zoledronic acid (ZA). Head-to-head studies showed that ZA was significantly more effective than pamidronate for reducing SREs in patients with breast and castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), becoming the standard of care for more than a decade. The RANKL inhibitor denosumab was licensed in 2010, and head-to-head studies and integrated analyses confirmed its superiority to ZA for preventing SREs, particularly in breast cancer and CRPC. Bisphosphonates and denosumab have also been investigated for prevention of CTIBL in patients receiving hormonal therapy for breast and prostate cancer, and denosumab is licensed in this indication. Despite advances in management of bone health, several issues remain, notably the optimal time to initiate therapy, duration of therapy, and dosing frequency, and how to avoid toxicity, particularly with long-term treatment. In summary, introduction of ZA and denosumab has protected patients with bone metastasis from serious bone complications and improved their quality of life. Ongoing research will hopefully guide the optimal use of these agents to help maintain bone health in patients with solid tumours.

Bisphosphonates: AHFS 92:24

Therapeutic Reviews aim to provide essential independent information for health professionals about drugs used in palliative and hospice care. Additional content is available via www.medicinescomplete.com. The series editors welcome feedback on the articles (hq@palliativedrugs.com).

Compliance and patient reported toxicity from oral adjuvant bisphosphonates in patients with early breast cancer. A cross sectional study

Background

Adjuvant bisphosphonates (BPs) are recommended as part of routine early breast cancer treatment for many postmenopausal (PM) women within the past year. There is a paucity of ‘real world’ data on compliance and patient satisfaction with oral BPs in this population. The aim of our study was to investigate patient reported compliance and toxicity of these drugs in a retrospective cohort study.

Patients and methods

413 patient were identified as receiving adjuvant oral BPs as part of their breast cancer treatment in the past 12 months from five NHS hospitals. The validated Osteoporosis Patient Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (OPSAT-Q) was sent to all suitable patients (n = 389).

Results

295 (76%) of patients responded. Average age was median (range) 67 (35–89). The majority of patients had T1 (52%), N0 (61%) grade 2 (58%) ER positive (87%), HER2 negative (84%) breast cancer and were PM at diagnosis of breast cancer (93%). All patients had been prescribed at least 1 month of oral ibandronate 50 mg daily. Review of items rated on the 7-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied to 7 = very satisfied), the mean item scores ranged from 5.0 (lowest) for time required to take oral BPs, to 6.1 (highest) for how easy it is to remember to take the medication. <10% of patients were extremely bothered by heartburn or stomach upset. 16% of responders stopped oral BPs with 10% of those converting onto IV BPs.

Conclusions

Prevalence of severe side effects in a ‘real world’ population of PM women receiving adjuvant BPs is low and these drugs are generally well accepted and tolerated by patients.

Clinical Usefulness of Bisphosphonates in Oncology: Treatment of Bone Metastases, antitumoral Activity and Effect on Bone Resorption Markers

The present article overviews the role of bisphosphonates for the treatment and prevention of bone metastases and their antiangiogenic effects and antitumoral activity. The skeleton is a frequent and clinically relevant site of metastasis in cancer patients. The major events related to bone metastases include bone pain, bone loss, hypercalcemia, spinal cord compression, and fractures. On the basis of their radiographic features, bone metastases are classified as osteoblastic, osteoclastic, or mixed. The primary goals of treatment of bone metastases are reduction of the risk of pathological fractures and other skeletal-related events, and pain control. Bisphosphonates are used to prevent pathological fractures by inhibition of osteoclasts. Recent studies suggest that bisphosphonates have some direct antitumoral activity, mainly mediated through the blockade of angiogenic pathways. Further clinical studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment duration, timing and schedule of bisphosphonates, assess their role as adjuvant therapy for the prevention of bone metastases, and establish their antiangiogenic activity in association with standard cytotoxic and hormonal drugs for treatment of patients with advanced disease.

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.

Considering renal risk while managing cancer

Renal function is an important consideration in the management of patients with advanced cancer. There is a reciprocal relationship between cancer and the kidney: chronic kidney disease can increase the risk of developing cancer, and patients with cancer often experience renal impairment owing to age, disease-related factors and nephrotoxic treatments. As therapies for cancer continue to improve, patients are living longer with their disease, potentially extending the period over which they are susceptible to long-term complications. Furthermore, secondary symptoms, such as bone metastases or infections, may arise that will require treatment. Certain treatments, including chemotherapy, antibiotics and some bone-targeted agents, are nephrotoxic and may require dose modifications or interruptions to prevent renal injury. Nephrologists should play a key role in the identification and management of renal impairment in patients with cancer. Furthermore, they may be able to provide advice on protecting the kidneys in instances where nephrotoxic agents require dose reductions or interruptions, and when novel therapies or combinations are used. Collaboration between oncologists and nephrologists is important to optimal patient management. This article reviews the relationship between cancer and kidney disease and examines the treatments that may impact kidney function. Considerations for monitoring renal function are also discussed.

The first reported case of Atypical Femoral Fracture caused by daily ibandronate prescribed for bone metastases in breast cancer

A 55-year-old woman with bony metastatic breast cancer was commenced on daily ibandronic acid to prevent skeletal related events (SREs). Four years later, she began to experience new lower limb and groin pain with investigations leading to the suspicion of further metastatic spread to her left femur. While awaiting radiotherapy for this, she unfortunately tripped and fell sustaining a fracture to the proximal third of her left femur. Radiographic findings of her femur from both before and after the fall were suggestive of an atypical femoral fracture, presumed secondary to her bisphosphonate therapy rather than metastatic spread.

Pathologic fracture and healthcare resource utilisation: A retrospective study in eight European countries

BACKGROUND

Skeletal-related events (SREs; pathologic fracture [PF], spinal cord compression and radiation or surgery to bone) are common complications of bone metastases or bone lesions and can impose a considerable burden on patients and healthcare systems. In this study, the healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) associated with PFs in patients with bone metastases or lesions secondary to solid tumours or multiple myeloma was estimated in eight European countries.

METHODS

Eligible patients were identified in Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland. HRU data were extracted from hospital charts from 3.5 months before the index PF (defined as a PF preceded by a 6.5-month period without a SRE) until 3 months after the last SRE during the study period. Changes from baseline in the number and duration of inpatient stays, number of outpatient visits and number of procedures provided were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall, 118 patients with PFs of long bones (those longer than they are wide, e.g. the femur) and 241 patients with PFs of other bones were included. Overall, HRU was greater in patients with long bone PFs than in those with PFs of other bones. A higher proportion of patients with long bone PFs had multiple SREs (79.7%), and more of their SREs were considered to be linked (73.4%) compared with patients with PFs of other bones (51.0% and 47.2%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The increased number and duration of inpatient stays for PFs of long bones compared with those for PFs of other bones may be due in part to the requirement for complicated and lengthy rehabilitation in patients with long bone PFs. Implementing strategies to delay or reduce the number of PFs experienced by patients with bone metastases or lesions may therefore reduce the associated HRU and patient burden.

Intravenous pamidronate versus oral and intravenous clodronate in bone metastatic breast cancer: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority Phase III trial

Purpose

Patients with metastasized breast cancer often suffer from discomfort caused by metastatic bone disease. Thus, osteoprotection is an important part of therapy in breast cancer metastasized to bone, and bisphosphonates (BPs) are a major therapeutic option. In this study, our objectives were to compare the side effects of oral versus intravenous BP treatment and to assess their clinical effectiveness.

Patients and methods

In this prospective randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled breast cancer patients with at least one bone metastasis and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups: A, 60 mg pamidronate intravenously q3w; B-iv, 900 mg clodronate intravenously q3w; and B-o, 2,400 mg oral clodronate daily. Assessments were performed at baseline and every 3 months thereafter.

Results

Between 1995 and 1999, 321 patients with confirmed bone metastases from breast cancer were included in the study. At first follow-up, gastrointestinal (GI) tract side effects were most common, and adverse effects on the GI tract were more frequent in the oral treatment group (P=0.002 and P<0.001, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences among the treatment cohorts for other documented side effects (skin, serum electrolytes, urinary tract, immune system, and others). No significant differences in clinical effectiveness of BP treatment, as assessed by pain score, were detected among the groups; however, pathologic fractures were more effectively prevented by intravenous than oral BP administration (P=0.03). Noncompliance rates were similar among the study cohorts.

Conclusion

We conclude that oral BP treatment is significantly associated with higher rates of adverse GI side effects. Additionally, our data indicate that intravenous BP administration is more effective than oral treatment in prevention of pathologic fractures; hence, oral administration should be considered with caution.

Pharmacologic management of bone-related complications and bone metastases in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer

There is a high risk for bone loss and skeletal-related events, including bone metastases, in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Both the disease itself and its therapeutic treatments can negatively impact bone, resulting in decreases in bone mineral density and increases in bone loss. These negative effects on the bone can significantly impact morbidity and mortality. Effective management and minimization of bone-related complications in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer remain essential. This review discusses the current understanding of molecular and biological mechanisms involved in bone turnover and metastases, increased risk for bone-related complications from breast cancer and breast cancer therapy, and current and emerging treatment strategies for managing bone metastases and bone turnover in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

Diagnosis and treatment of bone metastasis: comprehensive guideline of the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology, Japanese Orthopedic Association, Japanese Urological Association, and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology

Diagnosis and treatment of bone metastasis requires various types of measures, specialists and caregivers. To provide better diagnosis and treatment, a multidisciplinary team approach is required. The members of this multidisciplinary team include doctors of primary cancers, radiologists, pathologists, orthopaedists, radiotherapists, clinical oncologists, palliative caregivers, rehabilitation doctors, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, medical social workers, etc. Medical evidence was extracted from published articles describing meta-analyses or randomised controlled trials concerning patients with bone metastases mainly from 2003 to 2013, and a guideline was developed according to the Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. Multidisciplinary team meetings are helpful in diagnosis and treatment. Clinical benefits such as physical or psychological palliation obtained using the multidisciplinary team approaches are apparent. We established a guideline describing each specialty field, to improve understanding of the different fields among the specialists, who can further provide appropriate treatment, and to improve patients’ outcomes.

Skeletal metastases from breast cancer: pathogenesis of bone tropism and treatment strategy

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common female cancer worldwide with approximately 10 % of new cases metastatic at diagnosis and 20-50 % of patients with early BC who will eventually develop metastatic disease. Bone is the most frequent site of colonisation and the development of skeletal metastases depends on a complex multistep process, from dissemination and survival of malignant cells into circulation to the actual homing and metastases formation inside bone. Disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) can be detected in bone marrow in approximately 30 % of BC patients, likely reflecting the presence of minimal residual disease that would eventually account for subsequent metastatic disease. Patients with bone marrow DTCs have poorer overall survival compared with patients without them. Although bone-only metastatic disease seems to have a rather indolent behavior compared to visceral disease, bone metastases can cause severe and debilitating effects, including pain, spinal cord compression, hypercalcemia and pathologic fractures. Delivering an appropriate treatment is therefore paramount and ideally it should require interdisciplinary care. Multiple options are currently available, from bisphosphonates to new drugs targeting RANK ligand and radiotherapy. In this review we describe the mechanisms underlying bone colonization and provide an update on existing systemic and locoregional treatments for bone metastases.

Ibandronate: The loading dose concept in the treatment of metastatic bone pain

Background/Aim

Severe bone pain is experienced by 60–80% of patients with metastatic bone disease, and has a profound impact on quality of life. Therefore, effective pain relief is an important goal in managing metastatic bone disease. Orthopedic surgeons are often challenged with patients presenting with newly diagnosed bone metastases and severe and disabling bone pain. It is important to provide fast and sufficient analgesia. Clinical trials have demonstrated that bisphosphonates reduce effectively and sustained bone pain by approved standard dosage over time. Open label prospective trials have shown that short time high dose i.v. Ibandronate is effective in rapid pain relief in different primary tumors.

Patients and methods

In 33 patients with metastatic bone pain from newly diagnosed skeletal metastases we utilized the loading-dose concept for intravenous ibandronate (6 mg infused over 1 h on 3 consecutive days).

Results

In 33 patients loading-dose ibandronate therapy significantly reduced bone pain within the first 5–7 days (VAS day 0: 6–8 vs. day 7: 3–4). Only 3 patients showed no response concerning a distinct pain reduction within the first days of therapy. There was no increase in pain medication.

Conclusion

This clinical observational study in selected patients with severe metastatic bone pain undergoing an intensive high dosed ibandronate-therapy for a short period demonstrated that loading-dose ibandronate (6 mg i.v., 3 consecutive days) resulted in a reduction of pain within days.

Bisphosphonates for cancer treatment: Mechanisms of action and lessons from clinical trials

A growing body of evidence points toward an important anti-cancer effect of bisphosphonates, a group of inexpensive, safe, potent, and long-term stable pharmacologicals that are widely used as osteoporosis drugs. To date, they are already used in the prevention of complications of bone metastases. Because the bisphosphonates can also reduce mortality in among other multiple myeloma, breast, and prostate cancer patients, they are now thoroughly studied in oncology. In particular, the more potent nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates have the potential to improve prognosis. The first part of this review will elaborate on the direct and indirect anti-tumoral effects of bisphosphonates, including induction of tumor cell apoptosis, inhibition of tumor cell adhesion and invasion, anti-angiogenesis, synergism with anti-neoplastic drugs, and enhancement of immune surveillance (e.g., through activation of γδ T cells and targeting macrophages). In the second part, we shed light on the current clinical position of bisphosphonates in the treatment of hematological and solid malignancies, as well as on ongoing and completed clinical trials investigating the therapeutic effect of bisphosphonates in cancer. Based on these recent data, the role of bisphosphonates is expected to further expand in the near future outside the field of osteoporosis and to open up new avenues in the treatment of malignancies.

Bisphosphonates in the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Breast, Lung, and Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether bisphosphonates are a key therapy for bone metastases in lung cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer by comparing all randomized controlled trials that appraised the effects of bisphosphonates on risk of skeletal-related events (SREs).PubMed, Embase, and Medline databases (up to December 2014) were used to search all related articles. Using the data from 19 available publications, the authors examined the efficacy in treating or reducing the risk of SREs in lung cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer by meta-analysis.Bisphosphonates have demonstrated efficacy in treating or reducing the risk of SREs in lung cancer [odds ratio (OR) = 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.69-0.95, P = 0.008], breast cancer (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.54-0.71, P = 0.000), and prostate cancer (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.45-0.86, P = 0.004).This meta-analysis suggests that bisphosphonates have demonstrated efficacy in treating or reducing the risk of SREs in lung cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer.

Bone antiresorptive agents in the treatment of bone metastases associated with solid tumours or multiple myeloma

Skeletal lesions contribute substantially to morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. The disease manifestation course during metastatic bone disease is driven by tumour cells in the bone marrow, which alter the functions of bone-resorbing (osteoclasts) and bone-forming (osteoblasts) cells, promoting skeletal destruction. Successful therapeutic strategies for the treatment of metastatic bone disease include bisphosphonates and denosumab that inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. Inhibitors of cathepsin K, Src and activin A are under clinical investigation as potential anti-osteolytics. In this review, we describe current knowledge and future directions of antiresorptive therapies that may reduce or prevent destructive bone lesions from solid tumours and multiple myeloma.

Ibandronate to treat skeletal-related events and bone pain in metastatic bone disease or multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have given contradictory results about the efficacy and safety of ibandronate in treating metastatic bone disease (MBD) or multiple myeloma. This review meta-analysed the literature to gain a more comprehensive picture.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ibandronate compared with placebo or zoledronate.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify RCTs published up to March 2015 evaluating ibandronate to treat MBD or multiple myeloma.

REVIEW METHOD

10 RCTs involving 3474 patients were included. Six RCTs were placebo-controlled and four compared ibandronate with zoledronate. The studies included in this review were mainly from European countries.

RESULTS

Intravenous ibandronate (6 mg) or oral drug (50 mg) decreased the risk of skeletal-related events compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90, p=0.002). It also reduced the bone pain score below baseline significantly more than did placebo at 96 weeks (weighted mean difference -0.41, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.27, p<0.001). The incidence of diarrhoea, nausea and adverse renal events was similar between the ibandronate and placebo groups, but ibandronate was associated with greater risk of abdominal pain. Ibandronate was associated with similar risk of skeletal-related events as another bisphosphonate drug, zoledronate (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26, p=0.87). The incidence of nausea, jaw osteonecrosis and fatigue was similar for the two drugs, but the incidence of adverse renal events was significantly lower in the ibandronate group.

CONCLUSIONS

Ibandronate significantly reduces the incidence of skeletal-related events and bone pain in patients with MBD or multiple myeloma relative to placebo. It is associated with a similar incidence of skeletal-related events as zoledronate.

Loading dose ibandronate versus standard oral ibandronate in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

In this phase II trial, the efficacy and safety of loading-dose I.V. ibandronate in patients with breast cancer with bone metastases were evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-four patients were randomized to receive a loading dose of 12 mg I.V. ibandronate on day 1 then oral ibandronate 50 mg daily (arm A), or standard oral therapy of 50 mg ibandronate daily from day 1 (arm B). The primary end point was percentage change in serum C-terminal crosslinking telopeptide of type I collagen (S-CTX) from baseline by day 5 of study. Secondary/exploratory end points included percentage change in other bone turnover markers (N-terminal cross-linking telopeptides of type I collagen [NTX], procollagen type I N propeptide, bone alkaline phosphatase) and change in average bone pain score.

RESULTS

There was a significantly greater reduction in S-CTX at day 5 in arm A compared with arm B (median difference, 15.82%; P = .005). There was also a significantly greater reduction in urine NTX/creatinine at day 5 (P = .009) and at the end of weeks 1 to 8 (averaged; P = .006). Average bone pain score was lower in arm A at the end of 8 weeks (P = .012). There were no additional adverse events after administration of 12 mg I.V. loading dose of ibandronate.

CONCLUSION

A 12-mg dose of I.V. ibandronate rapidly reduced markers of bone turnover and can be administered without additional toxicity.

Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis comparing bone-targeted agents for the prevention of skeletal-related events in cancer patients with bone metastasis

BACKGROUND

Complications from skeletal-related events (SREs) constitute a challenge in the care of cancer patients with bone metastasis (BM).

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of pamidronate, ibandronate, zoledronate, and denosumab in reducing the morbidity of SREs in cancer patients with BM.

METHODS

Medline (1948 to January 2014), Embase (1980 to January 2014), the Cochrane Library (2014 issue 1), and Web of Science with Conference Proceedings (1970 to January 2014) were searched. Only randomized controlled trials assessing denosumab, bisphosphonates, or placebo in cancer patients with BM were included. The primary outcomes were SREs and SREs by type. The network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed with a random-effects Bayesian model.

RESULTS

The NMA included 14 trials with 10,192 patients. Denosumab was superior to placebo in reducing the risk of SREs (odds ratio [OR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-0.75), followed by zoledronate (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.77) and pamidronate (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.72). Ibandronate compared with placebo could not reduce the risk of SREs. Denosumab was superior to placebo in reducing the risk of pathologic fractures (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.32-0.79), followed by zoledronate (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.43-0.86). Denosumab was superior to placebo in reducing the risk of radiation (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.35-0.75), followed by pamidronate (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.52-0.86) and zoledronate (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52-0.96).

CONCLUSION

This NMA showed that denosumab, zoledronate, and pamidronate were generally effective in preventing SREs in cancer patients with BM. Denosumab and zoledronate were also associated with reductions in the risk of pathologic fractures and radiation compared with placebo. Denosumab was shown to be the most effective of the bone-targeted agents.

Bone-targeted therapy in metastatic breast cancer - all well-established knowledge?

Bone-targeted therapies like bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid or pamidronate) or denosumab are recommended in all patients with metastatic breast cancer and bone metastases, whether they are symptomatic or not. The choice between these 2 different agents, however, remains open. In this review, we critically discuss the emerging evidence for direct anti-tumor activity of bone-targeting agents, the utility of bone turnover markers for treatment decision and efficacy prediction, as well as the safety and financial aspects of bisphosphonates and denosumab. Furthermore, we provide a possible therapeutic algorithm, and present new pharmacologic agents which are being investigated for the treatment of metastatic bone disease.

Medical treatment of breast cancer bone metastasis: from bisphosphonates to targeted drugs

Breast cancer bone metastasis causing severe morbidity is commonly encountered in daily clinical practice. It causes pain, pathologic fractures, spinal cord and other nerve compression syndromes and life threatening hypercalcemia. Breast cancer metastasizes to bone through complicated steps in which numerous molecules play roles. Metastatic cells disrupt normal bone turnover and create a vicious cycle to which treatment efforts should be directed. Bisphosphonates have been used safely for more than two decades. As a group they delay time to first skeletal related event and reduce pain, but do not prevent development of bone metastasis in patients with no bone metastasis, and also do not prolong survival. The receptor activator for nuclear factor κB ligand inhibitor denosumab delays time to first skeletal related event and reduces the skeletal morbidity rate. Radionuclides are another treatment option for bone pain. New targeted therapies and radionuclides are still under investigation. In this review we will focus on mechanisms of bone metastasis and its medical treatment in breast cancer patients.

Bone health in breast cancer patients: a comprehensive statement by CECOG/SAKK Intergroup

Bone is the most common site of distant metastases in breast cancer that can cause severe and debilitating skeletal related events (SRE) including hypercalcemia of malignancy, pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression and the need for palliative radiation therapy or surgery to the bone. SRE are associated with substantial pain and morbidity leading to frequent hospitalization, impaired quality of life and poor prognosis. The past 25 years of research on the pathophysiology of bone metastases led to the development of highly effective treatment options to delay or prevent osseous metastases and SRE. Management of bone metastases has become an integral part of cancer treatment requiring expertise of multidisciplinary teams of medical and radiation oncologists, surgeons and radiologists in order to find an optimal treatment for each individual patient. A group of international breast cancer experts attended a Skeletal Care Academy Meeting in November 2012 in Istanbul and discussed current preventive measures and treatment options of SRE, which are summarized in this evidence-based consensus for qualified decision- making in clinical practice.

Bone health in cancer patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines

There are three distinct areas of cancer management that make bone health in cancer patients of increasing clinical importance. First, bone metastases are common in many solid tumours, notably those arising from the breast, prostate and lung, as well as multiple myeloma, and may cause major morbidity including fractures, severe pain, nerve compression and hypercalcaemia. Through optimum multidisciplinary management of patients with bone metastases, including the use of bone-targeted treatments such as potent bisphosphonates or denosumab, it has been possible to transform the course of advanced cancer for many patients resulting in a major reduction in skeletal complications, reduced bone pain and improved quality of life. Secondly, many of the treatments we use to treat cancer patients have effects on reproductive hormones, which are critical for the maintenance of normal bone remodelling. This endocrine disturbance results in accelerated bone loss and an increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures that can have a significant negative impact on the lives of the rapidly expanding number of long-term cancer survivors. Finally, the bone marrow micro-environment is also intimately involved in the metastatic processes required for cancer dissemination, and there are emerging data showing that, at least in some clinical situations, the use of bone-targeted treatments can reduce metastasis to bone and has potential impact on patient survival.

The efficacy of bisphosphonates in preventing aromatase inhibitor induced bone loss for postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives. We aim to determine the efficacy of bisphosphonates in preventing aromatase inhibitor induced bone loss (AIBL) in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. The secondary objective was to determine the safety of bisphosphonates. Materials and Methods. We searched electronic databases in a time period of 1995 January to 2013 June. Random effects meta-analytical models were used; between study heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed. Results. A total of six eligible studies reported the BMD T score of LS at 12 months and from that 3 trials of Zoledronic acid compared the change in BMD in immediate ZOL versus delayed ZOL done with subgroups like patients with normal BMD at baseline (OR = 5.402, 95% CI = 1.329-21.959, P value = 0.018) and osteopenic BMD at baseline (OR = 4.008, 95% CI = 2.249-7.143, P value = 0.0002). Both had a significant decrease in BMD that favoured the delayed ZOL; 3 trials of risedronate and ibandronate also had a significant decrease in BMD in AIs alone group. Immediate ZOL versus delayed ZOL also showed increased risk of getting an ADR in immediate group. Conclusion. Third generation bisphosphonates has an effect on BMD of patients who are on treatment of AIs in breast cancer. Furthermore, the patients treated with immediate ZOL had a significantly high risk of musculoskeletal ADR's than patients with delayed ZOL.

Bisphosphonates and bone metastases: current status and future directions

Since bone metastases in advanced cancer are common and frequently lead to skeletal-related morbid complications, their treatment remains a major challenge in cancer therapy. Bisphosphonates not only significantly decreased the odds ratios for fracture, need for radiotherapy, and incidence of hypercalcemia, but also had proven ability in the preservation of the 3D microstructure of bone that is responsible for bone stability. Bisphosphonates are well tolerated and have a very low incidence of serious side effects. Consequently, bisphosphonates have become the standard of care for the treatment of malignant bone disease. Benefits of bisphosphonate treatment appears to be more pronounced with longer treatment, indicating that they should be continued until no longer clinically relevant. As this advice has substantial implications on resources, it is essential that the use of bisphosphonates is evidence based.

Oral ibandronic acid versus intravenous zoledronic acid in treatment of bone metastases from breast cancer: a randomised, open label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates are routinely used in the treatment of metastatic bone disease from breast cancer to reduce pain and bone destruction. Zoledronic acid given by intravenous infusion has been widely used, but places a substantial logistical burden on both patient and hospital. As a result, the use of oral ibandronic acid has increased, despite the absence of comparative data. In the ZICE trial, we compared oral ibandronic acid with intravenous zoledronic acid for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer to bone.

METHODS

This phase 3, open-label, parallel group active-controlled, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 study was done in 99 UK hospitals. Eligibility criteria included at least one radiologically confirmed bone metastasis from a histologically confirmed breast cancer. Patients with ECOG performance status 0 to 2 and clinical decision to treat with bisphosphonates within 3 months of randomisation were randomly assigned to receive 96 weeks of treatment with either intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg every 3-4 weeks or oral ibandronic acid 50 mg daily. Randomisation (1:1) was done via a central computerised system within stratified block sizes of four. Randomisation was stratified on whether patients had current or planned treatment with chemotherapy; current or planned treatment with hormone therapy; and whether they had a previous skeletal-related event within the last 3 months or had planned radiotherapy treatment to the bone or planned orthopaedic surgery due to bone metastases. The primary non-inferiority endpoint was the frequency and timing of skeletal-related events over 96 weeks, analysed using a per-protocol analysis. All active (non-withdrawn) patients have now reached the 96-week timepoint and the trial is now in long-term follow-up. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00326820.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 13, 2006, and Oct 4, 2010, 705 patients were randomly assigned to receive ibandronic acid and 699 to receive zoledronic acid; three patients withdrew immediately after randomisation. The per-protocol analysis included 654 patients in the ibandronic acid group and 672 in the zoledronic acid group. Annual rates of skeletal-related events were 0·499 (95% CI 0·454-0·549) with ibandronic acid and 0·435 (0·393-0·480) with zoledronic acid; the rate ratio for skeletal-related events was 1·148 (95% CI 0·967-1·362). The upper CI was greater than the margin of non-inferiority of 1·08; therefore, we could not reject the null hypothesis that ibandronic acid was inferior to zoledronic acid. More patients in the zoledronic acid group had renal toxic effects than in the ibandronic acid group (226 [32%] of 697 vs 172 [24%] of 704) but rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw were low in both groups (nine [1%] of 697 vs five [<1%] of 704). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were fatigue (97 [14%] of 697 patients allocated zoledronic acid vs 98 [14%] of 704 allocated ibandronic acid), increased bone pain (91 [corrected] [13%] vs 85 [corrected] [12%]), joint pain (41 [corrected] [6%] vs 38 [5%]), infection (31 [5%] vs 23 [corrected] [3%]), and nausea or vomiting (38 [5%] vs 41 [6%]).

INTERPRETATION

Our results suggest that zoledronic acid is preferable to ibandronic acid in preventing skeletal-related events caused by bone metastases. However, both drugs have acceptable side-effect profiles and the oral formulation is more convenient, and could still be considered if the patient has a strong preference or if difficulties occur with intravenous infusions.

FUNDING

Roche Products Ltd (educational grant), supported by National Institute for Health Research Cancer Network, following endorsement by Cancer Research UK (CRUKE/04/022).