Palliative pamidronate treatment in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer

Review of Bone Modifying Agents in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Bone is the most common site for distant metastases in breast cancer and can cause significant morbidity and mortality. Bone modifying agents (BMAs) that include bisphosphonates (BPAs) and denosumab help in decreasing and delaying skeletal-related events (SREs) associated with metastatic breast cancer. BPAs approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in bone metastases (BM) in the United States are pamidronate and zolendronic acid, while clodronate and ibandronate are licensed for use in other countries. Current American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines recommend denosumab 120 mg subcutaneously every four weeks, or zolendronic acid 4 mg every four weeks or every 12 weeks, or intravenous pamidronate 90 mg every four weeks. Current guidelines do not recommend one BMA over another, however, zolendronic acid and denosumab were the most commonly used BMAs in population-based studies. Side effects of BMAs include acute phase reactions, hypocalcemia, nephrotoxicity, osteonecrosis of jaw, etc. While other side effects are common with both BPAs and denosumab, the latter has less nephrotoxic potential and is preferred for use in patients with renal failure. Current ASCO guidelines recommend continuing BMAs indefinitely, however, in clinical practice, this decision needs to be individualized, especially since there is no data on the impact of long-term use of BMAs. Further studies would need to be developed to develop an algorithm of SRE risk assessment and to determine which patients would benefit from BMAs.

Pamidronate: A model compound of the pharmacology of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates; A Leiden historical perspective

Pamidronate [3-amino-1-hydroxypropylidene-1,1-bisphosphonate (APD)] was the first nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate (N-BP) investigated in clinical studies. In contrast to other clinically used bisphosphonates, pamidronate was discovered and its properties were initially studied in an Academic Institution. On the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the first publications on the biological effects of bisphosphonates, I review in this article the contribution of Leiden investigators to the development of pamidronate that led to the recognition of the significance of the Nitrogen atom in the side chain of bisphosphonates for their action on bone resorption and to the formulation of principles for the use of N-BPs in the management of patients with different skeletal disorders.

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.

Use of Pamidronate to Treat Hypercalcemia in an Oncology Dialysis Patient: A Case Report

Patient: Female, 60

Final Diagnosis: Hypercalcemia secondary to malignancy

Symptoms: Hypercalcemia

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: —

Specialty: Nephrology

188Re-HEDP therapy in the therapy of painful bone metastases

For bone-targeted radionuclide therapy (BTRT), different commercial radiopharmaceuticals are available such as strontium-89, 186Rhenium-hydroxyethylidene diphosphonate (186Re-HEDP), Samarium-153-ethylenediamine tetramethylene phosphonic acid, and radium-223. Unfortunately, the commercial available radiopharmaceuticals are very expensive (from 1,200 to 36,000€ per patient in Europe). The 188W/188Re generator is an ideal source for the long-term (4-6 months) continuous availability of 188Re suitable for the preparation of radiopharmaceuticals for different radionuclide therapies. Labeling at HEDP, it can use cost-effective for BTRT, if enough patients are available for therapy. And so, 188Re-HEDP is the ideal candidate in developing countries which high population to replace the other agents. Two German groups documented a response rate of 80% without any severe side effects and similar bone marrow toxicity compared to the other compounds for 188Re-HEDP. Using 188Re-HEDP in repeated treatments, a prolonged overall survival of repeated to single application was observed (from 4.5 months for single to 15.7 months using ≥≥3 applications).

Bisphosphonates in Oncology: Physiopathologic Bases and Clinical Activity

Osteoclastic activation is the ultimate way of bone resorption in neoplasia, induced by the combined effects of tumor-secreted humoral factors (especially parathyroid hormone-related peptides) and osteoclastic-osteoblastic interaction. Bisphosphonates inhibit the osteoclast activity and reduce bone resorption and are a valuable supportive measure for bone disease of neoplasms. Experimental models also suggest an activity of bisphosphonates against cancer cells. Controlled studies, especially in advanced breast cancer and multiple myeloma, indicate different effectiveness against the distinct skeletal-related events. Intravenous clodronate and, especially, pamidronate and zoledronate are the first-choice drugs for hypercalcemia, and they play a significant role in reducing metastatic bone pain. Their prolonged use delays, without hampering, the progression of bone disease, including the appearance of osteolysis and the occurrence of pathologic fractures. This effect is probably more valuable when bisphosphonates are administered early in the course of the disease. The evidence that adjuvant bisphosphonates improve survival needs to be confirmed in ongoing studies. Although poorly absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract, oral bisphosphonates are effective in preventing and treating cancer-induced osteoporosis in long-living patients with operable breast cancer. At present, there is little hope that newer bisphosphonates are more effective than those currently used.

Role of Pamidronate Disodium in the Treatment of Metastatic Bone Disease

Aims and Background

Bone metastases are a common feature of advanced neoplastic disease and are considered to be among the most frequent causes of pain and complications in oncologic patients. The main objective of the treatment of such patients is to control their symptoms and improve their quality of life. Pamidronate disodium is a second-generation bisphosphonate capable of inhibiting bone resorption (particularly osteoclast activity) without affecting bone reminerali-zation. After a brief introduction concerning the pathophysiology of bone metastases and neoplastic bone pain, we herein present data on the clinical pharmacology and toxicity of bisphosphonates in general, and pamidronate in particular. We conclude by reviewing the literature on the use of pamidronate in phase II and III trials involving patients with metastatic bone disease.

Methods

The paper is based on a review of articles published between 1984 and 1997 selected from the Cancerline and Medline databases.

Results

In the considered phase II and III studies involving patients with bone metastases (breast cancer and multiple myeloma in particular), pamidronate proved to be efficacious in reducing the incidence of pain and skeletal complications, decreasing the excretion of metabolic markers of bone resorption and improving the quality of life. Intravenous infusions of 60-90 mg over a period of 2 hr every 3-4 weeks did not cause any significant toxic effects and was easily managed.

Conclusions

Pamidronate is a bisphosphonate that is efficacious in the treatment of symptomatic bone metastases and can be considered an important therapeutic option in association with systemic treatments, radiotherapy and normal supportive care, especially in patients with breast cancer and multiple myeloma. Further randomized studies are necessary to confirm the positive preliminary results in other neoplasms, analyze the cost/benefit ratio of the treatment, and verify the possibility that, in addition to being used for palliative purposes, pamidronate may also prevent or delay the appearance of bone metastases.

Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma: an updated network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity and are used in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). While bisphosphonates are shown to be effective in reducing vertebral fractures and pain, their role in improving overall survival (OS) remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002 and previously updated in 2010 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence related to benefits and harms associated with use of various types of bisphosphonates (aminobisphosphonates versus non-aminobisphosphonates) in the management of patients with MM. Our primary objective was to determine whether adding bisphosphonates to standard therapy in MM improves OS and progression-free survival (PFS), and decreases skeletal-related morbidity. Our secondary objectives were to determine the effects of bisphosphonates on pain, quality of life, incidence of hypercalcemia, incidence of bisphosphonate-related gastrointestinal toxicities, osteonecrosis of jaw (ONJ) and hypocalcemia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase (September 2011 to July 2017) and the CENTRAL (2017, Issue 7) to identify all randomized controlled trial (RCT) in MM up to July 2017 using a combination of text and MeSH terms.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing bisphosphonates versus placebo/no treatment/bisphosphonates and observational studies or case reports examining bisphosphonate-related ONJ in patients with MM were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted the data. Data were pooled and reported as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) using a random-effects model. We used meta-regression to explore statistical heterogeneity. Network meta-analysis using Bayesian approach was conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included four new studies (601 participants), resulting in a total of 24 included studies.Twenty RCTs compared bisphosphonates with either placebo or no treatment and four RCTs involved another bisphosphonate as a comparator. The 24 included RCTs enrolled 7293 participants. Pooled results showed that there was moderate-quality evidence of a reduction in mortality with on OS from 41% to 31%, but the confidence interval is consistent with a larger reduction and small increase in mortality compared with placebo or no treatment (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; 14 studies; 2706 participants). There was substantial heterogeneity among the included RCTs (I² = 65%) for OS. To explain this heterogeneity we performed a meta-regression assessing the relationship between bisphosphonate potency and improvement in OS, which found an OS benefit with zoledronate but limited evidence of an effect on PFS. This provided a further rationale for performing a network meta-analyses of the various types of bisphosphonates that were not compared head-to-head in RCTs. Results from network meta-analyses showed evidence of a benefit for OS with zoledronate compared with etidronate (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87) and placebo (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.91). However, there was no evidence for a difference between zoledronate and other bisphosphonates.The effect of bisphosphonates on disease progression (PFS) is uncertain. Based on the HR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.00; seven studies; 908 participants), 47% participants would experience disease progression without treatment compared with between 30% and 47% with bisphosphonates (low-quality evidence). There is probably a similar risk of non-vertebral fractures between treatment groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; six studies; 1389 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Pooled analysis demonstrated evidence for a difference favoring bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment on prevention of pathological vertebral fractures (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89; seven studies; 1116 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and skeletal-related events (SREs) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88; 10 studies; 2141 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The evidence for less pain with bisphosphonates was of very low quality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95; eight studies; 1281 participants).Bisphosphonates may increase ONJ compared with placebo but the confidence interval is very wide (RR 4.61, 95% CI 0.99 to 21.35; P = 0.05; six studies; 1284 participants; low-quality evidence). The results from the network meta-analysis did not show any evidence for a difference in the incidence of ONJ (eight RCTs, 3746 participants) between bisphosphonates. Data from nine observational studies (1400 participants) reported an incidence of 5% to 51% with combination of pamidronate and zoledronate, 3% to 11% with zoledronate alone, and 0% to 18% with pamidronate alone.The pooled results showed no evidence for a difference in increase in frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59; seven studies; 1829 participants; low-quality evidence).The pooled results showed no evidence for a difference in increase in frequency of hypocalcemia with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.74; three studies; 1090 participants; low-quality evidence). The results from network meta-analysis did not show any evidence for differences in the incidence of hypocalcemia, renal dysfunction and gastrointestinal toxicity between the bisphosphonates used.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Use of bisphosphonates in participants with MM reduces pathological vertebral fractures, SREs and pain. Bisphosphonates were associated with an increased risk of developing ONJ. For every 1000 participants treated with bisphosphonates, about one patient will suffer from the ONJ. We found no evidence of superiority of any specific aminobisphosphonate (zoledronate, pamidronate or ibandronate) or non-aminobisphosphonate (etidronate or clodronate) for any outcome. However, zoledronate was found to be better than placebo and first-generation bisposphonate (etidronate) in pooled direct and indirect analyses for improving OS and other outcomes such as vertebral fractures. Direct head-to-head trials of the second-generation bisphosphonates are needed to settle the issue if zoledronate is truly the most efficacious bisphosphonate currently used in practice.

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.

Evidence on the analgesic role of bisphosphonates and denosumab in the treatment of pain due to bone metastases: A systematic review within the European Association for Palliative Care guidelines project

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates and denosumab are well-established therapies to reduce the frequency and severity of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastasis. However, the analgesic effect of these medications on bone pain is uncertain.

AIM

To identify, critically appraise and synthesize existing evidence to answer the following questions: 'In adult patients with metastatic bone pain, what is the evidence that bisphosphonates and denosumab are effective and safe in controlling pain?' and 'What is the most appropriate schedule of bisphosphonate/denosumab administration to control bone pain?'. This review also updates the 2002 Cochrane review 'Bisphosphonates for the relief of pain secondary to bone metastases'.

DESIGN

Standard systematic review and narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched for relevant articles published through 31 January 2014. A manual search was also performed. Study inclusion criteria were: a) conducted in adult patients; b) randomized controlled trial or meta-analisys; c) reported efficacy of bisphosphonates or denosumab on pain and/or decribed side effects versus placebo or other bisphosphonate; and d) English language.

RESULTS

The database search yielded 1585 studies, of which 43 (enrolling 8595 and 7590 patients, respectively, in bisphosphonate and denosumab trials) met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two (79%) of the 28 placebo-controlled trials found no analgesic benefit for bisphosphonates. None of the denosumab studies assessed direct pain relief.

CONCLUSION

Evidence to support an analgesic role for bisphosphonates and denosumab is weak. Bisphosphonates and denosumab appear to be beneficial in preventing pain by delaying the onset of bone pain rather than by producing an analgesic effect per se.

Osteonecrosis of the Jaws and Bisphosphonate Therapy

Bisphosphonates are a class of agents used to treat osteoporosis and malignant bone metastases. The efficacy of these agents in treating and preventing the significant skeletal complications associated with these conditions has had a major positive impact for patients and is responsible for their widespread use in medicine. Despite these benefits, osteonecrosis of the jaws has recently emerged as a significant complication in a subset of patients receiving these drugs. Based on a growing number of case reports and institutional reviews, bisphosphonate therapy may cause exposed and necrotic bone that is isolated to the jaw. This complication usually presents following simple dento-alveolar surgery, and can cause a significant adverse effect on the quality of life for most patients. The pathogenesis for this complication appears to be related to the profound inhibition of osteoclast function and bone remodeling.

Molecular Mechanisms of Bone Metastasis: Which Targets Came from the Bench to the Bedside?

Bone metastases ultimately result from a complex interaction between cancer cells and bone microenvironment. However, prior to the colonization of the bone, cancer cells must succeed through a series of steps that will allow them to detach from the primary tumor, enter into circulation, recognize and adhere to specific endothelium, and overcome dormancy. We now know that as important as the metastatic cascade, tumor cells prime the secondary organ microenvironment prior to their arrival, reflecting the existence of specific metastasis-initiating cells in the primary tumor and circulating osteotropic factors. The deep comprehension of the molecular mechanisms of bone metastases may allow the future development of specific anti-tumoral therapies, but so far the approved and effective therapies for bone metastatic disease are mostly based in bone-targeted agents, like bisphosphonates, denosumab and, for prostate cancer, radium-223. Bisphosphonates and denosumab have proven to be effective in blocking bone resorption and decreasing morbidity; furthermore, in the adjuvant setting, these agents can decrease bone relapse after breast cancer surgery in postmenopausal women. In this review, we will present and discuss some examples of applied knowledge from the bench to the bed side in the field of bone metastasis.

Development of oral osteomucosal tissue constructs in vitro and localization of fluorescently-labeled bisphosphonates to hard and soft tissue

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are anti-resorptive agents commonly used to treat bone-related diseases; however, soft tissue-related side-effects are frequently reported in some BP users, such as oral or gastrointestinal (GI) ulcerations. BPs are stable analogs of pyrophosphate and have high affinity to hydroxyapatite, allowing them to bind to the bone surfaces and exert suppressive effects on osteoclast functions. However, the underlying mechanisms as to how bone-seeking BPs also exert cytotoxic effects on soft tissue remain unknown. In the present study, we investigated the localization of nitrogen-containing BPs (N-BPs) in hard and soft tissue using fluorescently-labeled N-BPs in vitro. We developed osteomucosal tissue constructs in vitro to recapitulate the hard and soft tissue of the oral cavity. A histological examination of the osteomucosal tissue constructs revealed a differentiated epithelium over the bone containing osteocytes and the periosteum, similar to that observed in the rat palatal tissues. Following treatment with the fluorescently-labeled bisphosphonate, AF647-ZOL, the osteomucosal constructs exhibited fluorescent signals, not only in the bone, but also in the epithelium. No fluorescent signals were observed from the control- or ZOL-treated constructs, as expected. Collectively, the data from the present study suggest that N-BPs localize to epithelial tissue and that such a localization and subsequent toxicity of N-BPs may be associated, at least in part, with soft tissue-related side-effects.

How are palliative care cancer populations characterized in randomized controlled trials? A literature review

CONTEXT

The difficulties in defining a palliative care patient accentuate the need to provide stringent descriptions of the patient population in palliative care research.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic literature review with the aim of identifying which key variables have been used to describe adult palliative care cancer populations in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The data sources used were MEDLINE (1950 to January 25, 2010) and Embase (1980 to January 25, 2010), limited to RCTs in adult cancer patients with incurable disease. Forty-three variables were systematically extracted from the eligible articles.

RESULTS

The review includes 336 articles reporting RCTs in palliative care cancer patients. Age (98%), gender (90%), cancer diagnosis (89%), performance status (45%), and survival (45%) were the most frequently reported variables. A large number of other variables were much less frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

A substantial variation exists in how palliative care cancer populations are described in RCTs. Few variables are consistently registered and reported. There is a clear need to standardize the reporting. The results from this work will serve as the basis for an international Delphi process with the aim of reaching consensus on a minimum set of descriptors to characterize a palliative care cancer population.

Biology of bone metastases

BACKGROUND

Bone metastases cause morbidity and mortality in multiple malignancies. In addition to portending a dire prognosis, bone metastases cause bone pain, fractures, hypercalcemia, spinal cord compression, and other nerve compression syndromes. Improved understanding of the mechanisms that predispose tumor metastases to bone is needed to improve patients' therapeutic options, maintain their quality of life, and improve their survival.

METHODS

This review discusses selected preclinical and clinical data regarding bone metastasis development and cytokine/molecular interactions predisposing to bone metastases formation. Potential interventions for reducing bone metastases are also described.

RESULTS

Biologic mechanisms resulting in metastases of tumor cells to bone are being studied. Among these are the RANKL pathway, osteoclast activation via cytokines (produced by tumor cell and cells in the bone microenvironment), interactions with transient and stromal cells in the bone microenvironment, and molecules such as PTHrP and endothelin-1. These molecules offer important opportunities for targeted interventions to decrease bone metastases-associated morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of the pathophysiology of bone and cancer is developing rapidly. Relationships among cancer cells, bone-derived cells, and cytokines provide opportunities for the development of new interventions. Therapy targeting osteoclast/osteoblast interactions has proven benefit for patients with bone metastases.

Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity and used in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). While bisphosphonates are shown to be effective in reducing vertebral fractures and pain, their role in improving overall survival (OS) remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002 and previously updated in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence related to benefits and harms associated with use of various types of bisphosphonates (aminobisphosphonates versus nonamino bisphosphonates) in the management of patients with MM. Our primary objective was to determine whether adding bisphosphonates to standard therapy in MM improves OS and progression-free survival (PFS), and decreases skeletal-related morbidity. Our secondary objectives were to determine the effects of bisphosphonates on pain, quality of life, incidence of hypercalcemia, incidence of bisphosphonate-related gastrointestinal toxicities, osteonecrosis of jaw and hypocalcemia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE (December 2009 to October 2011) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (all years, latest Issue September 2011) to identify all randomized trials in MM up to October 2011 using a combination of text and MeSH terms. We also handsearched relevant meeting proceedings (December 2009 to October 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) assessing the role of bisphosphonates and observational studies or case reports examining bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with MM were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted the data. Data were pooled and reported as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) under a random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was explored using metaregression.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included 2 studies (2464 patients) that were not part of our last Cochrane review published in 2010. In this review we included 16 RCTs comparing bisphosphonates with either placebo or no treatment and 4 RCTs with a different bisphosphonate as a comparator. The 20 included RCTs enrolled 6692 patients. Overall methodological quality of reporting was moderate. Thirty per cent (6/20) of trials reported the method of generating the randomization sequence. Forty per cent (8/20) of trials had adequate allocation concealment. Withdrawals and dropouts were described in 60% (12/20) of trials. Pooled results showed no direct effect of bisphosphonates on OS compared with placebo or no treatment (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; P = 0.64). However, there was a statistically significant heterogeneity among the included RCTs (I(2) = 55%, P = 0.01) for OS. To explain this heterogeneity we performed a metaregression assessing the relationship between bisphosphonate potency and improvement in OS, which found indicating an OS benefit with zoledronate (P = 0.058). This provided a further rationale for performing network meta-analyses of the various types of bisphosphonates that were not compared head to head in RCTs. Results from network meta-analyses showed superior OS with zoledronate compared with etidronate (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.86) and placebo (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.98). However, there was no difference between zoledronate and other bisphosphonates. Pooled analysis did not demonstrate a beneficial effect of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment in improving PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.19; P = 0.18) There was no heterogeneity among trials reporting PFS estimates (I(2) = 35%, P = 0.20).Pooled analysis demonstrated a beneficial effect of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment on prevention of pathological vertebral fractures (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89; I(2) = 7%), skeletal-related events (SRE) (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89; I(2) = 2%) and amelioration of pain (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95; I(2) = 63%). The network meta-analysis did not show any difference in the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw (5 RCTs, 3198 patients) between bisphosphonates. Rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw in observational studies (9 studies, 1400 patients) ranged from 0% to 51%. The pooled results (6 RCTs, 1689 patients) showed no statistically significant increase in frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60; P = 0.11).The pooled results (3 RCTs, 1002 patients) showed no statistically significant increase in frequency of hypocalcemia with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.74). The network meta-analysis did not show any differences in the incidence of hypocalcemia, renal dysfunction and gastrointestinal toxicity between the bisphosphonates used.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Use of bisphosphonates in patients with MM reduces pathological vertebral fractures, SREs and pain. Assuming a baseline risk of 20% to 50% for vertebral fracture without treatment, between 8 and 20 MM patients should be treated to prevent vertebral fracture(s) in one patient. Assuming a baseline risk of 31% to 76% for pain amelioration without treatment, between 5 and 13 MM patients should be treated to reduce pain in one patient. With a baseline risk of 35% to 86% for SREs without treatment, between 6 and 15 MM patients should be treated to prevent SRE(s) in one patient. Overall, there were no significant adverse effects associated with the administration of bisphosphonates identified in the included RCTs. We found no evidence of superiority of any specific aminobisphosphonate (zoledronate, pamidronate or ibandronate) or nonaminobisphosphonate (etidronate or clodronate) for any outcome. However, zoledronate appears to be superior to placebo and etidronate in improving OS.

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 key pathways in the vicious cycle of bone metastases.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of bisphosphonates on skeletal-related events (SREs), bone pain, quality of life (QoL), recurrence and survival in women with breast cancer with bone metastases (BCBM), advanced breast cancer (ABC) without clinical evidence of bone metastases and early breast cancer (EBC).To assess the effect of denosumab on SREs, bone pain and (QoL) in women with (BCBM).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Specialised Register maintained by the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group (CBCGSR), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the WHO International Cancer Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 30 April 2011. We conducted additional handsearching of journals and proceedings of key meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: (a) bisphosphonates and control, or different bisphosphonates in women with BCBM; (b) denosumab and bisphosphonates in women with BCBM; (c) bisphosphonates and control in women with ABC; (d) bisphosphonates and control in women with EBC; and (e) early versus delayed bisphosphonate treatment in women with EBC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (MW and NP) independently assessed the trials and extracted the data. We collected toxicity information from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included thirty-four RCTs. In nine studies (2806 patients with BCBM), comparing bisphosphonates with placebo or no bisphosphonates, bisphosphonates reduced the SRE risk by 15% (risk ratio (RR) 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.94; P = 0.001). This benefit was most certain with intravenous (i.v.) zoledronic acid (4 mg) (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.82); i.v. pamidronate (90 mg) (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87); and i.v. ibandronate (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96). A direct comparison of i.v. zoledronic acid and i.v. pamidronate confirmed at least equivalent efficacy in a single large study. In three studies (3405 patients with BCBM), compared with bisphosphonates, subcutaneous (s.c.) denosumab was more effective in reducing the risk of SREs (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.85; P < 0.00001).Bisphosphonates reduced the SRE rate in 12 studies (median reduction 28%, range 14% to 48%), with statistically significant reductions reported in 10 studies. Women with BCBM treated with bisphosphonates showed significant delays in the median time to SREs. Compared with placebo or no bisphosphonates, treatment with bisphosphonates significantly improved bone pain in six out of eleven studies. Improvements in global QoL with bisphosphonates compared to placebo were reported in two out of five studies (both ibandronate studies). Treatment with bisphosphonates did not appear to affect survival in women with BCBM. Compared to i.v. zoledronic acid, denosumab also significantly reduced the SRE rate, delayed the time to SREs and prolonged the time in developing pain for patients with no or mild pain at baseline; but there was no difference in survival between patients treated with denosumab and zoledronic acid.Bisphosphonates in women with ABC without clinically evident bone metastases did not reduce the incidence of bone metastases, or improve survival in three studies (320 patients).In seven studies (7847 patients with EBC), currently there is no evidence supporting bisphosphonates in reducing the incidence of bone metastases compared to no bisphosphonates (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; P = 0.36). In three studies (2190 patients with EBC), early bisphosphonate treatment also did not significantly reduce the incidence of bone metastases compared to delayed bisphosphonate treatment (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.33; P = 0.31). Currently, there is insufficient evidence to make a conclusion about the role of adjuvant bisphosphonates in reducing visceral metastases, locoregional recurrence and total recurrence, or improving survival. There was strong heterogeneity in EBC studies examining the outcomes of total recurrence and survival.Reported toxicity was generally mild. Renal toxicity and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) have been identified as potential problems with bisphosphonate use. ONJ was reported at similar rates for patients on denosumab compared to zoledronic acid. This highlighted a need for maintaining good oral care, prior to and during treatment, for patients who received long-term bone agents.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In women with clinically evident BCBM, bisphosphonates (oral and i.v.) and denosumab (s.c.) reduced the risk of developing SREs, as well as delaying the time to SREs. Some bisphosphonates may also reduce bone pain and may improve QoL. The optimal timing and duration of treatment for patients with BCBM remains uncertain. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the routine use of bisphosphonates as adjuvant treatment for patients with EBC. However, a number of large clinical trials investigating bisphosphonates in EBC have completed accrual and are awaiting results.

Adjuvant analgesics in cancer pain: a review

Adjuvant analgesics (co-analgesics) are medications whose primary indication is the management of a medical condition with secondary effects of analgesia. Cancer pain is multifactorial and often involves inflammatory, nociceptive, and neuropathic pain subtypes. Adjuvant analgesics used in conjunction with opioids have been found to be beneficial in the management of many cancer pain syndromes; however, they are currently underutilized. Antidepressants, anticonvulsants, local anesthetics, topical agents, steroids, bisphosphonates, and calcitonin are all adjuvants which have been shown to be effective in the management of cancer pain syndromes. When utilizing analgesic adjuvants in the treatment of cancer pain, providers must take into account the particular side effect profile of the medication. Ideally, adjuvant analgesics will be initiated at lower dosages and escalated as tolerated until efficacy or adverse effects are encountered.

Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: an overview

Bisphosphonates are widely used in the management of metastatic disease to bone and in diseases of altered bone turnover. Recently, multiple-case series and retrospective studies have established a relationship between necrotic bone lesions localized to the jaw and the use of chronic bisphosphonate therapy. This condition has been named bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ). To evaluate the potential risks associated with this new and emerging complication, stage-specific management strategies and guidelines have been developed. In view of the widespread use of chronic bisphosphonate therapy, the observation of an associated risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw should alert practitioners to monitor for this previously unrecognized complication and to reevaluate the indications for and the duration of bisphosphonate therapy in patients with osteopenia/osteoporosis and cancer. Morbidity associated with BRONJ might be prevented or reduced by implementing prevention strategies and establishing early diagnostic procedures. The current widespread use of bisphosphonates as an inhibitor of bone resorption is directly attributable to their efficacy in improving the quality of life for patients with metastatic bone cancer, osteoporosis, and Paget's disease.

Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity and are currently used as supportive therapy for multiple myeloma (MM). However, the exact clinical role of bisphosphonates in MM remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This update of the first review published in 2002. We have also analyzed observational studies targeting osteonecrosis of jaw (ONJ).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the literature using the methods outlined in the previous review. We also searched observational studies or case reports examining ONJ.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs with a parallel design related to the use of bisphosphonate in myeloma. We also selected observational studies or case reports examining bisphosphonates related to ONJ.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We have reported pooled data using either hazard ratio or risk ratio and, when appropriate, as absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat to prevent or to cause a pathological event. We have assessed statistical heterogeneity and reported I(2) statistic.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 17 trials with 1520 patients analyzed in bisphosphonates groups, and 1490 analyzed in control groups. In comparison with placebo/no treatment, the pooled analysis demonstrated the beneficial effect of bisphosphonates on prevention of pathological vertebral fractures (RR= 0.74 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.89), P = 0.001), total skeletal related events (SREs) (RR= 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72 to 0.89), P < 0.0001) and on amelioration of pain (RR = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.95), P = 0.01). We found no significant effect of bisphosphonates on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), hypercalcemia or on the reduction of non-vertebral fractures. The indirect meta-analyses did not find the superiority of any particular type of bisphosphonate over others. Only two RCTs reported ONJ. The identified observational studies suggested that ONJ may be a common event (range: 0% to 51%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Adding bisphosphonates to the treatment of MM reduces pathological vertebral fractures, SREs and pain but not mortality. Assuming the baseline risk of 20% to 50% for vertebral fracture without treatment, we estimate that between eight and 20 MM patients should be treated to prevent vertebral fracture(s) in one patient. Assuming the baseline risk of 31% to 76% for pain amelioration without treatment, we estimate that between five to 13 MM patients should be treated to reduce pain in one patient. Also, with the baseline risk of 35% to 86% for SREs without treatment, we estimate that between six and 15 MM patients should be treated to prevent SRE(s) in one patient. No bisphoshphonate appears to be superior to others.

Efficacy of clodronate, pamidronate, and zoledronate in reducing morbidity and mortality in cancer patients with bone metastasis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Complications from skeletal-related events (SREs) constitute a challenge in the care of patients with metastatic bone disease (MBD) that originated from any type of malignancy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article was to compare the efficacy of clodronate, pamidronate, and zoledronate with that of placebo in reducing morbidity and overall mortality in cancer patients with MBD.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (from inception to January 2009) to retrieve randomized clinical trials that evaluated the bisphosphonates of interest. The search included articles published in English, French, Italian, Portugese, and Spanish. Patients with a definite (ie, biopsy-proven) diagnosis of MBD were included in the analysis. We extracted and combined data from studies that reported the number of patients with SREs and mortality data. A random-effects, meta-analytic model was applied in all calculations. The Jadad scale was used to assess the quality of study reporting.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 62 potential full-text studies; 44 of these studies were excluded and 18 were evaluated. The mean (SD) quality of reporting of the included studies was 57.8% (22.6%), or 2.89/5 (1.1/5). Each of the 3 drugs was found to be more effective than placebo in preventing all SREs in cancer patients with MBD. The relative risk of developing SREs was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.61-0.81; N = 1211) for zoledronate, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73-0.91; N = 2251) for pamidronate, and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.75-1.00; N = 681) for clodronate. However, no clear advantage of one drug over the others was observed (CIs overlapped substantially). None of the bisphosphonates was more beneficial than placebo in reducing the number of deaths in the course of the trials (P = NS).

CONCLUSION

Clodronate, pamidronate, and zoled-ronate were associated with reductions in morbidity in cancer patients with MBD with regard to preventing SREs, but were not associated with a reduction in overall mortality.

Quality of life measurement in bone metastases: A literature review

Quality of life (QOL) has become an important consideration in the care of patients with bone metastases as prevalence, incidence and patient survival are on the rise. As a result, more interventional studies now measure patient’s QOL as a meaningful endpoint. However, well-developed bone metastases specific quality of life instruments are lacking. A literature review was conducted to better understand the nature of QOL instruments used in bone metastases trials. A total of 47 articles evaluating QOL in patients with bone metastases were identified. Twenty-five different instruments were used to evaluate QOL with study-designed questionnaires and the EORTC QLQ-C30 being most commonly employed. Many studies used more than one scale or instrument to measure QOL. This makes it difficult to compare QOL in bone metastases patients across studies and come to any formal conclusions. Therefore, this review demonstrates the need to develop a bone module that can be used across countries in future clinical trials.

Cost-effectiveness of Oral Clodronate Compared with Oral Ibandronate, Intravenous Zoledronate or Intravenous Pamidronate in Breast Cancer Patients

This study aimed to identify the effects of different bisphosphonates in reducing skeletal-related events, and to determine whether there are any differences in their cost-effectiveness, taking into account their efficacy, safety profile and administration routes. A systematic literature search of databases, such as PubMed and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, supplemented by the latest congress abstracts from meetings of the European Hematology Association and the American Society of Clinical Oncology was conducted up to November 2006. Important references in reviews published by peer-reviewed journals were also taken into consideration. Our base-case cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany and the UK showed cost savings for oral clodronate therapy compared with other bisphosphonate therapies. In Germany, costs per patient of treatment with oral clodronate were €1092.38, €2360.40 and €2500.29 less than with oral ibandronate, intravenous pamidronate and intravenous zoledronate, respectively. The UK results were similar, the costs per patient of treatment with oral clodronate being €841.79, €2989.99 and €3669.19 less than with oral ibandronate, intravenous pamidronate and intravenous zoledronate, respectively.

Biphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis can be controlled by nonsurgical management

Sixteen patients with jaw biphosphonate-osteonecrosis and with exposed bone areas were subdivided into 2 treatment groups. The first group (7 patients) underwent superficial or radical surgical therapy, while the second (9 patients) underwent antibiotic treatment. A slight reduction of the necrotic areas was observed in 5 of 7 patients in the first group, whereas no change was observed in the remaining 2 patients at 22- and 24-month follow-up. A slight reduction of the necrotic areas was observed in 7 of 9 patients in the second group, whereas no change was observed in the remaining 2 patients at 5- and 24-month follow-up. The statistical analysis showed that the treatment regimen did not significantly influence the dimensional change in the exposed bone. The preliminary results seem to suggest that biphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis can be well controlled by a nonsurgical protocol consisting in long-term administration of antibiotics.

Effectiveness of bisphosphonates on bone pain and quality of life in breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease: a review

INTRODUCTION

Almost all patients with breast cancer and bone metastases suffer bone pain. Many receive bisphosphonate therapy only when the pain becomes unbearable or there is a direct threat of skeletal complications.

DISCUSSION

However, clinical trial data demonstrate that bisphosphonates offer significant and sustained relief from bone pain and can also improve quality of life in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

CONCLUSION

Moreover, new treatment schedules using high dose bisphosphonates can offer rapid relief of acute, severe bone pain.

Prosthodontic treatment during active osteonecrosis related to radiation and bisphosphonate therapy: A clinical report

Osteonecrosis of the jaws following the use of bisphosphonate drugs has been reported in the literature. Presently, there is limited evidence to establish guidelines for the prosthodontic management of patients with active osteonecrosis, a history of osteonecrosis, or medical history of using these medications. This clinical report reviews the current literature regarding bisphosphonate use, and reports the prosthodontic treatment of an edentulous patient with active osteonecrosis who had a history of oral bisphosphonate use and jaw irradiation.

Too Much, Too Little, Too Late to Start Again? Assessing the Efficacy of Bisphosphonates in Patients with Bone Metastases from Breast Cancer

The diagnosis of bone metastases can be a devastating occurrence for any woman with breast cancer. In this setting, bone metastases can result in skeletal-related events (SREs) such as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia. Several trials have confirmed the ability of bisphosphonates to reduce or delay these skeletal complications, and they should now be considered standard care for these women. The analysis of SREs is the typical primary end point in bisphosphonate studies. While not undermining their importance, the definition of SREs does not include complications important to patients, such as pain and immobility. It is these symptoms that are most frequently reported by patients, and bone pain and quality of life (QoL) are often measured as secondary end points in these trials. Bone pain and QoL measures are not standardized and are difficult to compare among patient populations. We do not yet know the true efficacy of bisphosphonates as analgesics or how they impact QoL. This paper reviews the current efficacy measures used in recent bisphosphonate trials and discusses their benefits and limitations. It also explores the role of bone biomarkers and their potential use in monitoring treatment response.

Myeloma bone disease

The major clinical manifestation of multiple myeloma is related to the osteolytic bone destruction. The bone disease can lead to pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, hypercalcemia, and pain. It is also a major cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients. These patients frequently require radiation therapy, surgery and analgesic medications. Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity, and these agents have been evaluated in myeloma patients with bone disease during the past 15 years. Several large randomized trials have been conducted in myeloma patients also receiving chemotherapy. Orally administered bisphosphonates have shown little ability to slow the development of skeletal complications in these patients. In contrast, more potent intravenous monthly infusions of either pamidronate or zoledronic acid have reduced the skeletal complications among these patients and are now a mainstay of myeloma therapy. A number of other types of new anti-bone-resorptive agents are also in early clinical development.

Bisphosphonates for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Bone is the most common site of metastatic disease associated with breast cancer affecting more than half of women during the course of their disease. Bone metastases are a significant cause of morbidity due to pain, pathological fractures, hypercalcaemia and spinal cord compression, and contribute to mortality. Bisphosphonates, which inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, are standard care for tumour-associated hypercalcaemia, and have been shown to reduce bone pain, improve quality of life, and to delay skeletal events and reduce their number in patients with multiple myeloma. Several randomized controlled trials have evaluated the role of bisphosphonates in breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of bisphosphonates on skeletal events, bone pain, quality of life and survival in women with early and advanced breast cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomized controlled trials were identified using the specialized register maintained by the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group (the search was applied to the databases Medline, Central/CCTR, Embase, CancerLit, and included handsearches from a number of other relevant sources). See: Cochrane Collaboration Collaborative Review Group in Breast Cancer search strategy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials evaluating skeletal events in women with metastatic breast cancer and early breast cancer comparing: 1. treatment with a bisphosphonate with the same treatment without a bisphosphonate 2. treatment with one bisphosphonate with treatment with a different bisphosphonate.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were selected by two independent reviewers. Studies fulfilling the eligibility criteria were evaluated for quality, particularly concealment of allocation to randomized groups. Data were extracted from the published papers or abstracts independently by the two primary reviewers for each of the specified endpoints (skeletal events, bone pain, quality of life and survival). Data on skeletal events and survival were presented as numbers of events, risk ratios and ratios of event rates. Meta-analyses were based on the fixed-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel). Subjective qualitative ratings were used to summarize the quality of life and pain data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty one randomized studies were included. All studies in advanced breast cancer included women with clinically evident bone metastases (osteolytic and/or mixed osteolytic/osteoblastic) by plain xray and/or radionucleotide bone scans. In nine studies that included 2189 women with advanced breast cancer and existing bone metastases, bisphosphonates reduced the risk of developing a skeletal event by 17% (RR 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.89; P < 0.00001). This effect was more modest, but still highly significant if episodes of hypercalcaemia were excluded (10 studies, 2656 women, RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.79-0.91 P = 0.0001). Overall, intravenous bisphosphonates reduce the risk of developing a skeletal event by 17 % (95% CI 0.78-0.89) compared with oral bisphosphonates, which reduce the risk of developing a skeletal event by 16 % (95% CI 0.76-0.93). Of the currently available bisphosphonates, 4 mg IV zolendronate reduces the risk of developing a skeletal event by 41% (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42-0.82), compared with 33 % by 90 mg IV pamdronate (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.87), 18 % by 6 mg IV ibandronate (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-1.00), 14 % by 50mg oral ibandronate (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73-1.02) and 16 % by 1600 mg oral clodronate (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.98). Compared with placebo or no bisphosphonate, with bisphosphonates the skeletal event rate was lower in all of 12 studies in women with clinically evident bone metastases (median reduction of 29%, range 14-48%); statistically significant reductions were reported in 10 trials (four intravenous pamidronate, two oral clodronate, one intravenous ibandronate and two oral ibandronate, a single intravenous zolendronate study). Studies of intravenous zolendronate, pamidronate and oral clodronate in women with advanced breast cancer and clinically evident bone metastases showed significant delays in the median time to a skeletal event. Event-free survival was also reported to be longer in women receiving 6 mg of ibandronate compared with controls. Compared with placebo or no bisphosphonate, with bisphosphonates significant improvements in bone pain were reported in seven studies (90 mg iv pamidronate, 4 mg iv zolendronate, 6 mg iv ibandronate, 1600 mg oral clodronate and 50 mg oral ibandronate). Eight studies tested the effect of bisphosphonates compared with placebo on patient-rated quality of life using a referenced scale. Improvements in global quality of life were reported in only the three studies of iv and oral ibandronate. Treatment with bisphosphonates does not appear to affect survival in women with advanced breast cancer. Intravenous zolendronate (4 mg) appeared to be as effective as pamidronate (90mg) when directly compared in a single randomized double-blind study, based on the risk of developing a skeletal related event, the median time to first skeletal event and skeletal morbidity rate (events per year). Updated re-evaluation of the primary data in the overall population, by multiple event analysis using the method of Anderson-Gill, showed a reduction in the risk of developing any skeletal complication (including hypercalcamia) of 20 % (zolendronate 4 mg compared with pamidronate 90 mg, RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 - 0.97, p = 0.025), suggesting a possible advantage of zolendronate 4 mg compared with pamidronate 90 mg. In the three studies of bisphosphonates in 320 women with advanced breast cancer without clinically evident bone metastases, there was no significant reduction in the incidence of skeletal events (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.67-1.47; P = 0.97). In the three studies of oral clodronate that included 1653 women with early breast cancer, there was no statistically significant evidence of reduction in the risk of developing skeletal metastases (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.66-1.01; P = 0.07), or of visceral metastases (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80-1.12, p = 0.53). However there was evidence of improved survival (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69-0.97, p = 0.02). However there was statistically significant heterogeneity among these studies and a random effects meta-analysis emphasizes the uncertainty of this finding (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.45 - 1.25; p = 0.19). Toxicity or adverse events were described in 18 of the 21 studies. In general, few serious adverse events were reported. Toxicity associated with bisphosphonates is generally mild and infrequent. Renal toxicity is the main issue with intravenous zolendronate and is dose (8 mg) and infusion time related (< 15 minutes). With daily oral calcium (500 mg) and vitamin D (300-400IU) no significant renal impairment or hypocalcamia was observed with a 15 minute infusion of 4 mg IV zolendronate compared with 90 mg pamidronate. Monitoring of renal function with every cycle of zolendronate was undertaken in all studies and is recommended in practice. No significant renal toxicity was observed with intravenous pamidronate or ibandronate. Mild gastrointestinal toxicity is the main toxicity with oral clodronate and oral ibandronate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In women with advanced breast cancer and clinically evident bone metastases, the use of bisphosphonates (oral or intravenous) in addition to hormone therapy or chemotherapy, when compared with placebo or no bisphosphonates, reduces the risk of developing a skeletal event and the skeletal event rate, as well as increasing the time to skeletal event. Some bisphosphonates may also reduce bone pain in women with advanced breast cancer and clinically evident bone metastases and may improve global quality of life. The optimal timing of initiation of bisphosphonate therapy and duration of treatment is uncertain. In women with early breast cancer the effectiveness of bisphosphonates remains an open question for research.

Adjuvant Analgesics in Cancer Pain Management

Adjuvant analgesics are defined as drugs with a primary indication other than pain that have analgesic properties in some painful conditions. The group includes numerous drugs in diverse classes. Although the widespread use of these drugs as first-line agents in chronic nonmalignant pain syndromes suggests that the term "adjuvant" is a misnomer, they usually are combined with a less-than-satisfactory opioid regimen when administered for cancer pain. Some adjuvant analgesics are useful in several painful conditions and are described as multipurpose adjuvant analgesics (antidepressants, corticosteroids, alpha(2)-adrenergic agonists, neuroleptics), whereas others are specific for neuropathic pain (anticonvulsants, local anesthetics, N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists), bone pain (calcitonin, bisphosphonates, radiopharmaceuticals), musculoskeletal pain (muscle relaxants), or pain from bowel obstruction (octreotide, anticholinergics). This article reviews the evidence supporting the use of each class of adjuvant analgesic for the treatment of pain in cancer patients and provides a comprehensive outline of dosing recommendations, side effects, and drug interactions.

Short-Term Intermittent Intravenous Clodronate in the Prevention of Bone Loss Related to Chemotherapy-Induced Ovarian Failure

Chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure causes rapid bone loss in premenopausal women with early breast cancer. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of intravenous intermittent clodronate during adjuvant chemotherapy in prevention of this rapid bone loss. 45 premenopausal women with early stage breast cancer were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. In addition, all women were randomly allocated to receive either seven cycles of intravenous clodronate infusions (1500 mg each) parallel to the chemotherapy or no further therapy. The mean bone loss in the lumbar spine at 6 months was -0.5% in the clodronate group and -1.4% in the control group (p = 0.22) and, at 12 months, -3.9% and -3.6%, respectively (p = 0.62). Type I collagen metabolite PINP levels at six months were significantly lower in the clodronate group than in the control group: 22.6 microg/l (range 15.7-55.8 microg/l) and 44.0 microg/l (range 12.5-91.9 microg/l), respectively (p = 0.0001). At 12 months, no difference between the PINP levels in clodronate and control groups were seen. In conclusion, in this small study a short-term intermittent intravenous clodronate treatment did not seem to prevent clinically significantly the bone loss related to chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure in premenopausal women with early stage breast cancer, even though a significant reduction of a biochemical marker of bone turnover (PINP) was seen during the therapy.

Improved quality of life after long-term treatment with the bisphosphonate ibandronate in patients with metastatic bone disease due to breast cancer

Bone metastases occur in most women with advanced breast cancer and can lead to considerable morbidity and a rapid deterioration in the patient's quality of life. It was the aim of the present study to assess changes in quality of life and bone pain due to intravenous (i.v.) ibandronate, a potent third-generation bisphosphonate. In a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with bone metastases due to breast cancer, 466 women were randomised to receive placebo, 2 mg ibandronate or 6 mg ibandronate for up to 96 weeks. Treatment was administered i.v. at 3- or 4-weekly intervals. Clinical endpoints included the incidence of adverse events, quality of life (assessed using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Scale - Core 30 questionnaire (QLQ-C30)), and bone pain (assessed on a 5-point scale from 0=none to 4=intolerable). Ibandronate was generally well tolerated. Compared with baseline measurements, the bone pain score was increased at the last assessment in both the placebo and 2 mg ibandronate groups, but was significantly reduced in the patients receiving 6 mg ibandronate (-0.28+/-1.11, P < 0.001). A significant improvement in quality of life was demonstrated for patients treated with ibandronate (P < 0.05) for all global health status. Overall, at the last assessment, the 6 mg ibandronate group showed significantly better functioning compared with placebo (P = 0.004), and had significantly better scores on the domains of physical, emotional, and social functioning, and in global health status (P < 0.05). Significant improvements in the symptoms of fatigue and pain were also observed in the 6 mg ibandronate group. I.v. ibandronate treatment leads to significant improvements in quality of life, and is an effective and well-tolerated palliative treatment in patients with bone metastases due to breast cancer.

Osteonecrosis of the jaws associated with the use of bisphosphonates: a review of 63 cases

PURPOSE

Bisphosphonates are widely used in the management of metastatic disease to the bone and in the treatment of osteoporosis. We were struck in the past 3 years with a cluster of patients with necrotic lesions in the jaw who shared 1 common clinical feature, that they had all received chronic bisphosphonate therapy. The necrosis that was detected was otherwise typical of osteoradionecrosis, an entity that we rarely encountered at our center, with less than 2 patients presenting with a similar manifestation per year.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who presented to our Oral Surgery service between February 2001 and November 2003 with the diagnosis of refractory osteomyelitis and a history of chronic bisphosphonate therapy.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients have been identified with such a diagnosis. Fifty-six patients had received intravenous bisphosphonates for at least 1 year and 7 patients were on chronic oral bisphosphonate therapy. The typical presenting lesions were either a nonhealing extraction socket or an exposed jawbone; both were refractory to conservative debridement and antibiotic therapy. Biopsy of these lesions showed no evidence of metastatic disease. The majority of these patients required surgical procedures to remove the involved bone.

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the current trend of increasing and widespread use of chronic bisphosphonate therapy, our observation of an associated risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw should alert practitioners to monitor for this previously unrecognized potential complication. An early diagnosis might prevent or reduce the morbidity resulting from advanced destructive lesions of the jaw bone.

[Current multidisciplinary treatment of metastatic prostatic cancer]

Prostate cancer is one of the commonest causes of cancer-related death in the western world. The morbi-mortality associated is usually a direct consequence of metastatic spread to bone, in up to 50% of patients at first presentation. The aim of treatment of metastatic patients is to alleviate and to prevent the distressing symptoms. The approach include hormone-therapy, radiotherapy, radio-nuclides, surgery, chemotherapy, bisphosphonates and new drugs (agents that inhibit angiogenesis, immunotherapy and therapies that affect the differentiation). Decisions about therapy must also take into consideration the androgen-dependent or independent, so hormone-therapy is the first step of the treatment; the number and location of bone metastases; the severity of symptoms; the available of therapies; the status performance of patient; the prognosis and the cost-effect relationship. Some treatments have established indications whereas others are still in process of study in order to determinate their efficacy, their model of treatment and their indications. This article revises and updates these treatments.

Clinical and economic issues in the treatment of advanced breast cancer with bisphosphonates

An ideal palliative therapy for bone metastases would successfully reduce skeletal complications in several thousands of breast cancer patients. Second- and third-generation bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the overall skeletal complication rate and the time to first skeletal complication. Nevertheless, not enough evidence supports their benefit on quality of life. Furthermore, bisphosphonates are expensive (up to 775 US dollars per month, 2002 value) and cost-effectiveness evaluations have been limited to pamidronate (pamidronic acid). In economic evaluations of pamidronate, resulting incremental dollar per quality-adjusted life year gained ranged from cost savings to 108,000 US dollars per quality-adjusted life year. The data were quite sensitive to quality-of-life estimates and country-specific cost values. Because of the wide range of the cost-effectiveness ratio, it is uncertain whether the universal prescription of bisphosphonates in this setting represents an efficient use of healthcare resources. Probably, country- and drug-specific policies might increase the efficiency of this treatment. Further outcomes research is required to assess these agents more fully.