Risedronate prevents bone loss in breast cancer survivors: a 2-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Development and Characterization of a Peptide-Bisphosphonate Nanoparticle for the Treatment of Breast Cancer

In women, breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer, and despite advancements in diagnosis and treatment, 20-30% of early stage BC patients develop metastatic disease. Metastatic BC is deemed an incurable disease, which accounts for 90% of BC related deaths, with only 26% of metastatic patients reaching a 5 year survival rate. Therefore, there is an unmet need for the prevention or treatment of metastasis in early stage breast cancer patients. Bisphosphonates (BPs) are potent inhibitors of bone resorption and are extensively used for the prevention of osteoporosis and other skeletal disorders, as well as for the treatment of secondary bone cancer in BC patients. Furthermore, the direct anticancer activity of BPs has been established in primary tumor models. However, these studies were limited by the need for dosages far above the clinical range to overcome BPs' high affinity for bones and poor accumulation in the tumor itself, which leads to toxicity, including osteonecrosis of the jaw. To decrease BP dosage, increase bioavailability, and direct anticancer activity, we used the RALA (R-) peptide delivery system to form highly stable NPs with the nitrogen containing BP, risedronate (R-RIS). In vitro studies showed that, in comparison to RIS, R-RIS nanoparticles increased cytotoxicity and reduced metastatic features such as proliferation, migration, invasion, and adhesion of metastatic BC cells to bones. Furthermore, in an in vivo model, R-RIS had increased tumor accumulation while still maintaining similar bone accumulation to RIS alone. This increase in tumor accumulation corresponded with decreased tumor volume and lungs metastasis. R-RIS has great potential to be used in combination with standard of care chemotherapy for the treatment of primary BC and its metastasis while still having its bone resorption inhibiting properties.

Bone-modifying agents for reducing bone loss in women with early and locally advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are amongst the bone-modifying agents used as supportive treatment in women with breast cancer who do not have bone metastases. These agents aim to reduce bone loss and the risk of fractures. Bisphosphonates have demonstrated survival benefits, particularly in postmenopausal women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the effects of different bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment to reduce bone mineral density loss and osteoporotic fractures in women with breast cancer without bone metastases and generate a ranking of treatment options using network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by electronically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase until January 2023. We searched various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for women with breast cancer without bone metastases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes were bone mineral density, quality of life, overall fractures, overall survival and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven trials (35,163 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 34 trials (33,793 participants) could be considered in the NMA (8 different treatment options). Bone mineral density We estimated that the bone mineral density of participants with no treatment/placebo measured as total T-score was -1.34. Evidence from the NMA (9 trials; 1166 participants) suggests that treatment with ibandronate (T-score -0.77; MD 0.57, 95% CI -0.05 to 1.19) may slightly increase bone mineral density (low certainty) and treatment with zoledronic acid (T-score -0.45; MD 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16) probably slightly increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Risedronate (T-score -1.08; MD 0.26, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.84) may result in little to no difference compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). We are uncertain whether alendronate (T-score 2.36; MD 3.70, 95% CI -2.01 to 9.41) increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Quality of life No quantitative analyses could be performed for quality of life, as only three studies reported this outcome. All three studies showed only minimal differences between the respective interventions examined. Overall fracture rate We estimated that 70 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo had fractures. Evidence from the NMA (16 trials; 19,492 participants) indicates that treatment with clodronate or ibandronate (42 of 1000; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92; 40 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86, respectively) decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (high certainty). Denosumab or zoledronic acid (51 of 1000; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.01; 55 of 1000; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.11, respectively) probably slightly decreases the number of fractures; and risedronate (39 of 1000; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.16) probably decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Pamidronate (106 of 1000; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.06) probably increases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Overall survival We estimated that 920 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo survived overall. Evidence from the NMA (17 trials; 30,991 participants) suggests that clodronate (924 of 1000; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17), denosumab (927 of 1000; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21), ibandronate (915 of 1000; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34) and zoledronic acid (925 of 1000; HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14) may result in little to no difference regarding overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Additionally, we are uncertain whether pamidronate (905 of 1000; HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.78) decreases overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Osteonecrosis of the jaw We estimated that 1 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 23,527 participants) suggests that denosumab (25 of 1000; RR 24.70, 95% CI 9.56 to 63.83), ibandronate (6 of 1000; RR 5.77, 95% CI 2.04 to 16.35) and zoledronic acid (9 of 1000; RR 9.41, 95% CI 3.54 to 24.99) probably increases the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Additionally, clodronate (3 of 1000; RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.83 to 8.50) may increase the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Renal impairment We estimated that 14 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed renal impairment. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 22,469 participants) suggests that ibandronate (28 of 1000; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.88) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Zoledronic acid (21 of 1000; RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.58) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment while clodronate (12 of 1000; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39) and denosumab (11 of 1000; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19) probably results in little to no difference regarding the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When considering bone-modifying agents for managing bone loss in women with early or locally advanced breast cancer, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Our findings suggest that bisphosphonates (excluding alendronate and pamidronate) or denosumab compared to no treatment or placebo likely results in increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture rates. Our survival analysis that included pre and postmenopausal women showed little to no difference regarding overall survival. These treatments may lead to more adverse events. Therefore, forming an overall judgement of the best ranked bone-modifying agent is challenging. More head-to-head comparisons, especially comparing denosumab with any bisphosphonate, are needed to address gaps and validate the findings of this review.

Preventing Bone Loss in Breast Cancer Patients: Designing a Personalized Clinical Pathway in a Large-Volume Research Hospital

BACKGROUND

We assess the impact of bone health clinical management in breast cancer (BC) patients receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy and design a personalized clinical pathway to reduce bone loss in an Italian research hospital.

METHODS

The primary endpoint was to assess (through the process improvement organizational method) the clinical pathway that post-surgical BC patients prescribed with endocrine therapy undergo to prevent bone loss. The secondary endpoint was to design a personalized clinical pathway for a prompt implementation of guidelines, to assess and possibly prescribe antiresorptive therapy.

RESULTS

During the first year of the execution of the new Diagnostic Therapeutic Assistance Pathway, a 60% increase in Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry evaluations within 30 days and a 39.5% increase in antiresorptive therapy prescription within 90 days (since the prescription of endocrine therapy) were shown, thus increasing patients' compliance.

CONCLUSION

Case managers and bone health specialists in this context can improve patients' adherence to therapies and bone health, helping physicians to expand their collaboration.

Bone health in breast cancer

Early breast cancer is among the most common cancers worldwide. Recent advances continue to improve outcomes and increase long-term survivorship. However, therapeutic modalities are deleterious for patients' bone health. While antiresorptive therapy may partially negate this, consequent reduction in rates of fragility fractures remains unproven. Selective prescription of bisphosphonates or denosumab may be an amicable middle ground. Recent evidence also suggests a possible role of osteoclast inhibitors as adjuvant therapy, but the evidence is modest at best. In this narrative clinical review, we explore the impact of various adjuvant modalities on bone mineral density and fragility fracture rates of early breast cancer survivors. We also review optimal patient selection for antiresorptive agents, their impact on rates of fragility fractures, and the possible role of these agents as adjuvant therapy.

Bone Health and Denosumab Discontinuation in Oncology Populations

Managing bone health after denosumab cessation is a commonly encountered challenge. Although the “rebound phenomenon” is generally recognized by endocrinologists in the context of osteoporosis, it is not as widely understood in the context of bone metastases and cancer. This commentary reviews the evidence on the efficacy and safety of various bone health agents in mitigating the “rebound phenomenon” in cancer populations.

Pharmacological Prevention and Management of Skeletal-Related Events and Bone Loss in Individuals with Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To provide a literature review of the clinical efficacy and safety data of various pharmacological agents used to manage bone health in people affected by cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed articles and research publications identified from PubMed and relevant clinical guidelines were used in this evidence synthesis.

CONCLUSION

Individuals with cancers such as breast and prostate cancers, multiple myeloma, and other malignancies are at a high risk of developing skeletal-related events such as bone fracture, bone metastasis, and osteoporosis. Pharmacologic agents such as bisphosphonates and RANK-L inhibitor (denosumab) are the mainstay therapy options for managing bone health in this population.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses and nurse practitioners should be aware of the efficacy data of bisphosphonates and denosumab but also should be well-versed in the appropriate administration of these agents, potential side effect profiles, timely assessment, and interventions to optimize quality of life.

Breast cancer therapy and bone

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and the leading cause of cancer-associated mortality. The estrogen deprivation associated with therapies used to treat this disease may result in significant loss of bone density and a consequent increase in fracture risk. Anti-resorptive osteoporosis therapies (bisphosphonates and the inhibitor of receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand [RANKL] denosumab) play an important role in the mitigation of cancer therapy-induced bone loss (CTIBL), and may function as adjuvant therapy in moderate to high-risk breast cancer to prevent disease recurrence. Various international guidelines have delineated treatment thresholds based on both bone density assessment and clinical risk factors for CTIBL. The role of these bone-targeted therapies as adjuvant anti-cancer treatment is evolving. Currently, evidence supports the use of the bisphosphonates, zoledronic acid and clodronate, in this setting. Unfortunately, a focus on bone health in women with breast cancer is often not prioritized, leaving this group vulnerable to significant bone loss and subsequent fracture.

Comparing the reporting and conduct quality of exercise and pharmacological randomised controlled trials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the quality of exercise randomised controlled trial (RCT) reporting and conduct in clinical populations (ie, adults with or at risk of chronic conditions) and compare with matched pharmacological RCTs.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Embase (Elsevier), PubMed (NLM) and CINAHL (EBSCO).

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs of exercise in clinical populations with matching pharmacological RCTs published in leading clinical, medical and specialist journals with impact factors ≥15.

REVIEW METHODS

Overall RCT quality was evaluated by two independent reviewers using three research reporting guidelines (ie, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT; pharmacological RCTs)/CONSORT for non-pharmacological treatments; exercise RCTs), CONSORT-Harms, Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and two risk of bias assessment (research conduct) tools (ie, Cochrane Risk of Bias, Jadad Scale). We compared research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs with matched pharmacological RCTs, and examined factors associated with quality in exercise and pharmacological RCTs, separately.

FINDINGS

Forty-eight exercise RCTs (11 658 patients; median sample n=138) and 48 matched pharmacological RCTs were evaluated (18 501 patients; median sample n=160). RCTs were conducted primarily in cardiovascular medicine (43%) or oncology (31%). Overall quality score (composite of all research reporting and conduct quality scores; primary endpoint) for exercise RCTs was 58% (median score 46 of 80; IQR: 39-51) compared with 77% (53 of 68; IQR: 47-58) in the matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.001). Individual quality scores for trial reporting and conduct were lower in exercise RCTs compared with matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.03). Factors associated with higher overall quality scores for exercise RCTs were journal impact factor (≥25), sample size (≥152) and publication year (≥2013).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs is inferior to matched pharmacological RCTs. Suboptimal RCT reporting and conduct impact the fidelity, interpretation, and reproducibility of exercise trials and, ultimately, implementation of exercise in clinical populations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018095033.

Bone modifying agents for bone loss in patients with aromatase inhibitor as adjuvant treatment for breast cancer; insights from a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The data of head-to-head comparisons of the anti-fracture efficacy of bone modifying agents (BMAs) in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitor (AI) are not available. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of different BMAs in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant AI.

METHODS

We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the change of bone mineral densities (BMDs) and the risk of fracture in the selected studies using a random effect model. The primary outcomes are the change of BMD of lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) from the baseline (ΔBMD, %) at 1 and 2 years and the risk of fracture.

RESULTS

We identified and included a total of 16 randomized controlled trials for this analysis. All BMAs included (risedronate, zoledronate, and denosumab) were associated with a significant increase in BMD of LS and TH at 1 and 2 years compared with no upfront treatment group. Among BMAs, zoledronate and denosumab use resulted in significantly higher BMD of LS and TH at 1 and 2 years compared with risedronate. The risk of fracture was significantly lower in the patients who received denosumab or risedronate compared with the patients without upfront treatment (Relative risk (RR) [95% CI] 0.51 [0.38-0.67] and 0.54 [0.35-0.83], respectively).

CONCLUSION

Among the bisphosphonates, zoledronate increased BMD the most, but risedronate, not zoledronate, use was associated with lower risk of fracture. Denosumab increased BMD not only of LS but also of the cortical-bone-rich hip, and showed a significant reduction of fracture risk.

Fractures frequently occur in older cancer patients: the MD Anderson Cancer Center experience

PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTION

A growing number of cancer patients are older adults aged 65 years and older. Patients with cancer are at increased risk for developing osteoporosis, falls, and fractures. We sought to identify the incidence of fractures in older adults who underwent cancer care between January 2013 and December 2015.

METHODS

A comprehensive geriatric assessment was performed, and bone densitometry was measured at baseline, with a 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

In this study, among 304 patients with gastrointestinal, urologic, breast, lung, and gynecologic cancers we evaluated, and who completed the bone density testing (n = 199), 80% had osteoporosis or low bone mass (osteopenia). There was a higher prevalence of osteoporosis in cancer patients (40 vs. 16%, p = 0.05) than in population studies. Vitamin D insufficiency (< 30 ng/ml) was identified in 49% of tested cases (n = 245). Risk factors for low bone mass or osteoporosis were advanced age (p = 0.05), malnutrition (p = 0.04), and frailty (p = 0.01). Over the following 2 years (median follow-up 18 months), there was an incidence of fractures of 110 per 1000 person-years, or 2.8 times higher than reported in individuals without cancer. Risk factors for fractures included advanced age (70-79 vs. 60-69 years, p = 0.05) and frailty (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Most older cancer patients studied have osteoporosis or low bone mass, resulting in an almost 3-fold increase in fracture risk as compared to epidemiologic studies. Bone health issues are commonly seen in older cancer patients, we recommend universal bone density testing. The initiation of antiresorptive treatment when findings are of osteopenia or osteoporosis will reduce the risk of fractures.

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.

Improvement of Bone Physiology and Life Quality Due to Association of Risedronate and Anastrozole

The endocrine therapy is the new frontiers of many breast cancers hormone sensitive. Hormone therapy for treating women with hormone receptor-positive cancer suppresses breast cancer growth either by reducing estrogen synthesis or by interfering with the action of estrogen within tumor cells. In this prospective randomized observational study we investigate the effect of adjuvant anastrozole in monotherapy or associated with risedronate on bone physiology and quality of life in postmenopausal, hormone-sensitive early breast cancer women at mild to moderate risk of fragility fractures.

Methods : 84 women were randomly assigned to receive anastrozole alone (group A) or anastrozole plus oral risedronate (group A+R). At baseline and after 24 months lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN) BMD were evaluated with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was examined using the short-form healthy survey.

Results : After 24 months, the group A+R has showed a significant increase in T-score for LS (p < 0.05) and for FN (p < 0.05) whereas women of group A had a statistically significant rate of bone loss both in LS T-score (p < 0.05) and in FN (p < 0.05). A significant change in T-score BMD was seen for group A+R compared with group A at the LS (p = 0.04) and at FN (p = 0.04). Finally, group A+R showed an overall significant improvement of health profile (SF-36) in group A (p = 0.03).

Conclusion : Postmenopausal breast cancer women with osteopenia during treatment with anastrozole have considerable risk of developing osteoporosis during the first 2 years; preventive measures such as healthy lifestyle and daily supplements of calcium and vitamin D alone seem to be insufficient in holding their bones healthy. Our findings suggest the usefulness of addition of risedronate in order to prevent aromatase inhibitors-related bone loss, not only in case of high-risk of fractures, but also for women at mild-moderate risk. This determines a significant improvement in bone health and a positive impact on HRQoL.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A retrospective study on screening and management of osteoporosis in breast cancer women treated with aromatase inhibitors in Libya

Negative health effects of aromatase inhibitors (AI) treatments on bones such as osteoporosis are evidenced. This impact of the aromatase inhibitors on bone. This study aimed to improve the medical assistance given to patients under AI treatment to minimize secondary osteoporosis. Fifty Libyan postmenopausal women treated with AI to fight breast cancer were selected from attendants Tripoli Medical Center (TMC), Oncology Department during year 2014. A closed questionnaire was requested from each women including data about age, age at AI therapy, and types of AI, age at bone densitometry measurement, onset and symptoms of osteoporosis, treatment of osteoporosis and measurement of vitamin D and calcium supplement given. The study revealed a poor consideration given to apply the recommendation in cases suffering osteoporosis events. Our results suggest an active implementation of the guidelines concerning the high corporation levels that should be done between oncologist, specialist in osteoporosis, and patients to offer reliable diagnostic and post-therapy follow up.

Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy and Bone Health in Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is one of the most common malignancies of women. The majority of breast cancers express estrogen and/or progesterone receptors, permitting anticancer targeting strategies to reduce estrogen signaling in the cancer cells and thereby lowering the risk of breast cancer recurrence. The development of the selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) tamoxifen marked a significant milestone in breast cancer care that transcended older estrogen ablative strategies such as oophorectomy and ovarian irradiation. An unintended benefit of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women was bone density preservation. The third generation of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have demonstrated superior efficacy to tamoxifen in improving disease-free survival in postmenopausal women. However, the AIs significantly increase bone resorption, reduce bone mineral density, and increase the risk of fracture above that of tamoxifen. As a consequence of this, clinical oncologists have assumed a larger role in the screening and treatment of the skeletal complications of breast cancer therapies. The key features of managing bone health in women with early stage breast cancer receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy are reviewed here.

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Medication-induced osteoporosis: screening and treatment strategies

Drug-induced osteoporosis is a significant health problem and many physicians are unaware that many commonly prescribed medications contribute to significant bone loss and fractures. In addition to glucocorticoids, proton pump inhibitors, selective serotonin receptor inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, anticonvulsants, medroxyprogesterone acetate, aromatase inhibitors, androgen deprivation therapy, heparin, calcineurin inhibitors, and some chemotherapies have deleterious effects on bone health. Furthermore, many patients are treated with combinations of these medications, possibly compounding the harmful effects of these drugs. Increasing physician awareness of these side effects will allow for monitoring of bone health and therapeutic interventions to prevent or treat drug-induced osteoporosis.

A review of osteoporosis management in younger premenopausal women

The purpose of this review is to describe the available evidence for osteoporosis treatments in young and premenopausal women. A review of articles evaluating the treatment or prevention of osteoporosis in young (age less than 50 years) or premenopausal women was conducted. Several trials evaluating the treatment of anorexia nervosa and use of hormone therapy in those women, the use of bisphosphonates in women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer and the use of bisphosphonates, teriparatide and vitamin D in women with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis are described. Limited data were found to support the treatment of osteoporosis in women with idiopathic osteoporosis or cystic fibrosis, or after kidney transplant. The evidence for treatment of osteoporosis in premenopausal women is not nearly as robust as that for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Although fracture risk in the premenopausal population is low, women with secondary osteoporosis may benefit from treatment with various agents, depending upon the condition.

Fracture incidence after 3 years of aromatase inhibitor therapy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to describe the fracture incidence and bone mineral density (BMD) evolution in a large cohort of post-menopausal women with breast cancer after 3 years of aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective, longitudinal study in real-life setting. Each woman had an extensive medical assessment, a biological evaluation, a BMD measurement, and systematic spinal X-rays at baseline and after 3 years of AI therapy. Women with osteoporosis at baseline (T-score < -2.5 and/or non-traumatic fracture history) were treated by oral weekly bisphosphonates.

RESULTS

Among 497 women (mean age 63.8 ± 9.6 years) included in this study, 389 had a bone evaluation both at baseline and after 3 years of AI therapy: 267 women (mean age 61.2 ± 8.6) with no osteoporosis at baseline and 122 women (mean age 67.2 ± 9.1) with osteoporosis at baseline justifying a weekly oral bisphosphonate treatment. Women without bisphosphonates had a significant decrease in spine BMD (-3.5%, P < 0.01), neck BMD (-2.0%, P < 0.01), and total hip BMD (-2.1%, P < 0.01) over the 3 years but only 15 of them (5.6%) presented an incident vertebral or non-vertebral fracture. In osteoporotic women treated with bisphosphonates, spine and hip BMD were maintained at 3 years but 12 of them (9.8%) had an incident fracture. These fractured women were significantly older (74.1 ± 9.8 versus 66.5 ± 8.8) but also presented BMD loss during treatment suggesting poor adherence to bisphosphonate treatment.

CONCLUSION

This real-life study confirmed that AIs induced moderate bone loss and low fracture incidence in post-menopausal women without initial osteoporosis. In women with baseline osteoporosis and AI therapy, oral bisphosphonates maintain BMD but were associated with a persistent fracture risk, particularly in older women.

Bone Health in Patients with Breast Cancer: Recommendations from an Evidence-Based Canadian Guideline

Bone loss is common in patients with breast cancer. Bone modifying agents (BMAs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, have been shown to reverse or stabilize bone loss and may be useful in the primary and metastatic settings. The purpose of this review is to provide clear evidence-based strategies for the management of bone loss and its symptoms in breast cancer. A systematic review of clinical trials and meta-analyses published between 1996 and 2012 was conducted of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Reference lists were hand-searched for additional publications. Recommendations were developed based on the best available evidence. Zoledronate, pamidronate, clodronate, and denosumab are recommended for metastatic breast cancer patients; however, no one agent can be recommended over another. Zoledronate or any oral bisphosphonate and denosumab should be considered in primary breast cancer patients who are postmenopausal on aromatase inhibitor therapy and have a high risk of fracture and/or a low bone mineral density and in premenopausal primary breast cancer patients who become amenorrheic after therapy. No one agent can be recommended over another. BMAs are not currently recommended as adjuvant therapy in primary breast cancer for the purpose of improving survival, although a major Early Breast Cancer Cooperative Trialists’ Group meta-analysis is underway which may impact future practice. Adverse events can be managed with appropriate supportive care.

Skeletal manifestations of treatment of breast cancer

Breast cancer and osteoporosis are common diagnoses in women. Breast cancer survival has improved due to earlier detection and improved treatments. As most breast cancers are estrogen receptor positive, treatment is often aimed at altering the hormonal environment. Both pre and postmenopausal women undergoing these therapies are at risk for bone loss. The patient's health care team ought to have an awareness of the potential for breast cancer treatments to accelerate bone loss. Women with early stage breast cancer are treated with curative intent and, therefore, maintaining bone health is important and is part of the survivorship care to ensure an optimal quality of life.

Bisphosphonates in the adjuvant setting of breast cancer therapy--effect on survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The role of bisphosphonates (BP) in early breast cancer (BC) has been considered controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that appraised the effects of BP on survival in early BC.

Methods

RCTs were identified by searching the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE databases and conference proceedings. Hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and relative risks of adverse events were estimated and pooled.

Results

Thirteen trials met the inclusion criteria, evaluating a total of 15,762 patients. Meta-analysis of ten trials which reported OS revealed no statistically significant benefit in OS for BP (HR 0.89, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.01). Meta-analysis of nine trials which reported the DFS revealed no benefit in DFS (HR 0.95 (0.81–1.12)). Meta-analysis upon menopausal status showed a statistically significant better DFS in the BP-treated patients (HR 0.81(0.69–0.95)). In meta-regression, chemotherapy was negatively associated with HR of survival.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis indicates a positive effect for adjuvant BP on survival only in postmenopausal patients. Meta-regression demonstrated a negative association between chemotherapy use BP effect on survival. Further large scale RCTs are warranted to unravel the specific subgroups that would benefit from the addition of BP in the adjuvant setting.

Calcium and vitamin D supplementation and loss of bone mineral density in women undergoing breast cancer therapy

An unintended consequence of breast cancer therapies is an increased risk of osteoporosis due to accelerated bone loss. We conducted a systematic review of calcium and/or vitamin D (Ca±D) supplementation trials for maintaining bone mineral density (BMD) in women with breast cancer using the "before-after" data from the Ca±D supplemented comparison group of trials evaluating the effect of drugs such as bisphosphonates on BMD. Whether Ca±D supplements increase BMD in women undergoing breast cancer therapy has never been tested against an unsupplemented control group. However, results from 16 trials indicate that the Ca±D doses tested (500-1500mg calcium; 200-1000IU vitamin D) were inadequate to prevent BMD loss in these women. Cardiovascular disease is the main cause of mortality in women with breast cancer. Because calcium supplements may increase cardiovascular disease risk, future trials should evaluate the safety and efficacy of Ca±D supplementation in women undergoing breast cancer therapy.

Role of bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women with breast cancer

Data suggest that bisphosphonates protect bone health and may have anticancer activity in postmenopausal women during adjuvant breast cancer therapy. However, key questions remain surrounding the role of adjuvant bisphosphonates in breast cancer, including patient populations deriving benefit, timing/scheduling of therapy, and specific clinical benefits. PubMed, Embase, and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium databases provide study results that address these issues in postmenopausal women. Review of these data would aid physicians in providing optimal management of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. For example, recent data reinforce use of intravenous bisphosphonates concurrently with adjuvant endocrine therapy to ameliorate bone loss in recently postmenopausal or osteopenic postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. In contrast, clinical data for oral bisphosphonates have not provided support for using anti-osteoporosis doses in this setting, and the optimal dose is unclear. Additionally, current clinical data show improvements in disease outcomes with bisphosphonates in many studies, although not in all patient subsets. Strong support for the potential adjuvant anticancer benefits from bisphosphonates has been demonstrated in women with established menopause (i.e., very low circulating estrogen levels). Initiating bisphosphonates early and concomitantly with adjuvant therapy generally provided the greatest benefits. However, questions remain such as schedule of treatment and relative potency among the intravenous bisphosphonates and elucidation of the role of oral bisphosphonates, as well as ongoing studies that might provide clarification. This review addresses these controversies in the context of translational research, which may provide the rationale for ongoing studies and evolving treatment paradigms in this area.

[Treatment effect of breast cancer and prostate cancer on bone]

Aromatase inhibitors are used in the treatment of breast cancer and androgen deprivation therapy is used in prostate cancer. Both of them induce bone loss and increase fracture incidence. Early detection is important for patients with increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. In this article we review the available treatments and their indication to prevent the onset of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures in this patient group.

Guidance for the prevention of bone loss and fractures in postmenopausal women treated with aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer: an ESCEO position paper

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are widely used in women with breast cancer, but they are known to increase bone loss and risk of fractures. Based on available evidence and recommendations, an ESCEO working group proposes specific guidance for the prevention of AIs-induced bone loss and fragility fractures.

INTRODUCTION

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are now the standard treatment for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. However, deleterious effects of AIs on bone health have been reported. An ESCEO working group proposes guidance for the prevention of bone loss and fragility fractures in post-menopausal women with breast cancer receiving AIs.

METHODS

A panel of experts addressed the issue of skeletal effects of AIs and effectiveness of antifracture therapies for the prevention of AI-induced bone loss and fractures. Recommendations by national and international organizations, and experts' opinions on this topic were evaluated.

RESULTS

All aromatase inhibitors are associated with negative effects on the skeleton, resulting in bone loss and increased risk of fragility fractures. Current guidelines suggest approaches that differ both in terms of drugs proposed for fracture prevention and duration of treatment.

CONCLUSION

The ESCEO working group recommends that all AI-treated women should be evaluated for fracture risk. Besides general recommendations, zoledronic acid 4 mg i.v. every 6 months, denosumab s.c., or possibly oral bisphosphonates should be administered for the entire period of AI treatment to all osteoporotic women (T-score hip/spine <-2.5 or ≥ 1 prevalent fragility fracture), to women aged ≥ 75 irrespective of BMD, and to patients with T-score <-1.5 + ≥ 1 clinical risk factor or T-score <-1.0 + ≥ 2 clinical risk factors. Alternatively, therapy could be considered in patients with a FRAX-determined 10-year hip fracture probability ≥ 3%.

Heel ultrasound can assess maintenance of bone mass in women with breast cancer

Postmenopausal women with early stage breast cancer are at increased risk for bone loss and fractures. Bisphosphonates can prevent bone loss, but little data are available on changes in bone mass assessed by heel quantitative ultrasound (QUS). Our objectives were to determine if (1) heel QUS would provide a reliable and accessible method for evaluation of changes in bone mass in women with breast cancer when compared with the current standard of bone mass measurement, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and (2) oral risedronate could affect these changes. Eighty-six newly postmenopausal (up to 8 yr) women with nonmetastatic breast cancer were randomized to risedronate, 35 mg once weekly or placebo. Outcomes were changes in heel QUS bone mass measurements and conventional DXA-derived bone mineral density (BMD). Over 2 yr, bone mass assessed by heel QUS remained stable in women on risedronate, whereas women on placebo had a 5.2% decrease (p ≤ 0.05) in heel QUS bone mass. Both total hip BMD and femoral neck BMD assessed by DXA decreased by 1.6% (p ≤ 0.05) in the placebo group and remained stable with risedronate. Spine BMD remained stable in both groups. Heel QUS was moderately associated with BMD measured by DXA at the total hip (r=0.50), femoral neck (r=0.40), and spine (r=0.46) at baseline (all p ≤ 0.001). In conclusion, risedronate helps to maintain skeletal integrity as assessed by heel QUS for women with early stage breast cancer. Heel QUS is associated with DXA-derived BMD at other major axial sites and may be used to follow skeletal health and bone mass changes in these women.

Cost Effectiveness of Fracture Prevention in Postmenopausal Women Who Receive Aromatase Inhibitors for Early Breast Cancer

Purpose

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) increase the risk of osteoporosis and related fractures in postmenopausal women who receive adjuvant AIs for hormone receptor (HR) –positive early breast cancer (EBC). We compared the cost effectiveness of alternative screening and treatment strategies for fracture prevention.

Methods

We developed a Markov state transition model to simulate clinical practice and outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of women age 60 years with HR-positive EBC starting a 5-year course of AI therapy after primary surgery for breast cancer. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We compared the following strategies: no intervention; one-time bone mineral density (BMD) screening and selective bisphosphonate therapy in women with osteoporosis or osteopenia; annual BMD screening and selective bisphosphonate therapy in women with osteoporosis or osteopenia; and universal bisphosphonate therapy.

Results

ICERs for annual BMD screening followed by oral bisphosphonates for those with osteoporosis, annual BMD screening followed by oral bisphosphonates for those with osteopenia, and universal treatment with oral bisphosphonates were $87,300, $129,300, and $283,600 per QALY gained, respectively. One-time BMD screening followed by oral bisphosphonates for those with osteoporosis or osteopenia was dominated. Our results were sensitive to age at the initiation of AI therapy, type of bisphosphonates, post-treatment residual effect of bisphosphonates, and a potential adjuvant benefit of intravenous bisphosphonates.

Conclusion

In postmenopausal women receiving adjuvant AIs for HR-positive EBC, a policy of baseline and annual BMD screening followed by selective treatment with oral bisphosphonates for those diagnosed with osteoporosis is a cost-effective use of societal resources.

Osteoporosis and aromatase inhibitors: experience and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to improve the assistance given to patients under treatment with aromatase inhibitors in order to prevent secondary osteoporosis through the planning of an awareness programme for the oncologist and offering a facilitated treatment path.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-nine postmenopausal women treated with aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer were selected. For each subject, the age at the beginning of the therapy, the type of aromatase inhibitors and the age at the performance of the bone densitometry was registered. In addition, the use of osteoporosis medication and supplementation of calcium and vitamin D were evaluated. Participants were required to answer a questionnaire consisting of closed questions relating to booking procedures of the bone densitometry and about their own knowledge of osteoporosis related to the use of aromatase inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is evidence of negative impact of the aromatase inhibitors on bone, our data still show a poor application of the recommendations in order to prevent osteoporosis related to the administration of these drugs. Our suggestion is a more active implementation of the guidelines, also by means of a greater collaboration between the oncologist and the specialist in osteoporosis, and the offer of a diagnostic and therapeutic pathway.

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.

[Clinical practice guidelines for evaluation and treatment of osteoporosis associated to endocrine and nutritional conditions. Bone Metabolism Working Group of the Spanish Society of Endocrinology]

OBJECTIVE

To provide practical recommendations for evaluation and treatment of osteoporosis associated to endocrine diseases and nutritional conditions.

PARTICIPANTS

Members of the Bone Metabolism Working Group of the Spanish Society of Endocrinology, a methodologist, and a documentalist.

METHODS

Recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to describe both the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. A systematic search was made in MEDLINE (Pubmed), using the following terms associated to the name of each condition: AND "osteoporosis", "fractures", "bone mineral density", and "treatment". Papers in English with publication date before 18 October 2011 were included. Current evidence for each disease was reviewed by two group members, and doubts related to the review process or development of recommendations were resolved by the methodologist. Finally, recommendations were discussed in a meeting of the Working Group.

CONCLUSIONS

The document provides evidence-based practical recommendations for evaluation and management of endocrine and nutritional diseases associated to low bone mass or an increased risk of fracture. For each disease, the associated risk of low bone mass and fragility fractures is given, recommendations for bone mass assessment are provided, and treatment options that have shown to be effective for increasing bone mass and/or to decreasing fragility fractures are listed.

Fracture risk and adjuvant hormonal therapy among a population-based cohort of older female breast cancer patients

The risk of hip and other fractures was examined among a population-based group of older women with breast cancer. Women using aromatase inhibitors (AIs) were found to be over three times more likely to have a hip fracture over approximately 3 years' follow-up. Other fracture risk factors were also identified.

INTRODUCTION

Aromatase inhibitors have been shown in randomized trials to increase total fracture risk compared with tamoxifen, but the fracture risks in the trials were relatively low, and no difference in hip fracture has been demonstrated.

METHODS

A population-based cohort of 2003 breast cancer survivors ≥65 were followed prospectively for a median of 36 months. Patient survey information regarding adjuvant breast cancer therapies, prescription osteoporosis treatments, and other factors potentially associated with fracture was supplemented with cancer registry information. Hip and total nonvertebral fractures were determined using a validated Medicare algorithm, and the association of these fractures with adjuvant hormonal therapies was examined using Cox models.

RESULTS

The cohort of 2,748 women with a mean age of 72.8 (SD 5.4) included 28.2% who took an aromatase inhibitor and 27.8% tamoxifen. There were 41 hip fractures (1.5%) and 218 nonvertebral fractures (7.9%) among the cohort. Subjects using AIs (adjusted hazard ratio 3.24 (1.05, 9.98)) and subjects not using hormone therapy (3.32 (1.14, 9.65)) were more likely than users of tamoxifen to have a hip fracture. Bisphosphonate use was more common among AI users but did not explain these results. Users of AIs were more likely to have nonvertebral fractures, but this result did not reach statistical significance (adjusted hazard 1.34 (0.92, 1.94)).

CONCLUSIONS

Hip and other fractures were common in an older population-based cohort of breast cancer survivors, and aromatase inhibitor use was associated with an increase in the short-term risk of hip fractures not detected in randomized controlled trials.

The role of antiresorptive therapies in improving patient care in early and metastatic breast cancer

Breast cancer is the second most common cancer among American women and has a high rate of metastasis to bone. Patients regularly undergo adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy or hormonal therapy) following surgical resection of the tumor. In addition to potential direct effects on bone cells, both chemotherapy and hormonal therapy induce ovarian dysfunction and dramatically decrease estrogen levels in both pre- and postmenopausal women. This leads to decreased bone mineral density and increased fracture risk. Antiresorptive therapies (e.g, zoledronic acid and denosumab) have demonstrated efficacy in preventing cancer therapy-induced bone loss in patients with breast cancer and are approved for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. This review will focus on the evolving role of these antiresorptive therapies in the care of women with early or metastatic breast cancer.

Bone health management in patients with breast cancer: current standards and emerging strategies

In women who develop bone metastases from breast cancer (BC), interactions between tumor cells and osteoclasts within the bone lead to localized bone destruction and increase the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and have been used extensively for treating post-menopausal osteoporosis and reducing the risk of SREs in patients with bone metastases. A number of clinical trials in women with early stage BC have demonstrated that adding bisphosphonates to adjuvant endocrine therapy can prevent bone loss and may prevent disease recurrence and improve disease-free survival. In women with bone metastases from BC, bisphosphonates have demonstrated efficacy for reducing skeletal morbidity and pain and improving quality of life. Recent economic analyses have demonstrated that bisphosphonate therapy is a cost-effective use of healthcare resources. This review summarizes the available data for bisphosphonate benefits in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings in the context of evolving clinical practice.

Aging and osteoporosis in breast and prostate cancer

As people with cancer survive longer, and as the US population ages, skeletal effects of cancer treatment are becoming more pronounced. This is particularly true for breast and prostate cancer survivors because of the high average age of patients with these malignancies, the propensity of older adults in general toward the development of osteoporosis, and the wide use of therapeutic agents in these cancers that negatively impact bone health. Various therapies used in the treatment and prevention of cancer may cause decreases in bone mineral density and an increased risk of debilitating fracture, even in the absence of bone metastases. Aging is both a baseline risk factor in the development of osteoporosis and bony fracture, as well as a predictor of poor outcome after fracture. A variety of mechanisms may be responsible for the development of bone loss in patients with breast or prostate cancer. Cytotoxic chemotherapy may directly exert long-term toxic effects on bone. Chemotherapy and endocrine therapy can induce hypogonadism, leading to an increased rate of bone loss. The risk of skeletal events in older adults due to cancer therapy should be appreciated by all oncologists, geriatricians, and internists. The following review may serve as a guide to the skeletal side effects of cancer therapy in older adults with breast or prostate cancer, how to screen for treatment-related bone loss, and how to best prevent and/or treat skeletal events.

Cancer therapy associated bone loss: implications for hip fractures in mid-life women with breast cancer

PURPOSE

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have been recently associated with hip fractures. We present a case series of breast cancer survivors and a systematic review of bone health care in breast cancer.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We completed clinical assessments and bone density testing (BMD) of hip fractures from January 2005 to December 2008. Prefracture and 12-month functional status was obtained. Systematic review included case reports and review of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FDA AERS) from January 1998 to December 2008 (search terms: breast cancer, bone loss, osteopenia, osteoporosis, malignancy, cancer treatment, menopause, adriamycin, cytoxan, tamoxifen, and AIs).

RESULTS

Median age was 53.5 years; five women had osteopenia, one osteoporosis. Five cases were ER (+), and received surgery, XRT chemotherapy, and anastrozole. Functional decline was noted at 12 months, with difficulty in performing heavy housekeeping, climbing stairs, and shopping. The FDA AERS database included 228 cases of fractures associated with breast cancer therapy; 77/228 (29.4%) were hip or femur fractures. Among mid-life women under the age of 64 years there were 78 fractures; 15/228 (19%) were hip and femur fractures. AIs were the most common drug class associated with fractures (n = 149, 65%).

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer treatment induced bone loss results in hip fractures among mid-life women with breast cancer. Hip fractures occur at younger ages and higher BMD than expected for patients in this age group without breast cancer. Hip fractures result in considerable functional decline. Greater awareness of this adverse drug effect is needed.

The impact of an aromatase inhibitor on body composition and gonadal hormone levels in women with breast cancer

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have become the standard adjuvant therapy of postmenopausal breast cancer survivors. AIs induce a reduction of bioavailable estrogens by inhibiting aromatase, which would be expected to induce alterations in body composition, more extensive than induced by menopause. The objectives are to examine the impact of AIs on (1) DXA-scan derived body composition and (2) gonadal hormone levels. This is a sub-analysis of a 2-year double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of 82 women with nonmetastatic breast cancer, newly menopausal following chemotherapy, who were randomized to risedronate (35 mg once weekly) versus placebo, and stratified for their usage of AI versus no AI. Outcomes included DXA-scan derived body composition and gonadal hormone levels. As a group, total body mass increased in women over 24 months. Women on AIs gained a significant amount of lean body mass compared to baseline as well as to no-AI users (P < 0.05). Women not on an AI gained total body fat compared to baseline and AI users (P < 0.05). Free testosterone significantly increased and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) significantly decreased in women on AIs compared to no AIs at 24 months (P < 0.01) while total estradiol and testosterone levels remained stable. Independent of AI usage, chemotherapy-induced postmenopausal breast cancer patients demonstrated an increase of total body mass. AI users demonstrated maintenance of total body fat, an increase in lean body mass and free testosterone levels, and a decrease in SHBG levels compared to no-AI users. The mechanisms and implications of these changes need to be studied further.

Optimizing clinical benefits of bisphosphonates in cancer patients with bone metastases

Malignant bone disease is common in patients with advanced solid tumors or multiple myeloma. Bisphosphonates have been found to be important treatments for bone metastases. A positive benefit-risk ratio for bisphosphonates has been established, and ongoing clinical trials will determine whether individualized therapy is possible.

Bisphosphonates are important treatments for bone metastases. Considerations for optimizing the clinical benefits of bisphosphonates include efficacy, compliance, and safety. Several bisphosphonates are approved for clinical use; however, few have demonstrated broad efficacy in the oncology setting and been compared directly in clinical trials. Among patients with bone metastases from breast cancer, the efficacy of approved bisphosphonates was evaluated in a Cochrane review, showing a reduction in the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) ranging from 8% to 41% compared with placebo. Between-trial comparisons are confounded by inconsistencies in trial design, SRE definition, and endpoint selection. Zoledronic acid has demonstrated clinical benefits beyond those of pamidronate in a head-to-head trial that included patients with breast cancer or multiple myeloma. Compliance and adherence also have effects on treatment efficacy. In a comparison study, the adherence rates with oral bisphosphonates were found to be significantly lower compared with those of intravenous bisphosphonates. The safety profiles of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates differ. Oral bisphosphonates are associated with gastrointestinal side effects, whereas intravenous bisphosphonates have dose- and infusion rate–dependent effects on renal function. Osteonecrosis of the jaw is an uncommon but serious event in patients receiving monthly intravenous bisphosphonates or denosumab. The incidence of this event can be reduced with careful oral hygiene. A positive benefit-risk ratio for bisphosphonates has been established, and ongoing clinical trials will determine whether individualized therapy is possible.

Guidelines for Osteoprotection in Breast Cancer Patients on an Aromatase Inhibitor

Postmenopausal women are at an increased risk of osteopenia and osteoporosis due to the physiologic loss of the bone protective effects of estrogen. Additionally, disease-related risk factors also contribute to the increased fracture risk. To further complicate matters, one of the most common and severe safety issues associated with cancer therapies for breast cancer patients is bone loss and the associated increased risk of fractures. These facts underscore the need to carefully monitor bone mineral density in patients with endocrine-responsive breast cancer, and to consider adjuvant therapy that may help manage and/or prevent bone loss and fracture. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are now in widespread clinical use for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and have replaced tamoxifen as the gold standard of care. AIs target the estrogen biosynthetic pathway and deprive tumor cells of the growth-promoting effects of estrogen. These treatments provide significant benefit to patients in terms of improved disease-free and overall survival. Adversely, there is a concern of an increased risk of bone loss with prolonged therapy consequently leading to an increased fracture risk. This manuscript will review the recent literature pertaining to AI-associated bone loss and discuss suggested management and preventative approaches that may help patients remain on therapy to derive the most clinical benefits.

Drug-induced osteoporosis: mechanisms and clinical implications

Drug-induced osteoporosis is common and has a significant impact on the prognosis of patients suffering from chronic debilitating diseases. Glucocorticoids are the drugs causing osteoporotic fractures most frequently, but osteoporosis with fractures is observed also in women treated with aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer, in men receiving anti-androgen therapy for prostate cancer, in postmenopausal women treated with high doses of thyroxine, and in men and women treated with thiazolinediones for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Bone loss with fractures also occurs in patients treated with drugs targeting the immune system, such as calcineurin inhibitors, antiretroviral drugs, selective inhibitors of serotonin reuptake, anticonvulsants, loop diuretics, heparin, oral anticoagulants, and proton pump inhibitors.

The use of bisphosphonates in cancer treatment

Bone metastases result in considerable morbidity and exert complex demands on health care resources. Additionally, for many patients, metastatic bone disease is a chronic condition affecting quality of life and independence over years rather than months. The bisphosphonates, notably zoledronic acid, have been shown to reduce skeletal morbidity in multiple myeloma, as well as a wide range of solid tumors affecting bone, by 30-50%. Quite appropriately, the bisphosphonates are increasingly used alongside anticancer treatments to prevent skeletal complications and relieve bone pain. In addition, they are increasingly used to prevent cancer treatment-induced bone loss and show promise in the adjuvant setting to prevent metastasis from breast cancer.

Dosing of zoledronic acid throughout the treatment continuum in breast cancer

Several bisphosphonates including zoledronic acid (ZOL) are approved for treating bone metastases from breast cancer (BC). Recent trials demonstrated that ZOL prevents bone loss and reduces disease recurrence in early BC. This review uses pharmacodynamic, efficacy, and safety data from phase III trials of ZOL in early through metastatic BC to evaluate the dosing regimens used in each setting. The dosing frequencies of ZOL in early stage versus metastatic BC (4 mg 2--4 times per year versus monthly) are based on the respective levels of bone resorption and tumor burden. Data from ongoing clinical trials suggest that monthly dosing facilitates potential synergy between ZOL and chemotherapy in intermediate-risk BC and during neoadjuvant therapy. Overall, available data indicate that treatment with ZOL at appropriate intervals determined by disease characteristics helps attain key therapeutic goals in BC--maintaining skeletal integrity, reducing disease recurrence, and improving clinical outcomes.