Prevention of bone loss by zoledronic acid in premenopausal women undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy persist up to one year following discontinuing treatment

Approach to Bone Health in the Patient With Breast Cancer

Treatment for breast cancer, including endocrine therapies, can contribute to bone loss and increase the risk of osteoporosis and fractures. Management of bone health in patients with cancer is often coordinated between oncologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians. In this article, we discuss the approach to screening for fracture risk among patients initiating treatments for breast cancer and recommendations for lifestyle modifications to optimize bone health. We will review 3 indications for pharmacologic bone-targeted therapies: prevention of cancer treatment-induced bone loss, adjuvant therapy to reduce recurrence, and management of bone metastases.

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.

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.

Bone Health in Premenopausal Chinese Patients after Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Early Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

In this cohort study, the objectives were to determine bone mineral density (BMD) and potential associated factors for bone health among young premenopausal patients after adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria included premenopausal Chinese aged <45 years who had received adjuvant chemotherapy. At study entry, background demographics and menstrual history were collected; BMD was measured. Factors associated with reduced BMD and fracture risk were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 271 patients entered the study. The median time from breast cancer diagnosis to study entry was 5.0 years. The median ages at breast cancer diagnosis and at study entry were 41 and 47 years, respectively. The median BMDs for femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) were 0.72 and 0.91 g/cm2, respectively; 40.2% had abnormal Z-scores (defined as ≤-1) and 50.2% had osteopenia/osteoporosis of either FN or LS. On multivariate analyses, factors that were identified to have a positive association with bone health (higher BMD) included higher family income (OR [95% CI] for LS = 1.573 [1.091-2.268]), taller stature (OR for LS = 2.975 [1.723-5.137]), and higher BMI (OR for FN = 2.156 [1.599-2.907]), while negatively associated factors included longer interval since last adjuvant treatment (OR for LS: 0.435 [0.250-0.757]), peri-/postmenopausal status at study entry (OR for LS = 0.443 [0.255-0.768]; OR for FN = 0.353 [0.205-0.609]), and having received adjuvant tamoxifen (OR for FN = 0.452 [0.243-0.841]).

CONCLUSION

About 5 years after breast cancer diagnosis and adjuvant chemotherapy, >50% of premenopausal patients who had received adjuvant chemotherapy were detected to have osteopenia/osteoporosis and 40% had abnormal Z-scores for FN/LS.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Repeating Measurement of Bone Mineral Density when Monitoring with Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry: 2019 ISCD Official Position

Bone mineral density (BMD) can be measured at multiple skeletal sites using various technologies to aid clinical decision-making in bone and mineral disorders. BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) has a critical role in predicting risk of fracture, diagnosis of osteoporosis, and monitoring patients. In clinical practice, DXA remains the most available and best validated tool for monitoring patients. A quality baseline DXA scan is essential for comparison with all subsequent scans. Monitoring patients with serial measurements requires technical expertise and knowledge of the least significant change in order to determine when follow-up scans should be repeated. Prior ISCD Official Positions have clarified how and when repeat DXA is useful as well as the interpretation of results. The 2019 ISCD Official Positions considered new evidence and clarifies if and when BMD should be repeated. There is good evidence showing that repeat BMD measurement can identify people who experience bone loss, which is an independent predictor of fracture risk. There is good evidence showing that the reduction in spine and hip fractures with osteoporosis medication is proportional to the change in BMD with treatment. There is evidence that measuring BMD is useful following discontinuation of osteoporosis treatment. There is less documentation addressing the effectiveness of monitoring BMD to improve medication adherence, whether monitoring of BMD reduces the risk of fracture, or effectively discriminates patients who should and should not recommence treatment following an interruption of medication. Further research is needed in all of these areas.

The skeletal impact of cancer therapies

Both cancer and therapies used in the treatment of cancer can have significant deleterious effects on the skeleton, increasing the risks for both bone loss and fracture development. While advancements in cancer therapies have resulted in enhanced cancer survivorship for patients with many types of malignancies, it is increasingly recognized that efforts to reduce bone loss and limit fractures must be considered for nearly all patients undergoing cancer therapy in order to diminish the anticipated future skeletal consequences. To date, most studies examining the impact of cancer therapies on skeletal outcomes have focused on endocrine-associated cancers of the breast and prostate, with more recent advances in our understanding of bone loss and fracture risk in other malignancies. Pharmacologic efforts to limit the adverse effects of cancer therapies on bone have nearly universally employed anti-resorptive approaches, although studies have frequently relied on surrogate outcomes such as changes in bone mineral density or bone turnover markers, rather than on fractures or other skeletal-related events, as primary study endpoints. Compounding current deficiencies for the provision of optimal care is the recognition that despite clearly written and straightforward society-based guidelines, vulnerable eligible patients are very often neither identified nor provided with appropriate treatments to limit the skeletal impact of their cancer therapies.

Bone loss during neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer: A retrospective cohort study

The present study aimed to evaluate the extent of loss in bone mineral density (BMD) during neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer. A retrospective cohort study was conducted to quantify the loss of BMD one year following the start of chemotherapy and to identify potential risk factors of excessive BMD loss. Based on DXA-scans prior to and one year following chemotherapy, the loss of BMD was evaluated in early stage breast cancer patients treated from January 2012 to December 2014. A total of 492 patients received either eight cycles of neoadjuvant or six cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. The final analysis included 152 patients with two DXA-scans. The patients had a significant loss of BMD in the hip [-0.0124 g/cm² (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.018; -0.007) P<0.001] and in the lumbar spine [-0.029 g/cm² (95% CI: -0.036; -0.023) P<0.001] corresponding to a change of -1, 3 and -2, 9%, respectively. Premenopausal women had a significant loss of BMD in the lumbar spine -0.045 g/cm² equivalent to -4.3%, which was significantly increased compared with postmenopausal women (P<0.001) in the univariate analysis, whereas only a trend persisted in the multivariate analysis (P=0.60). There was no significant difference in BMD loss (lumbar spine P=0.176) between patients receiving adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In conclusion, neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with significant BMD loss in both hip and lumbar spine. Furthermore, the results of the present study indicate that premenopausal women have a pronounced BMD loss in the lumbar spine. Further studies investigating osteoporosis prophylaxis in premenopausal patients are warranted.

Cancer Treatment-Induced Bone Loss in Women With Breast Cancer and Men With Prostate Cancer

Cancer and cancer therapies can have a negative impact on bone health. Because cancer is a common diagnosis, survivorship concerns for osteoporosis and fragility fractures are an important component of care. This review addresses management of bone health in nonmetastatic cancer survivorship with a focus on breast cancer and prostate cancer.

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.

Skeletal health in breast cancer survivors

Although some risk factors for breast cancer might be protective for osteoporosis, several cross-sectional studies have reported, nevertheless, that patients with breast cancer have a lower bone mass and potentially a higher incidence of fractures than expected. In any case, it appears that patients with breast cancer are not protected from osteoporosis, which provides further support for the recommendation that bone health is assessed after a diagnosis of breast cancer. Most adjuvant therapies will lead to increased bone loss and a higher fracture rate. Among the adjuvant therapy options for premenopausal patients with breast cancer, endocrine therapy (ovarian suppression) and chemotherapy can result in cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) of up to 10% at the lumbar spine after one year. Antiresorptive therapies prevent CTIBL in premenopausal women with breast cancer. Most of the evidence demonstrating the efficacy of bisphosphonates in the prevention of CTIBL is derived from clinical trials with zoledronic acid. The addition of zoledronic acid 4mg per six months to adjuvant endocrine therapy maintained and even increased bone mass during a 3-year treatment period and significantly improved disease-free survival in a population of young women who underwent menopause due to the adjuvant treatment. The major contributor to bone loss in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer in postmenopausal women is the use of aromatase inhibitors (AIs). Oncology trials have underestimated the fracture risk in the setting of AI-induced bone loss. In the ABCSG-18 study, the only trial in which fracture incidence was the primary endpoint, the rate of clinical fractures was close to 10% after 3 years in the placebo group on AIs only. Bisphosphonates and denosumab at osteoporosis treatment doses can counteract AI-induced bone loss. In the ABCSG-18 trial, treatment with denosumab 60mg injection every 6 months reduced the risk of first clinical fracture relative to placebo by 50%. Current guidelines recommend antiresorptive therapy in patients with a baseline T score of <-2.0 or with two or more clinical risk factors for fracture. These recent guidelines will need to be updated, as similar significant protective effects were seen in women with either normal or low bone mass. Moreover, a formal meta-analysis of individual patient data from more than 18,000 women in 26 randomized trials of adjuvant zoledronic acid or clodronate treatment for early breast cancer revealed that bisphosphonates significantly reduced the risk of first distant recurrence in bone and the risk of breast cancer mortality, at least in postmenopausal women. Even though the increased risk of fracture during adjuvant treatment for breast cancer in postmenopausal women is notable, an enhanced risk of fracture in long-term survivors of breast cancer remains under debate. The most recent studies suggest that Caucasian breast cancer survivors do not have a significantly increased risk of osteoporotic fracture over the long term.

Antiresorptive therapy in the management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss

Cancer treatment-induced bone loss treatment has an important role to prevent bone loss-related events like fracture, significant morbidity, mortality, disfigurement and loss of self-esteem, and health-care expenditure. Numerous factors, including treatment regimens and bone metastasis, increase the risk of osteoporosis or local bone destruction in most breast and prostate cancer patients. Cytotoxic chemotherapies, radiation, and hormonal therapies can lead to premature menopause and decrease bone mineral density. Over 60 % of breast cancer patients within 1 year of beginning postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy experience ovarian failure. Also, ovarian ablation and aromatase inhibitors used to treat breast cancer and orchiectomy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; to treat prostate cancer) cause substantial bone loss. In this article, we will focus mainly on antiresorptive therapy in the management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL). An understanding of CTIBL is critical for determining how to assess the risk and identify which patients may benefit from preventive therapy.

Pathogenesis, management and prevention of atypical femoral fractures

Much attention has been paid to the relationship between atypical femoral fractures (AFF) and use of bisphosphonates (BPs). While a significant cause-effect relationship was not established in earlier studies, more recent data shows a growing relationship between AFF and BPs use. The definition of an 'AFF' has also undergone significant changes. This review briefly summarizes the definition, pathogenesis, and management of AFF.

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.

Late effects of cancer treatment in breast cancer survivors

Postoperative radiation therapy (RT) and chemotherapy,both reduces the risk of local recurrence and extends overall survival in patients with breast cancer (BC). Concerns have, however, been raised about the risk of acute and chronic side effects in breast cancer survivors as the number of treated individuals is large and their expected survival is long compared to most patients with other malignant diseases. Cardiac toxicity, reproductive dysfunction, pneumonitis (RP),arm lymph edema, neuropathy, skin changes are examples of the wide range of complications that has been associated with adjuvant treatment.

Effects of zoledronic acid on bone mineral density in premenopausal women receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies for HR+ breast cancer: the ProBONE II study

The effects of bisphosphonates on altered bone turnover marker (BTM) levels associated with adjuvant endocrine or chemotherapy in early breast cancer have not been systematically investigated. In ProBONE II, zoledronic acid decreased these elevated BTM levels and increased bone mineral density (BMD) during adjuvant therapy, consistent with its antiresorptive effects.

INTRODUCTION

Adjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy for early hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (HR(+) BC) is associated with rapid BMD loss and altered BTM levels. Adjuvant bisphosphonate studies demonstrated BMD increases, but did not investigate BTM effects. The randomized, double-blind, ProBONE II study investigated the effect of adjuvant zoledronic acid (ZOL) on BMD and BTM in premenopausal women with early HR(+) BC.

METHODS

Seventy premenopausal women with early HR(+) BC received adjuvant chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy plus ZOL (4 mg IV every 3 months) or placebo for 24 months. Primary endpoint was change in lumbar spine BMD at 24 months versus baseline. Secondary endpoints included femoral neck and total femoral BMD changes, changes in BTM, and safety.

RESULTS

Lumbar spine BMD increased 3.14% from baseline to 24 months in ZOL-treated participants versus a 6.43% decrease in placebo-treated participants (P < 0.0001). Mean changes in T- and Z-scores, and femoral neck and total femoral BMD, showed similar results. Bone resorption marker levels decreased ∼ 55% in ZOL-treated participants versus increases up to 65% in placebo-treated participants (P < 0.0001 for between-group differences). Bone formation marker (procollagen I N-terminal propeptide) levels decreased ∼ 57% in ZOL-treated participants versus increases up to 45% in placebo-treated participants (P < 0.0001 for between-group differences). Adverse events were consistent with the established ZOL safety profile and included one case of osteonecrosis of the jaw after a tooth extraction.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding ZOL to adjuvant therapy improved BMD, reduced BTM levels, and was well tolerated in premenopausal women with early HR(+) BC receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy.

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.

Cancer-associated bone disease

Bone is commonly affected in cancer. Cancer-induced bone disease results from the primary disease, or from therapies against the primary condition, causing bone fragility. Bone-modifying agents, such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, are efficacious in preventing and delaying cancer-related bone disease. With evidence-based care pathways, guidelines assist physicians in clinical decision-making. Of the 57 million deaths in 2008 worldwide, almost two thirds were due to non-communicable diseases, led by cardiovascular diseases and cancers. Bone is a commonly affected organ in cancer, and although the incidence of metastatic bone disease is not well defined, it is estimated that around half of patients who die from cancer in the USA each year have bone involvement. Furthermore, cancer-induced bone disease can result from the primary disease itself, either due to circulating bone resorbing substances or metastatic bone disease, such as commonly occurs with breast, lung and prostate cancer, or from therapies administered to treat the primary condition thus causing bone loss and fractures. Treatment-induced osteoporosis may occur in the setting of glucocorticoid therapy or oestrogen deprivation therapy, chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure and androgen deprivation therapy. Tumour skeletal-related events include pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to bone and may or may not include hypercalcaemia of malignancy while skeletal complication refers to pain and other symptoms. Some evidence demonstrates the efficacy of various interventions including bone-modifying agents, such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, in preventing or delaying cancer-related bone disease. The latter includes treatment of patients with metastatic skeletal lesions in general, adjuvant treatment of breast and prostate cancer in particular, and the prevention of cancer-associated bone disease. This has led to the development of guidelines by several societies and working groups to assist physicians in clinical decision making, providing them with evidence-based care pathways to prevent skeletal-related events and bone loss. The goal of this paper is to put forth an IOF position paper addressing bone diseases and cancer and summarizing the position papers of other organizations.

Fracture in asian women with breast cancer occurs at younger age

Background

Western breast cancer survivors have an increased risk of osteoporosis and bone fracture. Breast cancer occurs 10 to 20 years earlier in Asian women than in Western women. We investigated if younger Asian women with breast cancer also have increased risk of fracture.

Methods

We used the universal insurance claims data from 2000 to 2003 to identify 22,076 patients with breast cancer and 88,304 women without cancer, frequency matched with age and index date (the date for a health care visit). The incidence of fracture in both cohorts and the hazard ratios (HRs) of fracture in the cancer cohort were estimated by the end of 2009.

Results

The incidence of all types of fracture was higher in the breast cancer cohort than in the comparison cohort (46.72 vs. 42.52 per 10,000 person-years), with adjusted HRs (aHRs) of 1.18 (95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.03–1.35) for hip fractures, 1.12 (95% CI, 0.98–1.28) for forearm fractures and 1.24 (95% CI, 1.04–1.48) for vertebral fractures. The aHRs were significant in both non-traumatic fractures (1.29; 95% CI, 1.11–1.51) and traumatic fractures (1.12; 95% CI, 1.01–1.23). The age-specific aHR was higher for younger breast cancer patients, and was significant for <50 years old patients in both traumatic (aHR 1.35; 95% CI 1.08–1.68) and non-traumatic (aHR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.21–2.44) fractures.

Conclusion

This study suggests that Asian women with breast cancer might have an increased risk of fracture.

Osteoporosis and cancer

Cancer is a major risk factor for bone loss and fractures. This is due both to direct effects of cancer cells on the skeleton and to deleterious effects of cancer-specific therapies on bone cells. Marked improvements in survival for many cancers mean that strategies to limit bone loss and reduce fracture risk must be incorporated into the care plans for nearly all patients with cancer. The vast majority of effort thus far has focused on bone loss in patients with breast and prostate cancers, with comparatively few studies in other malignancies. Antiresorptive therapies have proven nearly universally effective for limiting bone loss in cancer patients, although few studies have been powered sufficiently to include fractures as primary endpoints, and patients are frequently neither identified nor treated according to published guidelines. Nonpharmacologic approaches to limit falls, particularly in elderly patients, are also likely important adjunctive measures for most cancer patients.

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.

Adjuvant therapy with zoledronic acid in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to estimate the impact on survival and fracture rates of the use of zoledronic acid versus no use (or delayed use) in the adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage (stages I-III) breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Trials were located through PubMed, ISI, Cochrane Library, and major cancer scientific meeting searches. All trials that randomized patients with primary breast cancer to undergo adjuvant treatment with zoledronic acid versus nonuse, placebo, or delayed use of zoledronic acid as treatment to individuals who develop osteoporosis were considered eligible. Standard meta-analytic procedures were used to analyze the study outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were considered eligible and were further analyzed. The use of zoledronic acid resulted in a statistically significant better overall survival outcome (five studies, 6,414 patients; hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.94). No significant differences were found for the disease-free survival outcome (seven studies, 7,541 patients; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70-1.06) or incidence of bone metastases (seven studies, 7,543 patients; odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.64-1.37). Treatment with zoledronic acid led to a significantly lower overall fracture rate (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96). Finally, the rate of osteonecrosis of the jaw was 0.52%.

CONCLUSION

Zoledronic acid as adjuvant therapy in breast cancer patients appears to not only reduce the fracture risk but also offer a survival benefit over placebo or no treatment.

The impact of menopause on bone, zoledronic acid, and implications for breast cancer growth and metastasis

Recent data from the AZURE, ABCSG-12, and ZO-FAST clinical trials have challenged our understanding of the potential anticancer activity of zoledronic acid (ZOL). Although the results of these studies may appear to be conflicting on the surface, a deeper look into commonalities among the patient populations suggest that some host factors (i.e. patient age and endocrine status) may contribute to the anticancer activity of ZOL. Indeed, data from these large clinical trials suggest that the potential anticancer activity of ZOL may be most robust in a low-estrogen environment. However, this may be only part of the story and many questions remain to be answered to fully explain the phenomenon. Does estrogen override the anticancer activity of ZOL seen in postmenopausal women? Are hormones other than estrogen involved that contribute to this effect? Does the role of bone turnover in breast cancer (BC) growth and progression differ in the presence of various estrogen levels? Here, we present a review of the multitude of factors affected by different endocrine environments in women with BC that may influence the potential anticancer activity of ZOL.

Protection of bone in premenopausal women with breast cancer: focus on zoledronic acid

Maintaining bone health is important for patients with breast cancer (BC), the most commonly diagnosed cancer in American women. Indeed, bone loss is common throughout the BC disease continuum. In the metastatic BC setting, patients are likely to develop bone metastases, a painful complication that can lead to potentially debilitating skeletal-related events. Bone health is equally important for patients with early BC. During adjuvant therapy for early BC, the largest challenge to bone health is from accelerated bone mineral density (BMD) loss. Although decreased BMD is well recognized in older, postmenopausal women, it may be underestimated in younger, premenopausal women undergoing endocrine therapy for BC. The rate and extent of cancer therapy-induced bone loss (from chemotherapy or endocrine therapy) are substantially greater than normal decreases in BMD during menopause. Bisphosphonates such as zoledronic acid (ZOL) are antiresorptive agents indicated for the treatment of bone metastases from BC. Clinical trials over the past few years suggest that, although not yet approved for this indication, ZOL can prevent cancer therapy-induced bone loss and improve BMD in premenopausal women receiving adjuvant (endocrine or chemo-) therapy for BC. Furthermore, the benefits of ZOL therapy may go beyond maintaining bone health and include potential anticancer benefits together with favorable tolerability and cost/benefit profiles. This review will focus specifically on the role of ZOL in preserving the bone health of premenopausal women with BC.

Evaluation of the in vitro and in vivo antiangiogenic effects of denosumab and zoledronic acid

Denosumab (Dmab) and zoledronic acid (ZOL) are antiresorptive agents, with different mechanisms of action, that are indicated for delaying the onset of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. Clinical and preclinical data suggest that ZOL may have also anti-angiogenic activity; however, the effects of Dmab (a fully humanized antibody against the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand) on angiogenesis are largely unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the potential anti-angiogenic activity of Dmab with that of ZOL in preclinical models. Dmab (0.31 to 160 μM) had no effect on the viability of human MDA-MB-436 and CG5 breast cancer cells or human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) and no effect on tubule formation or invasion of HUVECs. In contrast, ZOL (0.31 to 160 μM) decreased the viability of breast cancer and HUVECs in a time- and concentration-dependent manner and also inhibited HUVEC tubule formation and invasion. In vivo, ZOL (20 μg/mouse for three times a week for three consecutive weeks) inhibited angiogenesis in Matrigel plugs and inhibited the growth and neo-angiogenesis of CG5 xenografts in athymic nude mice. In contrast, Dmab (10 mg/Kg twice a week for 4 consecutive weeks) had no effect on Matrigel vascularization or xenograft growth in this model. These findings support the potential antiangiogenic and anticancer activity of ZOL in vitro and in vivo and further suggest that Dmab does not have antiangiogenic activity. Additional studies are needed to elucidate the potential anticancer activity of Dmab.

Treatment-induced bone loss and fractures in cancer patients undergoing hormone ablation therapy: efficacy and safety of denosumab

Hormone ablation therapy (HALT) for breast or prostate cancer accelerates the development of osteoporosis in both men and women by causing estrogen deficiency, which increases the risk for fracture by promoting bone resorption mediated by osteoclasts. Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits osteoclast formation and function, increases bone mass in patients undergoing hormone ablation therapy. In the HALT study of 1,468 men with prostate cancer on androgen-deprivation therapy, denosumab significantly reduced the risk of new vertebral fractures, increased bone mineral density (BMD), and reduced markers of bone turnover. In a study of 252 women with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy, denosumab increased BMD at 12 and 24 months, overall and in all patient subgroups. The overall rates of adverse events were similar to placebo. Clinicians should consider fracture risk assessment and therapies such as denosumab to increase bone mass in patients on hormone ablation therapy who are at high risk for fracture.

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.

Prevention and treatment of side-effects of systemic treatment: bone loss

Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) is generally more rapid and severe than bone loss associated with menopause in women or ageing in men and women. In premenopausal women with breast cancer, CTIBL is mainly caused by chemotherapy with resultant ovarian failure, by GnRH agonists or by tamoxifen. In postmenopausal women, steroidal and non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (AIs) increase bone turnover, decrease bone mass and increase fracture rate (hazard ratio increased to 1.38-1.55 compared with tamoxifen). Zoledronic acid can prevent bone loss in premenopausal women receiving adjuvant therapy with goserelin in combination with either anastrozole or tamoxifen and in postmenopausal women receiving AIs. Denosumab has been shown in a placebo-controlled study to significantly increase bone mineral density in postmenopausal women under AIs. More limited studies indicate that oral bisphosphonates used at licensed doses for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis can also prevent AI-induced bone loss. In prostate cancer, bone loss that occurs with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) also leads to an increased fracture rate. The bisphosphonates pamidronate and alendronate can prevent bone loss whereas zoledronic acid can increase bone mass under ADT. As for breast cancer, delay in bisphosphonate therapy is detrimental to bone health. The protective effects of denosumab on bone loss and incidental vertebral fractures have been demonstrated in a 3-year placebo-controlled trial.

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.

Breast cancer at bone metastatic sites: recent discoveries and treatment targets

Breast carcinoma is the most common cancer of women. Bones are often involved with breast carcinoma metastases with the resulting morbidity and reduced quality of life. Breast cancer cells arriving at bone tissues mount supportive microenvironment by recruiting and modulating the activity of several host tissue cell types including the specialized bone cells osteoblasts and osteoclasts. Pathologically activated osteoclasts produce osteolytic lesions associated with bone pain, pathological fractures, cord compression and other complications of metastatic breast carcinoma at bone. Over the last decade there has been enormous growth of knowledge in the field of osteoclasts biology both in the physiological state and in the tumor microenvironment. This knowledge allowed the development and implementation of several targeted therapeutics that expanded the armamentarium of the oncologists dealing with the metastases-associated osteolytic disease. While the interactions of cancer cells with resident bone cells at the established metastatic gross lesions are well-studied, the preclinical events that underlie the progression of disseminated tumor cells into micrometastases and then into clinically-overt macrometastases are just starting to be uncovered. In this review, we discuss the established information and the most recent discoveries in the pathogenesis of osteolytic metastases of breast cancer, as well as the corresponding investigational drugs that have been introduced into clinical development.

Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research

Reports linking long-term use of bisphosphonates (BPs) with atypical fractures of the femur led the leadership of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) to appoint a task force to address key questions related to this problem. A multidisciplinary expert group reviewed pertinent published reports concerning atypical femur fractures, as well as preclinical studies that could provide insight into their pathogenesis. A case definition was developed so that subsequent studies report on the same condition. The task force defined major and minor features of complete and incomplete atypical femoral fractures and recommends that all major features, including their location in the subtrochanteric region and femoral shaft, transverse or short oblique orientation, minimal or no associated trauma, a medial spike when the fracture is complete, and absence of comminution, be present to designate a femoral fracture as atypical. Minor features include their association with cortical thickening, a periosteal reaction of the lateral cortex, prodromal pain, bilaterality, delayed healing, comorbid conditions, and concomitant drug exposures, including BPs, other antiresorptive agents, glucocorticoids, and proton pump inhibitors. Preclinical data evaluating the effects of BPs on collagen cross-linking and maturation, accumulation of microdamage and advanced glycation end products, mineralization, remodeling, vascularity, and angiogenesis lend biologic plausibility to a potential association with long-term BP use. Based on published and unpublished data and the widespread use of BPs, the incidence of atypical femoral fractures associated with BP therapy for osteoporosis appears to be very low, particularly compared with the number of vertebral, hip, and other fractures that are prevented by BPs. Moreover, a causal association between BPs and atypical fractures has not been established. However, recent observations suggest that the risk rises with increasing duration of exposure, and there is concern that lack of awareness and underreporting may mask the true incidence of the problem. Given the relative rarity of atypical femoral fractures, the task force recommends that specific diagnostic and procedural codes be created and that an international registry be established to facilitate studies of the clinical and genetic risk factors and optimal surgical and medical management of these fractures. Physicians and patients should be made aware of the possibility of atypical femoral fractures and of the potential for bilaterality through a change in labeling of BPs. Research directions should include development of animal models, increased surveillance, and additional epidemiologic and clinical data to establish the true incidence of and risk factors for this condition and to inform orthopedic and medical management.