Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients receiving androgen-deprivation therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Balancing Hormone Therapy: Mitigating Adverse Effects of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy and Exploring Alternatives in Prostate Cancer Management

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is well established as the standard of care in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) management; however, ADT has significant adverse effects (AEs) that must be addressed. This review aims to highlight opportunities to mitigate AEs of ADT and explore alternatives in PCa management. Specifically, we discuss behavioral and pharmacologic strategies for mitigating ADT AEs as well as ADT-sparing approaches for hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant PCa. Equipped with effective mitigation strategies and possible alternatives, clinicians and researchers can optimize health-related quality of life for patients currently receiving ADT for PCa and consider treatments that spare patients from AEs of ADT.

Bone loss induced by cancer treatments in breast and prostate cancer patients

Cancer and cancer therapies are a major factor risk for osteoporosis due to bone loss and deterioration of bone microarchitecture. Both factors contribute to a decrease in bone strength and, consequently, increased bone fragility and risk of fracture. Cancer-associated bone loss is a multifactorial process, and optimal interdisciplinary management of skeletal health, accurate assessment of bone density, and early diagnosis are essential when making decisions aimed at reducing bone loss and fracture risk in patients who have received or are receiving treatment for cancer. In this document, a multidisciplinary group of experts collected the latest evidence on the pathophysiology of osteoporosis and its prevention, diagnosis, and treatment with the support of the Spanish scientific society SEOM. The aim was to provide an up-to-date and in-depth view of osteoporotic risk and its consequences, and to present a series of recommendations aimed at optimizing the management of bone health in the context of cancer.

Bone health management in the continuum of prostate cancer disease: a review of the evidence with an expert panel opinion

Bone health impairment is a frequent detrimental consequence of the high bone tropism of prostate cancer (PCa) cells. It is further worsened by administration of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), the current standard of care in the management of advanced PCa, through a rapid and dramatic increase in bone turnover and body mass changes. As a result, patients may experience substantial pain and poor quality of life (QoL) and have an increased risk of death. Notwithstanding the importance of this issue, however, bone health preservation is not yet a widespread clinical goal in daily practice.

To address this urgent unmet need, following a thorough discussion of available data and sharing of their clinical practice experience, a panel of Italian experts in the field of bone health and metabolism formulated a number of practical advices for optimising the monitoring and treatment of bone health in men undergoing ADT during all phases of the disease. The rationale behind the venture was to raise awareness on the importance of bone preservation in this complex setting, while providing an instrument to support physicians and facilitate the management of bone health.

Current evidence regarding the effects on bone health of ADT, of novel hormone therapies (which improve progression delay, pain control and QoL while consistently carrying the risk of non-pathological fractures in both non-metastatic and metastatic PCa) and of bone turnover inhibitors (whose use is frequently suboptimal) is reviewed. Finally, the expert opinion to optimise bone health preservation is given.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis on the relative efficacy of osteoporotic medications: men with prostate cancer on continuous androgen-deprivation therapy to reduce risk of fragility fractures

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is an effective treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer, but loss of bone mineral density (BMD) is a major risk factor for fractures. This review compared the efficacy of available treatments to provide prescribing guidance to healthcare professionals. This is the first review to compare the effectiveness of different osteoporotic treatments (bisphosphonates, denosumab, toremifene, and raloxifene) on BMD in patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer on ADT using network meta-analysis. Results suggest that all evaluated treatments are effective in improving BMD compared to placebo. Zoledronic acid (ZA) was found to have a greater improvement in BMD compared to other active treatments at all three studied sites, except for risedronate, which had better BMD improvement compared to ZA at the femoral neck site in one small study. Our study did not identify evidence that one drug is unequivocally more effective than another. All drugs appeared to be effective in reducing the rate of bone loss. Healthcare professionals should also consider patient preference, costs, and local availability as part of the decision process.

Bone Health and Bone-targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer: a Programme in Evidence-based Care - Cancer Care Ontario Clinical Practice Guideline

AIMS

To make recommendations with respect to bone health and bone-targeted therapies in men with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was carried out by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to January 2016. Systematic reviews and randomised-controlled trials were considered for inclusion if they involved therapies directed at improving bone health or outcomes such as skeletal-related events, pain and quality of life in patients with prostate cancer either with or without metastases to bone. Therapies included medications, supplements or lifestyle modifications alone or in combination and were compared with placebo, no treatment or other agents. Disease-targeted agents such as androgen receptor-targeted and chemotherapeutic agents were excluded. Recommendations were reviewed by internal and external review groups.

RESULTS

In men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy, baseline bone mineral density testing is encouraged. Denosumab should be considered for reducing the risk of fracture in men on androgen deprivation therapy with an increased fracture risk. Bisphosphonates were effective in improving bone mineral density, but the effect on fracture was inconclusive. No medication is recommended to prevent the development of first bone metastasis. Denosumab and zoledronic acid are recommended for preventing or delaying skeletal-related events in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Radium-223 is recommended for reducing symptomatic skeletal events and prolonging survival in men with symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations represent a current standard of care that is feasible to implement, with outcomes valued by clinicians and patients.

Comparative Efficacy of Bisphosphonates to Prevent Fracture in Men with Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analyses

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis is an under-recognized problem threatening men. Bisphosphonates are the main treatment but their comparative efficacy is unclear for men with osteoporosis. Therefore, we performed this systematic review with network meta-analyses to summarize the evidence of comparative efficacy of bisphosphonates in men with osteoporosis.

METHODS

We completed network meta-analyses with a frequentist model to compare the efficacy of different bisphosphonates. Randomized controlled trials investigating bisphosphonates used in men with osteoporosis were included. The primary outcome was the rate of patients with a new vertebral fracture. The secondary outcome was the rate of patients with a non-vertebral fracture, which was defined as any fractures reported other than vertebral fractures. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed to compare bisphosphonates with placebo. We included open-label studies in the analyses as a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Ten trials were included, using alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid. No significant difference was found between any pairs of alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid for both vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Zoledronic acid ranked as the most effective in preventing vertebral fracture in primary osteoporosis. Risedronate ranked best in preventing non-vertebral fracture in both primary osteoporosis and corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. In the sensitivity analyses with the open-label studies, the ranking order did not change.

CONCLUSION

The current evidence for bisphosphonates used in men with osteoporosis is inadequate. On the basis of the current evidence, zoledronic acid is most effective at preventing vertebral fractures, while risedronate has the highest possibility to rank the first in preventing non-vertebral fracture in men with primary osteoporosis and corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. More well-designed studies are needed to test our findings and to better know the comparative efficacy of bisphosphonate to prevent vertebral fracture in men with osteoporosis.

Prevalence of and factors associated with osteoporosis among Korean cancer survivors: a cross-sectional analysis of the Fourth and Fifth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys

BACKGROUND

Identifying and managing osteoporosis among cancer survivors is an important issue, yet little is known about the bone health of cancer survivors in Korea. This study was designed to measure the prevalence of osteoporosis and to assess related factors among Korean cancer survivors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was designed as a cross-sectional analysis. Data were obtained from dual energy X-ray absorptiometry measurement of the lumbar vertebrae and femoral neck, and from standardized questionnaires among 556 cancer survivors and 17,623 non-cancer controls who participated in the Fourth and Fifth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (2008-2011). We calculated adjusted proportions of osteoporosis in non-cancer controls vs. cancer survivors, and we performed multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The prevalence of osteoporosis among cancer survivors was significant higher than that of the non-cancer controls after adjusting for related factors. Furthermore, osteoporosis among cancer survivors was higher in elderly subjects (60-69 years : adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.04, 95% CI : 1.16-8.00, ≥70 years : aOR 6.60, 95% CI 2.20-19.79), in female cancer survivors (aOR: 7.03, 95% CI: 1.88-26.28), and in a group with lower monthly income (aOR: 3.38, 95% CI: 1.31-8.71). In male cancer survivors, underweight and lower calcium intake were risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that the osteoporosis among cancer survivors varies according to non-oncologic and oncologic factors. Effective screening should be applied, and a sufficient and comprehensive management should be matched to individual cancer survivors early after cancer treatment.

Analysis on survival and prognostic factors for cancer patients with malignancy-associated hypercalcemia

OBJECTIVE

To explore the incidence, clinical characteristics, diagnosis and treatment strategies, prognosis of patients with malignancy-associated hypercalcemia (MAH).

METHODS

The data of 115 patients with MAH who were treated at the Medical Oncology Department of Chinese PLA General Hospital from Jan., 2001 to Dec., 2010 was retrospectively reviewed. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazard model with statistic software SPSS 18.0.

RESULTS

The patients had blood calcium levels ranging from 2.77 to 4.87 mmol/L. Except for 9 cases who died or were discharged within 5 days after admission, all other patients recovered to normal blood calcium level after treatment with bisphosphonates or intravenous hydration and diuretics; their survival after occurrence of MAH was from 1 day to 4,051 days, and the median survival time was only 50 days. In the log-rank test, the male, renal metastasis, central nervous system symptoms and hypercalcemia occurring over 140 days after cancer diagnosis were predictors of poor survival (P=0.002, P=0.046, P=0.000, P=0.009). In the COX analysis, being male, central nervous system symptoms and hypercalcemia lasting over 140 days after cancer diagnosis were independent prognostic factors for survival time (RR=2.131, P=0.027; RR=3.054, P=0.002; RR=2.403, P=0.001). According to these factors, a score system was established to predict the patient prognosis and adjust the treatment.

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients with MAH have an extremely poor median survival. Some independent factors indicate poor prognosis, including male gender, central nervous system symptoms and hypercalcemia lasting over 140 days after cancer diagnosis. The prognostic score can serve as a reference for MAH prognosis and treatment, worthy of further investigation.