Final 5-year results of Z-FAST trial: adjuvant zoledronic acid maintains bone mass in postmenopausal breast cancer patients receiving letrozole

Follow-up of early breast cancer in a public health system: A 2024 AIGOM consensus project

Breast cancer stands as the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the primary cause of cancer-related mortality among women worldwide, including Italy. With the increasing number of survivors, many are enrolled in regular follow-up programs. However, adherence to recommendations from scientific societies (such as ASCO, ESMO, AIOM) for breast cancer follow-up management varies in daily clinical practice across different cancer centers, potentially resulting in unequal management and escalating costs. To address these concerns, the Italian Association of Multidisciplinary Oncology Groups (AIGOM) orchestrated a Consensus on early Breast Cancer follow-up utilizing the Estimate-Talk-Estimate methodology. Following the identification of 18 Items and 38 statements by a select Board, 46 out of 54 (85.1%) experts comprising a multidisciplinary and multiprofessional panel expressed their degree of consensus (Expert Panel). The Expert Panel underscores the potential for the multidisciplinary team to tailor follow-up intensity based on the individual risk of recurrence. In selected cases, the general practitioner may be recommended as the clinical lead for breast cancer follow-up, both after completion of adjuvant treatment and at early initiation of endocrine therapy in low-risk patients. Throughout follow-up, and alongside oncologic surveillance, the expert panel advises osteometabolic, cardiologic, and gynecologic surveillance for the early detection and management of early and late treatment toxicities. Moreover, preserving quality of life is emphasized, with provisions for psycho-oncologic support and encouragement to adopt protective lifestyle behaviors.

Adjuvant denosumab for early breast cancer-Evidence and controversy

The efficacy of adjuvant denosumab in combination with hormonotherapy in breast cancer patients was investigated in two randomized trials, ABCSG-18 and D-Care, but the results were mixed with respect to the impact of this drug on disease-free survival. However, the ABCSG-18 study has achieved its primary goal: prevention of clinical fractures. Therefore, the protective role of Denosumab on bone fragility induced by estrogen deprivation, already demonstrated in post-menopausal women, has been validated in the breast cancer setting.

Cancer treatment-induced bone loss

Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTBL) is associated with anti-tumor treatments, including endocrine therapies, chemotherapeutic treatments, radiotherapy, glucocorticoids, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Osteoporosis, characterized by the loss of bone mass, can increase the risk of fractures, leading to mortality and long-term disability, even after cancer remission. Cancer and osteoporosis have marked clinical and pathogenetic similarities. Both have a multifactorial etiology, affect the geriatric population, and markedly influence quality of life. Lifestyle management, including calcium and vitamin D supplementation, is recommended but the supporting evidence is limited. Oral and injectable bisphosphonates are effective for osteoporosis and malignant bone disease. Bisphosphonates increase bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with CTBL. Denosumab is also used in the management of CTBL; in clinical trials, it improved BMD and reduced the risk of fracture. Currently, there are no bone anabolic therapies for patients with cancer. Appropriate therapies are necessary to maintain optimal bone health, particularly in patients at heightened risk.

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.

Management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss in patients with breast and hormone sensitive prostate cancer: AIOM survey

PURPOSE

Cancer treatment-induced bone loss is a side effect of hormonal therapy that can severely affect patients' quality of life. The aim of this survey was to obtain an updated picture of management of bone health in patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant hormonal therapy and in patients with hormone sensitive prostate cancer according to Italian oncologists.

METHODS

Our survey was made up of 21 multiple-choice questions: the first part dealt with the respondents' characteristics, while the second with management of bone health in the described setting. An invitation to complete the survey was sent by e-mail to 2336 oncologists, members of Italian Association of Medical Oncology, in October 2022.

RESULTS

Overall, 121 (5.2%) Italian oncologists completed the survey. In most cases (57%) the oncologist personally took charge of the management of bone health in patients at risk for cancer treatment-induced bone loss. At the beginning of hormonal therapy, most respondents reported to require bone health diagnostic exams, such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (89%), repeated with different timing. Main reported reasons (not mutually exclusive) for prescribing antiresorptive drugs were modifying fracture risk (87%), densitometry values (75%) or prognosis (34%). Answers about the management of antiresorptive therapy were heterogeneous.

CONCLUSION

A heterogeneous approach on the management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss in Italy arises from this survey. This scenario highlights the need for a major consensus of the Italian scientific community on the diagnostic and therapeutic approach of cancer treatment-induced bone loss and for a greater awareness of this topic among Italian oncologists.

Assessment of bone turnover markers and DXA parameters to predict bone metastasis progression during zoledronate treatment: a single-center experience

Bone metastases (BM) are a serious cancer complication, potentially causing substantial morbidity. Among the clinical issues related to BM, there is the lack of specific tools for early diagnosis and prognosis. We explored whether combining bone turnover markers (BTM) with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) assessment could identify early BM progression and risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) during zoledronate treatment. Before the initiation of zoledronate (T0) and after six months of treatment (T1), serum levels of five BTM were measured, and patients (N = 47) underwent DXA evaluation. Standard radiological imaging was performed to assess bone tumor response to medical anti-cancer treatment. High tumor burden in bone correlated with higher serum CTX (p = 0.007) and NTX (p = 0.005) at baseline. Low concentrations of OPG at T0 predicted BM progression with a sensitivity and specificity of 63% and 77%, respectively, when a cutoff of 5.2 pmol/l was used; such a predictive meaning was stronger in patients with lytic BM (sensitivity: 88%, specificity: 80%; p = 0.0006). As for the risk of SREs, we observed an association between low baseline OC (p = 0.04) and OPG (p = 0.08) and the onset of any-time SREs, whereas an increase in OPG over time was associated with reduced risk of on-study events (p = 0.03). Moreover, a statistically significant correlation emerged between low baseline lumbar T-score and femur BMD and on-study SREs (p < 0.001 in both instances). These findings suggest that addition of DXA to BTM dosage could help stratifying the risk of SREs at the time of BM diagnosis but does not enhance our capability of detecting bone progression, during zoledronate treatment.

Bisphosphonates as Radiopharmaceuticals: Spotlight on the Development and Clinical Use of DOTAZOL in Diagnostics and Palliative Radionuclide Therapy

Bisphosphonates are therapeutic agents that have been used for almost five decades in the treatment of various bone diseases, such as osteoporosis, Paget disease and prevention of osseous complications in cancer patients. In nuclear medicine, simple bisphosphonates such as 99mTc-radiolabelled oxidronate and medronate remain first-line bone scintigraphic imaging agents for both oncology and non-oncology indications. In line with the growing interest in theranostic molecules, bifunctional bisphosphonates bearing a chelating moiety capable of complexing a variety of radiometals were designed. Among them, DOTA-conjugated zoledronate (DOTAZOL) emerged as an ideal derivative for both PET imaging (when radiolabeled with 68Ga) and management of bone metastases from various types of cancer (when radiolabeled with 177Lu). In this context, this report provides an overview of the main medicinal chemistry aspects concerning bisphosphonates, discussing their roles in molecular oncology imaging and targeted radionuclide therapy with a particular focus on bifunctional bisphosphonates. Particular attention is also paid to the development of DOTAZOL, with emphasis on the radiochemistry and quality control aspects of its preparation, before outlining the preclinical and clinical data obtained so far with this radiopharmaceutical candidate.

The Clinical Benefits of Antiresorptive Agents in Patients with Primary Breast Cancer Receiving Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy: A Systematic Review with Pairwise and Network Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Clinical trials have investigated the role of antiresorptive agents, including bisphosphonates and denosumab, in patients with primary breast cancer receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy, aiming for better bone protection and/or improving survival.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the clinical effects of antiresorptive agents in patients with early breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed and synthesized the clinical benefits and harms of antiresorptive agents in patients with early breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy by calculating the risk ratios (RRs).

RESULTS

In the pooled meta-analysis, antiresorptive agents had significant clinical benefits on disease recurrence (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.90) and locoregional recurrence (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.95) in patients with breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy. Early use of antiresorptive agents has a beneficial effect on secondary endocrine therapy resistance instead of primary resistance. Safety analysis revealed that potential risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ, RR 3.29, 95% CI 1.12-9.68) with antiresorptive agents; however, there is an insignificant difference in arthralgia. The subgroup analyses revealed that intervention with bisphosphonates might have profound clinical benefits, but also increased the occurrence of ONJ. A network meta-analysis further supported the clinical effects of early antiresorptive agent use compared with delayed use or placebo.

CONCLUSION

Using antiresorptive agents early in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy may provide additional benefits in risk reduction of recurrence, but there is a potential risk of ONJ.

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.

What Is Known about Breast Cancer in Young Women?

Breast cancer (BC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in women under the age of 40 years worldwide. In addition, the incidence of breast cancer in young women (BCYW) has been rising. Young women are not the focus of screening programs and BC in younger women tends to be diagnosed in more advanced stages. Such patients have worse clinical outcomes and treatment complications compared to older patients. BCYW has been associated with distinct tumour biology that confers a worse prognosis, including poor tumour differentiation, increased Ki-67 expression, and more hormone-receptor negative tumours compared to women >50 years of age. Pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes such as BRCA1/2 are more common in early-onset BC compared to late-onset BC. Despite all these differences, BCYW remains poorly understood with a gap in research regarding the risk factors, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Age-specific clinical characteristics or outcomes data for young women are lacking, and most of the standard treatments used in this subpopulation currently are derived from older patients. More age-specific clinical data and treatment options are required. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology, clinicopathologic characteristics, outcomes, treatments, and special considerations of breast cancer in young women. We also underline future directions and highlight areas that require more attention in future studies.

Initiation of Antiresorptive Drug Treatment during Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer-A Retrospective Cohort Study of 161,492 Patients in Germany

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to measure the proportion of women with an initial prescription of an antiresorptive drug (bisphosphonates or denosumab) during five years of endocrine breast cancer therapy.

METHODS

The study included women with an initial prescription of tamoxifen (TAM) or aromatase inhibitors (AIs) between January 2016 and December 2020. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to show the cumulative incidence of antiresorptive drug prescription for TAM and AIs separately for four age groups. A univariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was also used to estimate the relationship between initial endocrine drug (AIs vs. TAM) and antiresorptive drug prescription.

RESULTS

Within 5 years, 14.1% of patients on AI and 6.1% on TAM received their first prescription for an antiresorptive drug (p < 0.001). The difference between AI and TAM was greatest in women ≤50 years (12.9% of AI and 2.8% of patients on TAM), and smallest in women >80 years (14.5% of AI and 10.3% of patients on TAM). The proportion of denosumab was 46.2% among AI patients vs. 29.1% among patients on TAM (p < 0.001) as alendronate was prescribed to 36.9% of AI vs. 50.0% of patients on TAM.

CONCLUSIONS

Across all age groups, the cumulative incidence of antiresorptive drug prescriptions was higher in patients with BC treated with AI than those receiving TAM. Denosumab was most frequently used as an antiresorptive drug in patients treated with AI, while alendronate was administered more often in patients treated with TAM.

Prevention of aromatase inhibitor-induced bone loss with anti-resorptive therapy in post-menopausal women with early-stage breast cancer

We assessed if antiresorptive treatment can prevent aromatase inhibitor-induced bone loss in patients with early breast cancer. We observed that patients who did not receive antiresorptive treatment had a 20.8-fold increase in risk of bone loss after 24 months of aromatase inhibitors therapy.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to describe changes in femoral and lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) after 24 months of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and antiresorptive treatment in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

METHODS

Prospective, longitudinal study in a real-life setting with a 2-year follow-up. Patients underwent a complete baseline bone assessment including clinical assessment, biological evaluation, BMD measurement, and spine X-ray. Antiresorptive treatment was prescribed to patients with a T-score <  - 2 or a T-score <  - 1.5 SD with additional osteoporosis risk factors. A follow-up bone assessment was carried out after 24 months.

RESULTS

Among 328 patients referred to our center, 168 patients (67.7 ± 10.6 years) were included in our study, and 144 were eligible for antiresorptive treatment. After 24 months, patients receiving antiresorptive treatment experienced a significant increase of + 6.28% in femoral-BMD (F-BMD) and + 7.79% in lumbar-BMD (L-BMD). This increase was not significantly different between osteoporotic and osteopenic patients. Conversely, patients not receiving antiresorptive treatment presented significant F-BMD and L-BMD loss regardless of the baseline BMD. In the multivariate logistic model, the lack of antiresorptive treatment was the only predictive factor for major femoral bone loss with a 20.83 odds ratio (CI95%:4.2-100, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This real-life study confirmed that antiresorptive treatment significantly increases femoral and lumbar BMD regardless of the baseline BMD in postmenopausal patients receiving AIs for early breast cancer. Patients who did not receive antiresorptive treatment had a 20.8-fold increased risk of major bone loss. Nevertheless, the best threshold to adopt for starting antiresorptive agents remains undetermined.

Review of bone health in women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy

In estrogen-receptor-positive tumors, adjuvant endocrine therapy has been shown to be highly beneficial for both overall and disease-free survival. Estradiol is key in regulating bone and mineral physiology, and several studies found a strong correlation between these therapies and the risk of fractures. Since these therapies are often given for 5 through 10 years, the timing for bisphosphonates or denosumab initiation seems essential to managing bone metabolism. However, gray zones and discrepancies between guidelines remain as to the best threshold when to start antiresorptive treatment, or whether antiresorptive treatment should be administered to every woman undergoing adjuvant endocrine therapy, independent of their risk factors for fractures. Treatment options and strategies should be discussed at the start of hormone adjuvant therapy to come to a shared decision with the patient, with the final aim of reducing the risk of future fractures as much as possible. This review will cover present guidelines and literature on antiresorptive treatment in this setting, to provide clinicians with useful clues for managing these patients.

Managing Bone Health in Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Osteoporosis is a common condition that can be caused or exacerbated by estrogen deficiency.

METHODS

This narrative review will discuss optimizing bone health in the setting of adjuvant endocrine treatments for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and the current use of antiresorptive agents as adjuvant therapy and as bone modifying agents.

RESULTS

Adjuvant endocrine treatments for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors) affect bone health. The exact effect depends on the agent used and the menopausal state of the woman. Antiresorptive medications for osteoporosis, bisphosphonates and denosumab, lower the risk of bone loss from aromatase inhibitors. Use of bisphosphonates as adjuvant treatment in breast cancer, regardless of hormone receptor status, is increasing because of benefits seen to cancer relapse and survival.

CONCLUSION

Optimizing bone health in women with breast cancer during and after cancer treatment is informed by an understanding of breast cancer treatment and its skeletal effect.

Characterization and Treatment of Spinal Tumors

The prevalence of spinal tumors is rare in comparison to brain tumors which encompass most central nervous system tumors. Tumors of the spine can be divided into primary and metastatic tumors with the latter being the most common presentation. Primary tumors are subdivided based on their location on the spinal column and in the spinal cord into intramedullary, intradural extramedullary, and primary bone tumors. Back pain is a common presentation in spine cancer patients; however, other radicular pain may be present. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the imaging modality of choice for intradural extramedullary and intramedullary tumors. Plain radiographs are used in the initial diagnosis of primary bone tumors while Computed tomography (CT) and MRI may often be necessary for further characterization. Complete surgical resection is the treatment of choice for spinal tumors and may be curative for well circumscribed lesions. However, intralesional resection along with adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy can be indicated for patients that would experience increased morbidity from damage to nearby neurological structures caused by resection with wide margins. Even with the current treatment options, the prognosis for aggressive spinal cancer remains poor. Advances in novel treatments including molecular targeting, immunotherapy and stem cell therapy provide the potential for greater control of malignant and metastatic tumors of the spine.

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.

Secondary Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a global public health problem, with fractures contributing to significant morbidity and mortality. Although postmenopausal osteoporosis is most common, up to 30% of postmenopausal women, > 50% of premenopausal women, and between 50% and 80% of men have secondary osteoporosis. Exclusion of secondary causes is important, as treatment of such patients often commences by treating the underlying condition. These are varied but often neglected, ranging from endocrine to chronic inflammatory and genetic conditions. General screening is recommended for all patients with osteoporosis, with advanced investigations reserved for premenopausal women and men aged < 50 years, for older patients in whom classical risk factors for osteoporosis are absent, and for all patients with the lowest bone mass (Z-score ≤ -2). The response of secondary osteoporosis to conventional anti-osteoporosis therapy may be inadequate if the underlying condition is unrecognized and untreated. Bone densitometry, using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, may underestimate fracture risk in some chronic diseases, including glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, type 2 diabetes, and obesity, and may overestimate fracture risk in others (eg, Turner syndrome). FRAX and trabecular bone score may provide additional information regarding fracture risk in secondary osteoporosis, but their use is limited to adults aged ≥ 40 years and ≥ 50 years, respectively. In addition, FRAX requires adjustment in some chronic conditions, such as glucocorticoid use, type 2 diabetes, and HIV. In most conditions, evidence for antiresorptive or anabolic therapy is limited to increases in bone mass. Current osteoporosis management guidelines also neglect secondary osteoporosis and these existing evidence gaps are discussed.

Effect of antiresorptive therapy on aromatase inhibitor induced bone loss in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are routinely used to treat postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Although AIs improve breast cancer outcomes, they increase the risk of osteoporosis and fractures. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the effect of antiresorptive drugs on AI induced bone loss in postmenopausal women with non-metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

We searched four databases until November 4th 2020. We included Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antiresorptive drugs in postmenopausal women with breast cancer treated with AI. Two authors screened studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias independently and in duplicate.

RESULTS

We identified 14 RCTs: 7 on zoledronic acid, 6 on oral bisphosphonates and 1 on denosumab. The mean difference in bone mineral density (BMD) was 5% at the lumbar spine and 4% at the total hip, at 12 months, favoring zoledronic acid compared to control. The certainty of the evidence was low for lumbar spine and moderate for total hip BMD. Similarly, the mean difference was 3% at the lumbar spine and 2% at the total hip, favoring oral bisphosphonates with moderate certainty. The mean difference was 6% at the lumbar spine, and 4% at the total hip BMD favoring denosumab compared to placebo. In addition, zoledronic acid resulted in a mean difference in bone turnover marker levels of -35-41%, and the relarive risk for morphometric vertebral fractures was 0.7 [0.3-1.4], compared to control. Denosumab reduced fracture incidence by 50% compared to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Evidence suggests a protective effect of antiresorptive drugs on BMD and bone turnover markers in postmenopausal women with non-metastatic breast cancer on AI. However, data on fracture risk reduction remains unclear.

Efficacy of Antiresorptive Drugs on Bone Mineral Density in Post-Menopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer Receiving Adjuvant Aromatase Inhibitors: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) is a frequent complication of breast cancer therapies affecting both disability and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). To date, there is still a lack of consensus about the most effective approach that would improve bone health and HRQoL. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to summarize the evidence on the effects of antiresorptive drugs on CTIBL in patients with early breast cancer.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to April 30, 2021 to identify RCTs satisfying the following PICO model: P) Participants: postmenopausal women with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AI), age >18 years; I) Intervention: antiresorptive drugs (i.e. bisphosphonates and/or denosumab); C) Comparator: any comparator; O) Outcome: bone mineral density (BMD) modifications. Moreover, a quality assessment was performed according to the Jadad scale.

Results

Out of the initial 2415 records, 21 papers (15 studies) were included in the data synthesis. According to the Jadad scale, 6 studies obtained a score of 5, 1 study obtained a score of 4, 13 studies obtained a score of 3, and 1 study with score 1. Although both bisphosphonates and denosumab showed to increase BMD, only denosumab showed significant advantages on fractures.

Conclusions

Bone health management in patients with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant AIs remains challenging, and the optimal therapeutic approach is not standardized. Further studies are needed to investigate CTIBL, focusing on both the need for antiresorptive drugs and their duration based on individual patients’ characteristics.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42021267107.

Therapeutic Options in the Management of Aromatase Inhibitor-Associated Bone Loss

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most commonly occurring cancer in women worldwide. Early breast cancer is a kind of invasive neoplasm that has not proliferated beyond the breast or the axillary lymph nodes. Current therapeutic strategies for breast cancer mainly include local therapies such as surgery or radiotherapy and systemic therapies like chemotherapy, endocrine, and targeted therapy.Nowadays, the adjuvant treatment for hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer in postmenopausal women remains the main effective systemic therapy which can improve disease-free survival and overall survival; it involves several endocrine treatment regimens including selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), aromatase inhibitors (AIs), or a combination of them. AIs have been shown to be more effective in preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer when compared with tamoxifen, thus representing the standard of care for adjuvant endocrine therapy. Although AIs are usually well-tolerated, they can have some side effects. Apart from the appearance of arthralgias or myalgias and cardiovascular events, AI therapies, reducing already low endogenous postmenopausal estradiol levels, cause increased bone loss and increase fracture risk in postmenopausal women.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the therapeutic options in the management of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss (AIBL).

METHODS

We reviewed the current literature dealing with different therapeutic options in the treatment of AIBL.

RESULTS

Clinical practice guidelines recommend a careful evaluation of skeletal health in all women with breast cancer before AI therapy initiation. Adequate calcium and vitamin D intake have also been suggested. Pharmacological attempts to minimize AI-related bone loss have focused on the use of antiresorptive agents, such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, to protect bone integrity and reduce the risk of fractures. Furthermore, clinical trials have shown that by making the bone microenvironment less susceptible to breast cancer metastasis, these drugs are able to increase disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

AI, thatare the pillar of the systemic treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, are associated with different side effects, and in particular osteoporosis and fractures. Both bisphosphonates and denosumab are able to prevent this negative effect.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cancer Treatment-Induced Bone Loss (CTIBL): State of the Art and Proper Management in Breast Cancer Patients on Endocrine Therapy

OPINION STATEMENT

About 70-80% of early breast cancer (BC) patients receive adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for at least 5 years. ET includes in the majority of cases the use of aromatase inhibitors, as upfront or switch strategy, that lead to impaired bone health. Given the high incidence and also the high prevalence of BC, cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) represents the most common long-term adverse event experimented by patients with hormone receptor positive tumours. CTIBL is responsible for osteoporosis occurrence and, as a consequence, fragility fractures that may negatively affect quality of life and survival expectancy. As recommended by main international guidelines, BC women on aromatase inhibitors should be carefully assessed for their fracture risk at baseline and periodically reassessed during adjuvant ET in order to early detect significant worsening in terms of bone health. Antiresorptive agents, together with adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D, should be administered in BC patients during all course of ET, especially in those at high risk of osteoporotic fractures, as calculated by tools available for clinicians. Bisphosphonates, such as zoledronate or pamidronate, and anti-RANKL antibody, denosumab, are the two classes of antiresorptive drugs used in clinical practice with similar efficacy in preventing bone loss induced by aromatase inhibitor therapy. The choice between them, in the absence of direct comparison, should be based on patients' preference and compliance; the different safety profile is mainly related to the route of administration, although both types of drugs are manageable with due care, since most of the adverse events are predictable and preventable. Despite advances in management of CTIBL, several issues such as the optimal time of starting antiresorptive agents and the duration of treatment remain unanswered. Future clinical trials as well as increased awareness of bone health are needed to improve prevention, assessment and treatment of CTIBL in these long-term survivor patients.

Managing Common Estrogen Deprivation Side Effects in HR+ Breast Cancer: an Evidence-Based Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The article reviews the consequences of estrogen deprivation during endocrine therapy for breast cancer and provides an update on alternative therapies for the management of symptoms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Endocrine therapy has progressed substantially in recent years, and its use is recommended for all breast cancer patients expressing hormone receptors. The main adverse events of this treatment can be controlled with medications and nonpharmacological measures. Antidepressants are effective in controlling vasomotor symptoms. Vaginal discomfort can be treated with local lubricants and pelvic floor physiotherapy, which may help in sexual dysfunction. Pathophysiological mechanisms of musculoskeletal symptoms during aromatase inhibitors treatment are not well understood, but some studies evaluating treatment with duloxetine, yoga, and acupuncture have shown some benefits. For prevention of bone loss, patients with risk factors should be offered bisphosphonates or denosumab. Individualization of treatment is crucial. Consideration should be given to therapy effects on quality of life, and strategies for controlling associated symptoms should be offered.

Zoledronic acid for prevention of bone loss in patients receiving bariatric surgery

Purpose

Bariatric surgery is an effective treatment for severe obesity but causes substantial bone loss and increased risk of fractures. To date, there have been no studies examining whether pharmacologic treatments can prevent bone loss after bariatric surgery. We performed an exploratory study to examine the preliminary safety and efficacy of zoledronic acid (ZOL), a potent anti-resorptive bisphosphonate, to suppress bone turnover markers (BTM) and prevent declines in bone mineral density (BMD) after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery.

Methods

We performed an open-label pilot study of pre-operative ZOL in postmenopausal women with obesity who were planning RYGB (n = 4). A single dose of zoledronic acid 5 mg was given intravenously prior to RYGB. Serum bone biochemistries including C-telopeptide (CTX) and procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) were measured at multiple timepoints throughout the 24-week study. BMD was also obtained at the spine and hip by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and at the trabecular spine by quantitative computed tomography (QCT) at pre-operative baseline and 24 weeks. Results were compared against pre-operative baseline and against changes among RYGB historical controls (n = 10).

Results

At 2 weeks after RYGB, there was a nonsignificant trend for CTX and P1NP levels to be lower than baseline levels in the ZOL group. By 24 weeks after RYGB, however, participants who received ZOL had a significant increase in CTX above pre-operative baseline (+0.228 ± 0.117 ng/dL, p = 0.030) but this CTX rise was less than that observed in the controls (+0.601 ± 0.307 ng/dL, p = 0.042 between groups). Despite ZOL use, participants had significant areal BMD loss at the total hip as compared to pre-operative baseline (-4.2 ± 1.5%, p = 0.012) that was similar in magnitude to total hip BMD loss in the controls (-5.5 ± 3.9%, p = 0.005). There was a suggestion that the ZOL group might be protected against trabecular spine volumetric bone loss as compared to the control group (+4.8 ± 8.0% vs. -5.9 ± 7.0%, p = 0.075 between groups). Serum calcium, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and parathyroid hormone did not change in either group. No hypocalcemia or serious adverse events were reported after ZOL.

Conclusion

In this proof of concept study, a single dose of ZOL prior to RYGB appeared to transiently mitigate but not fully prevent high bone turnover in the acute postoperative period. At 24 weeks after RYGB, our preliminary data suggest that ZOL was not sufficient to prevent bone loss at the hip, although it may preserve bone density at the trabecular spine. Further prospective, controlled studies are needed to confirm our findings and to identify the best strategies for preventing bone loss in bariatric patients receiving RYGB.

Bone metastasis: mechanisms, therapies, and biomarkers

Skeletal metastases are frequent complications of many cancers, causing bone complications (fractures, bone pain, disability) that negatively affect the patient's quality of life. Here, we first discuss the burden of skeletal complications in cancer bone metastasis. We then describe the pathophysiology of bone metastasis. Bone metastasis is a multistage process: long before the development of clinically detectable metastases, circulating tumor cells settle and enter a dormant state in normal vascular and endosteal niches present in the bone marrow, which provide immediate attachment and shelter, and only become active years later as they proliferate and alter the functions of bone-resorbing (osteoclasts) and bone-forming (osteoblasts) cells, promoting skeletal destruction. The molecular mechanisms involved in mediating each of these steps are described, and we also explain how tumor cells interact with a myriad of interconnected cell populations in the bone marrow, including a rich vascular network, immune cells, adipocytes, and nerves. We discuss metabolic programs that tumor cells could engage with to specifically grow in bone. We also describe the progress and future directions of existing bone-targeted agents and report emerging therapies that have arisen from recent advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of bone metastases. Finally, we discuss the value of bone turnover biomarkers in detection and monitoring of progression and therapeutic effects in patients with bone metastasis.

Bisphosphonates and breast cancer - From cautious palliation to saving lives

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

Challenges in Preventing Bone Loss Induced by Aromatase Inhibitors

CONTEXT

Aromatase inhibitors have become a mainstay in the adjuvant treatment regimen in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. While many of these patients have an excellent long-term prognosis, adverse effects on bone represent an emerging complication of aromatase inhibitor treatment, resulting in substantial bone loss and fragility fractures. Treatment approaches to prevent aromatase inhibitor-induced bone loss typically consist of an antiresorptive approach with bisphosphonates or the RANKL antibody denosumab. However, different guidelines vary with respect to treatment thresholds, duration, and dosing. The choice of antiresorptive regime is further complicated by comorbidities and potential disease-modifying effects of individual agents.

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes the evidence of how aromatase inhibitors affect bone health and provides an update of clinical approaches to preserve bone strength in affected women. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab XX: 0-0, 2020).

Extra-skeletal effects of bisphosphonates

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are pyrophosphate analogues widely used in diseases related to bone loss and increased bone turnover. Their high affinity for bone hydroxyapatite makes them ideal agents for bone diseases, while preventing them from reaching other cells and tissues. Data of the last decade, however, have demonstrated extra-skeletal tissue deposition and a variety of non-skeletal effects have been recently recognized. As such, BPs have been shown to exert anti-tumor, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory and anti-diabetic effects. In addition, new delivery systems (liposomes, nanoparticles, hydrogels) are being developed in an effort to expand BPs clinical application to extra-skeletal tissues and enhance their overall therapeutic spectrum and effectiveness. In the present review, we outline current data on extra-skeletal actions of bisphosphonates and attempt to unravel the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms.

Bone health care in women with breast cancer

The aim of this article is to analyze and critically appraise the literature regarding optimal bone health care in women with breast cancer and, more specifically, to present (1) the causes of bone loss in breast cancer patients, (2) the appropriate screening for osteoporosis and fracture risk estimation, (3) optimal prevention and therapeutic strategies for osteoporosis and fractures, (4) the role of antiresorptive agents as adjuvant therapy for the prevention of bone metastases and increase of overall survival, and (5) current data on the possible use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) in these patients. The objective is to provide a sound pathophysiological background along with evidence-based and practical recommendations for physicians managing such women.

Clinical benefits of bone targeted agents in early breast cancer

Through their profound effects on the bone microenvironment, bone targeted treatments can potentially modify the process of metastasis and have important effects on disease outcomes as well as on bone health. The Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) evaluated the effect of adjuvant bisphosphonates in early breast cancer by performing a meta-analysis of individual patient data (n = 18,766) from all available randomized trials initiated between the early 1990s until 2006. In postmenopausal women, bisphosphonates reduced bone recurrence (RR = 0.72; 95%CI 0.60-0.86, 2p = 0.0002) and breast cancer mortality (0.82; 95%CI 0.73-0.93, 2p = 0.002); no effects on disease outcomes could be identified in premenopausal women. Somewhat surprisingly, these effects could not be reproduced in the large adjuvant trial of denosumab (DCARE). In this study, neither bone metastasis free survival (the primary endpoint) or disease-free survival were improved by the addition of this targeted antibody inhibitor of osteoclast activity. Efforts are ongoing to try to understand the biologic implications of these results. For now, the use of denosumab in early cancers is limited to its use for fracture prevention using the 60mg every 6 months dosing schedule.

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.

Estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer treatment: Are multi-target compounds the next promising approach?

Endocrine therapy is currently the main therapeutic approach for estrogen receptor-positive (ER⁺) breast cancer, the most frequent subtype of breast cancer in women worldwide. For this subtype of tumors, the current clinical treatment includes aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and anti-estrogenic compounds, such as Tamoxifen and Fulvestrant, being AIs the first-line treatment option for post-menopausal women. Moreover, the recent guidelines also suggest the use of these compounds by pre-menopausal women after suppressing ovaries function. However, besides its therapeutic efficacy, the prolonged use of this type of therapies may lead to the development of several adverse effects, as well as, endocrine resistance, limiting the effectiveness of such treatments. In order to surpass this issues and clinical concerns, during the last years, several studies have been suggesting alternative therapeutic approaches, considering the function of aromatase, ERα and ERβ. Here, we review the structural and functional features of these three targets and their importance in ER⁺ breast cancer treatment, as well as, the current treatment strategies used in clinic, emphasizing the importance of the development of multi-target compounds able to simultaneously modulate these key targets, as a novel and promising therapeutic strategy for this type of cancer.

Breast cancer outcome in relation to bone mineral density and bisphosphonate use: a sub-study of the DATA trial

Purpose

The phase III DATA study compared 6 and 3 years of adjuvant anastrozole following 2–3 years of tamoxifen in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. This pre-planned side-study assessed the relationship between a reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), and evaluated the effect of bisphosphonates on DRFS.

Methods

We selected all patients with a BMD measurement within 3 years after randomisation (landmark) without any DRFS events. Kaplan–Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards models were used for analyses.

Results

Of 1860 eligible patients, 1142 had a DEXA scan before the landmark. The BMD was normal in 436 (38.2%) and showed osteopenia in 565 (49.5%) and osteoporosis in 141 (12.3%) patients. After a median follow-up of 5.0 years from the landmark, neither osteopenia nor osteoporosis (compared with normal BMD) were associated with DRFS in both the 6-year [osteopenia HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.45–1.49), osteoporosis HR 1.10 (95% CI 0.26–4.67)] and the 3-year arm [osteopenia HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.40–1.42), osteoporosis HR 1.86 (95% CI 0.43–8.01)]. Moreover, bisphosphonate use did not impact DRFS.

Conclusion

No association was observed between a reduced BMD and DRFS. Neither did we observe an impact of bisphosphonates on DRFS.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-020-05567-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Management manual for cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL): position statement of the JSBMR

Androgen deprivation therapy and aromatase inhibitors are known to cause a decrease in bone mineral density and an increase in fractures. Patients receiving these treatments have been shown to have a fracture risk equal to or greater than that of patients with osteoporosis with prevalent fractures. This manual was created to prevent fractures in patients with cancer treatment-induced bone loss with high fracture risks who cannot be treated under the current Japanese guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. This manual recommends drug treatment for patients with BMD - 2.0 ≤ T score < - 1.5 with the family history of hip fracture or 15% or more 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures by FRAX^®; or in patients with BMD T score < - 2.0. It is important to verify whether the use of this manual can reduce fractures and improve the quality of life of patients with cancer treatment-induced bone loss by prospective studies.

Endocrine Therapy-related Endocrinopathies-Biology, Prevalence and Implications for the Management of Breast Cancer

Nearly 270,000 new breast cancer cases are predicted to be diagnosed in the USA in 2019 with more than 70% being estrogen receptor positive and treated using endocrine therapy. The suppression of estrogen biosynthesis or action via the use of ovarian suppression, aromatase inhibitors and selective estrogen receptor modulators/degraders, respectively, is effective in approximately 70% of women. The systemic inhibition of estrogen during breast cancer treatment is also associated with side effects due to the important endocrine functions of this steroid hormone, including its role in the maintenance of energy homeostasis and bone health. The current work will present perspectives of the impact of endocrine therapy from the point of view of breast medical oncology, endocrinology, and basic science.

Adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy in early-stage breast cancer-Treating the soil to kill the seed

Bisphosphonates alter the tumor microenvironment, possibly preventing cancer cell growth in the bone. Analyses of data from numerous clinical trials and a large individual patient-level data meta-analysis have suggested an anti-tumor effect for bisphosphonates in patients with early-stage breast cancer who are postmenopausal. The absolute benefit from the use of bisphosphonates on breast cancer-related mortality reduction mirrors that seen with the use of anthracycline-based chemotherapy versus a first-generation chemotherapy regimen (CMF). In this review, we discuss the evidence base for the use of adjuvant bisphosphonates in early-stage breast cancer and provide recommendations for clinical use.

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.

Late Effects of Breast Cancer Treatment and Outcome after Corrective Interventions

Purpose:

To study the late toxicities of treatment and its impact on Breast cancer survivors among Indian patients.

Materials and Methods:

Our study recruited 152 curatively treated non metastatic carcinoma breast patients. The baseline demographic details, disease related and treatment related information were collected. The late effects included breast cancer related lymphedema, shoulder dysfunction, treatment induced bone loss, hypothyroidism, cardiac dysfunction, and chemotherapy induced cognitive dysfunction and Quality of life.

Results:

The median age was 47 years (range 27 -72 years). The cumulative frequency of BCRL and shoulder dysfunction was 31.57% and 34.86% respectively. The improvement in BCRL with corrective intervention was not statistically significant. The BCRL was significantly associated with shoulder dysfunction. The frequency of loss of bone mineral density was 38.15%. There was statistically significant improvement in bone mineral density with interventions. The cumulative rate of hypothyroidism and cardiac dysfunction was 14.47 % and 2.17% respectively which improved after corrective therapy. We did not find any delayed cognitive dysfunction. There was improvement in global health, physical function, role function, fatigue, Nausea, vomiting, pain scores, insomnia, Loss of appetite, diarrhea and arm symptoms over time with intervention.

Conclusion:

Our study has shown that nearly half of the survivors were suffering from at least one of the late effects. The intervention helped in improving the loss of bone mineral density, hypothyroidism, cardiac dysfunction and quality of life in Breast cancer survivors.

Assessment and management of bone health in women with early breast cancer receiving endocrine treatment in the DATA study

The phase III DATA study investigates the efficacy of adjuvant anastrozole (6 vs. 3 year) in postmenopausal women with breast cancer previously treated with 2-3 years of tamoxifen. This planned side-study assessed patterns of care regarding detection and treatment of osteopenia/osteoporosis, and trends in bone mineral density (BMD) during and after therapy. We registered all BMD measurements and bisphosphonate-use. Time to osteopenia/osteoporosis was analysed by Kaplan Meier methodology. For the trend in T-scores we used linear mixed models with random patients effects. Of 1860 eligible DATA patients, 910 (48.9%) had a baseline BMD measurement. Among patients with a normal baseline BMD (n = 417), osteopenia was observed in 53.5% and 55.4% in the 6- and 3-year group respectively (p = 0.18), during follow-up. Only two patients (3-year group) developed osteoporosis. Of the patients with osteopenia at baseline (n = 408), 24.4% and 20.4% developed osteoporosis respectively (p = 0.89). Three years after randomisation 18.3% and 18.2% used bisphosphonates in the 6- and 3-year groups respectively and 6 years after randomisation this was 23.7% and 20.9% respectively (p = 0.90) of which the majority used oral bisphosphonates. The yearly mean BMD-change during anastrozole in the lumbar spine showed a T-score decline of 0.075. After bisphosphonate addition the decline became less prominent (0.047 (p < 0.001)) and after anastrozole cessation, while continuing bisphosphonates, the mean BMD yearly increased (0.047 (p < 0.001)). In conclusion, extended anastrozole therapy was not associated with a higher incidence of osteoporosis. Anastrozole-use was associated with a BMD decrease; however, the decline was modest and partially reversible after anastrozole cessation.

French recommendations on strategies for preventing and treating osteoporosis induced by adjuvant breast cancer therapies

Standard adjuvant therapies for breast cancer such as chemotherapy or aromatase inhibitor and LH-RH agonist hormone therapy are associated with significant survival gains but also induce bone loss by aggravating the estrogen deprivation. The bone loss may be substantial, notably during early treatment, and occurs regardless of the baseline bone mineral density values. The objective of developing these recommendations was to achieve a practical consensus among various scientific societies, based on literature review, about osteoporosis prevention and treatment in these patients. The following scientific societies contributed to the work: Société Française de Rhumatologie (SFR), Groupe de Recherche et d'Information sur les Ostéoporoses (GRIO), Groupe Européen d'Etudes des Métastases Osseuses (GEMO), Association Francophone pour les Soins Oncologiques de Support (AFSOS), Société Française de Sénologie et de Pathologie Mammaire (SFSPM), Société Française de Radiothérapie Oncologique (SFRO). Drug prescription and reimbursement modalities in France were taken into account. These recommendations apply to postmenopausal women taking systemic chemotherapy and/or aromatase inhibitor therapy, non-postmenopausal women taking LH-RH agonist therapy, and non-postmenopausal women with persistent amenorrhea 1 year after chemotherapy completion. All women in these three categories should undergo an evaluation of bone health and receive interventions to combat risk factors for bone loss. Patients with a history of severe osteoporotic fracture and/or a T-score value <-2.5 should receive osteoporosis drug therapy. The FRAX® score should be used to guide treatment decisions in patients whose T-score is between -1 and -2.5. General osteoporosis prevention measures should be applied in patients without criteria for osteoporosis drug therapy, who should undergo bone mineral density measurements 18-24 months later if the baseline T-score is<-1 and 3-5 years later if the baseline T-score is>-1. The anti-tumor effect of bisphosphonates and denosumab was not considered when establishing these recommendations.

Comparison of risedronate versus placebo in preventing anastrozole-induced bone loss in women at high risk of developing breast cancer with osteopenia

Anastrozole has been shown to prevent breast cancer in postmenopausal women at high risk of the disease, but has been associated with substantial accelerated loss of bone mineral density (BMD) and increased fractures. Here, we investigate the effect of risedronate on BMD after 5 years of follow-up in the IBIS-II prevention trial. 1410 women were enrolled in the bone sub-study and stratified into three strata according to the lowest baseline T-score at spine or femoral neck. The objective was to compare the effect of oral risedronate (35 mg weekly) versus placebo in osteopenic women in stratum II who were randomised to anastrozole in the main study. 258 osteopenic, postmenopausal women at high risk of developing breast cancer for whom baseline and follow-up bone mineral density measurements were available. 5-year mean BMD change at the lumbar spine for osteopenic women randomised to anastrozole and risedronate was -0.4% compared to -4.2% for those not on risedronate (P < 0.0001) but not significantly different between risedronate users and non-users at the hip (P = 0.2). 5-year mean PINP change was -20% for those randomised to anastrozole and risedronate compared to 3% for those not on risedronate but on anastrozole (P < 0.0001). Our results confirm the bone loss associated with the use of anastrozole and show that anastrozole-induced BMD loss in the spine can be controlled with risedronate treatment. However, our results suggest that weekly oral risedronate is unable to completely prevent anastrozole induced bone loss at the hip.

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

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

The evolution and understanding of skeletal complication endpoints in clinical trials of tumors with metastasis to the bone

Bone metastases are a frequent complication of solid tumors, leading to significant skeletal sequelae that negatively impact quality of life and survival. Prevention and management of skeletal-related complications are critical treatment goals in oncology. Endpoints used in clinical trials to evaluate skeletal-related complications have evolved. In contrast to single measures of bone health, contemporary clinical trial endpoints reflect composite measures of skeletal-related complications, and increasingly also survival. In addition, key symptomatic components, which are more reflective of quality of life and the patient experience, are being incorporated. Given the evolution and resulting diversity of the endpoints being used in pivotal trials, it is becoming increasingly relevant to clarify the utility and the potential clinical impact of these measures not only within the context of trials but also in the real-world setting. Here, we describe the development and evolution of skeletal endpoints used in trials, and discuss their clinical relevance.

Antiresorptive agents' bone-protective and adjuvant effects in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer

Potent antiresorptive drugs (bisphosphonate and denosumab) are often used to protect bone health in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. In addition, clinical trials have shown that these drugs increase disease-free survival, though the mechanism of adjuvant benefit is largely unknown. Here we review the bone health and adjuvant data for both classes of antiresorptive drugs and highlight differences in their pharmacology. Inhibition of bone resorption is vitally important to protect against osteoporotic fractures, and may also contribute to adjuvant survival benefits by making the bone microenvironment less amenable to breast cancer metastasis. After a course of therapy, stoppage of bisphosphonates yields a persistent antiresorptive effect, whereas discontinuation of denosumab causes a rebound increase in bone resorption markers and a loss of bone mineral density to baseline levels. Whether the potential adjuvant benefits of denosumab are also rapidly lost after drug discontinuation deserves further investigation.

Bone health during endocrine therapy for cancer

Preservation of bone health remains a long-term clinical challenge in patients with breast and prostate cancer. Osteoporosis, defined by a loss of bone mass and microarchitecture, often results in fragility fractures that are typically associated with a high socioeconomic burden. Endocrine therapy, a mainstay treatment in the management of patients with hormone-sensitive breast and prostate cancer in the adjuvant setting, commonly exerts adverse effects on the musculoskeletal system and is associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures. Adjuvant use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues, which can also be used in metastatic disease, in combination with tamoxifen in premenopausal women, and aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer, causes rapid bone loss and fragility fractures. By contrast, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, such as tamoxifen, have bone-protective effects in postmenopausal women. In men with castration-sensitive prostate cancer, androgen deprivation is achieved with drugs that lower gonadotropin levels, and these drugs can be combined with androgen receptor antagonists. These therapies induce a high bone turnover with rapid bone loss that is reminiscent of the changes occurring in early menopause and result in an increased risk of fracture. In this Review, we describe how adjuvant endocrine therapies of breast and prostate cancer impair bone health and outline evidence from randomised controlled trials of strategies to reduce risk of fracture.

Bone-Modifying Agents in Early-Stage and Advanced Breast Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Bone-modifying agents have an important role in the treatment of patients with bone mineral density loss, early-stage breast cancer to reduce risk of recurrence, and metastatic breast cancer with bone involvement. Here we review mechanisms of action of these agents and clinical indications for their use.

RECENT FINDINGS

The meta-analysis undertaken by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group showed that the use of bisphosphonates was associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer recurrence.

SUMMARY

The effect of bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand inhibitors on bone health provides an opportunity to decrease the incidence of skeletal-related events and improve cancer outcomes in certain subsets of patients.

Effectiveness of bisphosphonate combined with activated vitamin D in patients with aromatase inhibitor-induced osteoporosis after breast cancer operation

Objectives

We compared the effectiveness of bisphosphonates combined with activated vitamin D administered for therapy of aromatase inhibitor-induced osteoporosis after a breast cancer operation and primary postmenopausal osteoporosis through propensity score matching.

Methods

Forty-eight postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer, who had postoperative adjuvant treatment with aromatase inhibitors and whose T-score of bone mineral density (BMD) decreased below −2.5 (AI group), and 48 patients of primary postmenopausal osteoporosis (PO group) enrolled in this retrospective observational study. They were administered monthly risedronate or minodronate, and daily alfacalcitol or eldecalcitol were combined. Their BMD (L2–4, L-BMD), serum-corrected calcium, serum phosphate, tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP-5b), bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP), estimated glomerular filtration rate, urine calcium/creatinine ratio, intact-parathyroid hormone, and 25-hydroxy vitamin D were measured before treatment and until 24 months.

Results

L-BMD values increased with time compared with the baseline values in each group, and there was no significant difference in the groups. Percentage value of TRACP-5b decreased rapidly after 6 months and maintained low level until 24 months in both groups. Percentage value of BAP in the AI group decreased continuously until 24 months. In contrast, the percentage change in the PO group plateaued after 6 months.

Conclusions

It is suggested that monthly oral bisphosphonate combined with activated Vitamin D is an effective therapy to increase BMD in the aromatase inhibitor-induced osteoporosis after breast cancer operation. Monitoring of kidney function and concentration of Ca in blood and urine may be necessary.

Assessment and management of bone health in women with oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy: Position statement of the Endocrine Society of Australia, the Australian and New Zealand Bone & Mineral Society, the Australasian Menopause Society and the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia

To formulate clinical consensus recommendations on bone health assessment and management of women with oestrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy, representatives appointed by relevant Australian Medical Societies used a systematic approach for adaptation of guidelines (ADAPTE) to derive an evidence-informed position statement addressing 5 key questions. Women receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors and the subset of premenopausal woman treated with tamoxifen have accelerated bone loss and increased fracture risk. Both bisphosphonates and denosumab prevent bone loss; additionally, denosumab has proven antifracture benefit. Women considering endocrine therapy need fracture risk assessment, including clinical risk factors, biochemistry and bone mineral density (BMD) measurement, with monitoring based on risk factors. Weight-bearing exercise, vitamin D and calcium sufficiency are recommended routinely. Antiresorptive treatment should be considered in women with prevalent or incident clinical or morphometric fractures, a T-score (or Z-scores in women <50 years) of <-2.0 at any site, or if annual bone loss is ≥5%, considering baseline BMD and other fracture risk factors. Duration of antiresorptive treatment can be individualized based on absolute fracture risk. Relative to their skeletal benefits, risks of adverse events with antiresorptive treatments are low. Skeletal health should be considered in the decision-making process regarding choice and duration of endocrine therapy. Before and during endocrine therapy, skeletal health should be assessed regularly, optimized by nonpharmacological intervention and where indicated antiresorptive treatment, in an individualized, multidisciplinary approach. Clinical trials are needed to better delineate long-term fracture risks of adjuvant endocrine therapy and to determine the efficacy of interventions designed to minimize these risks.