Recommendations for antiresorptive therapy in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer: Marburg AIBL Guideline Evaluation Study (MAGES)

Clinical practice guidelines for full-cycle standardized management of bone health in breast cancer patients

Bone health management for breast cancer spans the entire cycle of patient care, including the prevention and treatment of bone loss caused by early breast cancer treatment, the adjuvant application of bone-modifying agents to improve prognosis, and the diagnosis and treatment of advanced bone metastases. Making good bone health management means formulating appropriate treatment strategies and dealing with adverse drug reactions, and will help to improve patients' quality of life and survival rates. The Breast Cancer Expert Committee of the National Cancer Center for Quality Control organized relevant experts to conduct an in-depth discussion on the full-cycle management of breast cancer bone health based on evidence-based medicine, and put forward reasonable suggestions to guide clinicians to better deal with health issues in bone health clinics.

Use of Adjuvant Bisphosphonates and Other Bone-Modifying Agents in Breast Cancer: ASCO-OH (CCO) Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario [CCO]) adjuvant bone-modifying agents in breast cancer guideline.

METHODS

An Expert Panel conducted a systematic review to identify new, potentially practice-changing data.

RESULTS

Four articles met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for revision of the previous recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy should be discussed with all postmenopausal patients (natural or therapy-induced) with primary breast cancer, irrespective of hormone receptor status and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, who are candidates to receive adjuvant systemic therapy. Adjuvant bisphosphonates, if used, are not substitutes for standard anticancer modalities. The benefit of adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy will vary depending on the underlying risk of recurrence and is associated with a modest improvement in overall survival. The NHS PREDICT tool provides estimates of the benefit of adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy and may aid in decision making. Factors influencing the decision to recommend adjuvant bisphosphonate use should include patients' risk of recurrence, risk of side effects, financial toxicity, drug availability, patient preferences, comorbidities, and life expectancy. When an adjuvant bisphosphonate is used to prevent breast cancer recurrence, the therapeutic options recommended by the Panel include oral clodronate, oral ibandronate, and intravenous zoledronic acid. The Panel supports starting bisphosphonate therapy early, consistent with the points outlined in the parent CCO-ASCO guideline; this is a consensus recommendation. The Panel does not recommend adjuvant denosumab to prevent breast cancer recurrence, because studies did not show a consistent reduction of breast cancer recurrence in any subset of those with early-stage breast cancer.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guideline.

Aromatase inhibitors attenuate the effect of alendronate in women with breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Aromatase inhibitors are known to accelerate bone loss in patients with breast cancer. However, how much AIs affect the efficacy of antiresorptive agents has not been studied. The study aimed to compare the effect of alendronate on bone mineral density (BMD) between patients with and without AI treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 90 postmenopausal women with early breast cancer who were being treated with both AI and alendronate 70 mg weekly (ALN + AI), and 90 age- and body mass index (BMI)-matched patients who were only taking alendronate (ALN-only) were analyzed. BMD and bone turnover markers (BTMs) were assessed at the baseline and 12 months.

RESULTS

The mean age was 63 years. At baseline, the ALN-only group had lower lumbar spine (LS), femur neck (FN), and total hip (TH) BMD than ALN + AI group. After 1-year of alendronate treatment, the LS and FN BMD were improved more in the ALN-only group than those in the ALN + AI group after adjustments for age, BMI, baseline BMD, diabetes, hypertension, renal function, and previous fracture history [LS BMD: 6.2% (3.1%; 9.2%) in ALN-only, 3.5% (-0.5%; 6.5%) in ALN + AI, p = 0.001; FN BMD: 2.5% (0.3%; 5.7%) in ALN-only, 0.9% (- 1.8%; 3.6%) in ALD + AI, p = 0.032]. BTMs were significantly decreased in both groups, but the changes between groups were similar.

CONCLUSION

The effect of alendronate on the LS and FN BMD was attenuated in postmenopausal women who were taking AI compared to those who were not on AI.

Management of Potential Long-Term Toxicities in Breast Cancer Patients

Breast cancer is the most common non-cutaneous malignancy among women, and there are over 3 million breast cancer survivors living in the United States today. Excellent cure rates with modern therapies are associated with substantial toxicities for many women; it is important that health care providers attend to the resulting symptoms and issues to optimize quality of life in this population. In this article, we review management options for potential long term toxicities in breast cancer survivors, with a particular focus on bone health, fertility preservation, premature menopause, cardiac dysfunction, and cognitive impairment.

Fragility fracture: recent developments in risk assessment

More than half of older women who sustain a fragility fracture do not have osteoporosis by World Health Organization (WHO) bone mineral density (BMD) criteria; and, while BMD has been used to assess fracture risk for over 30 years, a range of other skeletal and nonskeletal clinical risk factors (CRFs) for fracture have been recognized. More than 30 assessment tools using CRFs have been developed, some predicting fracture risk and others low BMD alone. Recent systematic reviews have reported that many tools have not been validated against fracture incidence, and that the complexity of tools and the number of CRFs included do not ensure best performance with poor assessment of (internal or comparative) validity. Internationally, FRAX® is the most commonly recommended tool, in addition to QFracture in the UK, The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tool in Canada and Garvan in Australia. All tools estimate standard 10-year risk of major osteoporotic and 10-year risk of hip fracture: FRAX® is able to estimate fracture risk either with or without BMD, but CAROC and Garvan both require BMD and QFracture does not. The best evidence for the utility of these tools is in case finding but there may be future prospects for the use of 10-year fracture risk as a common currency with reference to the benefits of treatment, whether pharmacological or lifestyle. The use of this metric is important in supporting health economic analyses. However, further calibration studies will be needed to prove that the tools are robust and that their estimates can be used in supporting treatment decisions, independent of BMD.

New horizons in fracture risk assessment

Fracture is the clinical outcome of concern in osteoporosis, a disease variably defined over the last 30 years, mostly in terms of bone mineral density (BMD). However, an 'osseocentric' view of the condition may have hampered our understanding of how best to identify patients at the greatest risk of fragility fracture. More recently, the identification of a number of clinical risk factors for fragility fracture and the creation of fracture risk assessment tools, such as FRAX®, QFracture and Garvan have helped in a move towards clinically useful definitions, using the common currency of 10-year major osteoporotic and 10-year hip fracture risks. However, there are a large number of available fracture risk assessment tools and there remain few validation studies comparing their performance. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has recently advocated the use of these methods in case finding and studies are underway in their clinical application. It seems likely that the operational definition of osteoporosis must now include fracture risk, which will never replace fracture incidence as a measure of clinical efficacy but may be used in future studies to define patient groups likely to benefit from intervention. We still need to understand more about the performance of these tools, particularly in the context of specific patient groups, such as those with vertebral osteoporosis, the frail, those who fall and patients with secondary osteoporosis.

The management of osteoporosis in breast cancer survivors

Breast cancer is a common diagnosis and the majority of women treated will be cured. Women with early stage breast cancer may be at increased risk for osteoporosis due to anticancer therapies. Chemotherapy induced amenorrhea and the use of anti-estrogens can promote bone loss; thus, the management of bone health in women with breast cancer is an important component of survivorship care. Osteoporosis is considered a "silent" disease as there are often no discrete warning signs, until a fracture occurs; therefore, clinicians must be cognizant of the underlying risk for osteoporosis and co-morbid conditions and/or medications that accelerate risk of fracture. Breast cancer therapies that effect bone, screening for bone loss and interventions to mitigate the treatment toxicities are reviewed.