A randomized, double-blind, phase II, exploratory trial evaluating the palliative benefit of either continuing pamidronate or switching to zoledronic acid in patients with high-risk bone metastases from breast cancer

Management of bone metastasis with zoledronic acid: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

While considered the mainstay of treatment for specific bone metastases, ZA is used predominantly to treat osteolytic lesions. The purpose of this network meta-analysis is to compare ZA to other treatment options in its ability to improve specific clinical outcomes in patients with bone metastases secondary to any primary tumor.

Methods

PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to May 5th, 2022. Keywords used were solid tumor, lung neoplasm, kidney neoplasm, breast neoplasm, prostate neoplasm, ZA and bone metastasis. Every randomized controlled trial and non-randomized quasi-experimental study of systemic ZA administration for patients with bone metastases and any comparator were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was done on the primary outcomes including number of SREs, time to developing a first on-study SRE, overall survival, and disease progression-free survival. Secondary outcome was pain at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment.

Results

Our search yielded 3861 titles with 27 meeting inclusion criteria. For the number of SRE, ZA in combination with chemotherapy or hormone therapy was statistically superior to placebo (OR 0.079; 95 % CrI: 0.022-0.27). For the time to the first on study SRE, the relative effectiveness of ZA 4 mg was statistically superior to placebo (HR 0.58; 95 % CrI:0.48-0.77). At 3 and 6 months, ZA 4 mg was significantly superior to placebo for reducing pain with a SMD of -0.85 (95 % CrI:-1.6, -0.0025) and -2.6 (95 % CrI:-4.7, -0.52) respectively.

Conclusions

This systematic review shows the benefits of ZA in decreasing the incidence of SREs, increasing the time to the first on-study SRE, and reducing the pain level at 3 and 6 months.

The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program. A Canadian-Led Pragmatic Trials Program: Strategies for Integrating Knowledge Users into Trial Design

We reviewed patient and health care provider (HCP) surveys performed through the REaCT program. The REaCT team has performed 15 patient surveys (2298 respondents) and 13 HCP surveys (1033 respondents) that have addressed a broad range of topics in breast cancer management. Over time, the proportion of surveys distributed by paper/regular mail has fallen, with electronic distribution now the norm. For the patient surveys, the median duration of the surveys was 3 months (IQR 2.5-7 months) and the median response rate was 84% (IQR 80-91.7%). For the HCP surveys, the median survey duration was 3 months (IQR 1.75-4 months), and the median response rate, where available, was 28% (IQR 21.2-49%). The survey data have so far led to: 10 systematic reviews, 6 peer-reviewed grant applications and 19 clinical trials. Knowledge users should be an essential component of clinical research. The REaCT program has integrated surveys as a standard step of their trials process. The COVID-19 pandemic and reduced face-to-face interactions with patients in the clinic as well as the continued importance of social media highlight the need for alternative means of distributing and responding to surveys.

Two-year results of a randomised trial comparing 4- versus 12-weekly bone-targeted agent use in patients with bone metastases from breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer

•

Optimal dosing interval of bone-targeting agents (BTAs) has not been fully defined.

•

Study of 4 vs 12-weekly BTAs in breast or prostate cancer pts with bone metastases.

•

Study arms showed no significant differences SSE rates, time to SSEs or toxicity.

•

There were however significant differences in cost-effectiveness results.

•

On study SSE (12-weekly arm) associated with slight increase in subsequent SSEs.

Background

We present the 2-year results of a randomised trial comparing 4- versus 12-weekly bone-targeting agents (BTAs) in patients with bone metastases from breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

Patients and Methods

Patients with bone metastases from breast or CRPC, who were going to start or were already receiving BTAs, were randomised to 4- or 12-weekly BTA treatment for 2 years. The endpoints were: symptomatic skeletal events (SSE) rates, time to SSEs, toxicity and cost-effectiveness.

Results

Of 263 patients (160 breast cancer, 103 CRPC), 133 (50.6%) and 130 (49.4%) were randomised to the 4- and 12-weekly groups, respectively. BTAs included denosumab (56.3%), zoledronate (24.0%) and pamidronate (19.8%). After 2 years, the cumulative incidence rate (95% CI) of SSEs was 32.7% (24.6% to 41.1%) and 28.1% (20.3% to 36.4%) for the 4- and 12-weekly intervention groups respectively. The hazard ratio for time to first SSE was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.63 to 1.47). However, in a post hoc analysis, those patients who had an on-study SSE, there was a small non-statistical increased risk of subsequent SSEs among patients on the 12-weekly dosing arm (HR = 1.14; 95% CI – 0.90–1.44). BTA-related toxicity rates were similar between study arms. A cost-utility analysis showed that 12-weekly BTA is cost-effective from a public payer’s perspective.

Conclusion

These results in addition to those previously reported for de-escalating zoledronate, would support that de-escalation of commonly used BTAs is a reasonable and economically valid treatment option. While not statistically significant, the increase in subsequent SSEs in the 12-weekly arm requires further exploration.

Practical update for the use of bone-targeted agents in patients with bone metastases from metastatic breast cancer or castration-resistant prostate cancer

Bone metastases are a significant source of morbidity and mortality for patients with breast and prostate cancer. In this review, we discuss key practical themes regarding the use of bone-targeted agents (btas) such as bisphosphonates and denosumab for managing bony metastatic disease. The btas both delay the onset and reduce the incidence of skeletal-related events (sres), defined as any or all of a need for radiation therapy or surgery to bone, pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, or hypercalcemia of malignancy. They have more modest benefits for pain and other quality-of-life measures. Regardless of the benefits of btas, it should always be remembered that the palliative management of metastatic bone disease is multimodal and multidisciplinary. The collaboration of all disciplines is essential for optimal patient care. Special consideration is given to these key questions: ■ What are btas, and what is their efficacy?■ What are their common toxicities?■ When should they be initiated?■ How do we choose the appropriate bta?■ What is the appropriate dose, schedule, and duration of btas?

Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Palliative care trials have higher rates of attrition. The MORECare guidance recommends applying classifications of attrition to report attrition to help interpret trial results. The guidance separates attrition into three categories: attrition due to death, illness or at random. The aim of our study is to apply the MORECare classifications on reported attrition rates in trials.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted and attrition classifications retrospectively applied. Four databases, EMBASE; Medline, CINHAL and PsychINFO, were searched for randomised controlled trials of palliative care populations from 01.01.2010 to 08.10.2016. This systematic review is part of a larger review looking at recruitment to randomised controlled trials in palliative care, from January 1990 to early October 2016. We ran random-effect models with and without moderators and descriptive statistics to calculate rates of missing data.

RESULTS

One hundred nineteen trials showed a total attrition of 29% (95% CI 28 to 30%). We applied the MORECare classifications of attrition to the 91 papers that contained sufficient information. The main reason for attrition was attrition due to death with a weighted mean of 31.6% (SD 27.4) of attrition cases. Attrition due to illness was cited as the reason for 17.6% (SD 24.5) of participants. In 50.8% (SD 26.5) of cases, the attrition was at random. We did not observe significant differences in missing data between total attrition in non-cancer patients (26%; 95% CI 18-34%) and cancer patients (24%; 95% CI 20-29%). There was significantly more missing data in outpatients (29%; 95% CI 22-36%) than inpatients (16%; 95% CI 10-23%). We noted increased attrition in trials with longer durations.

CONCLUSION

Reporting the cause of attrition is useful in helping to understand trial results. Prospective reporting using the MORECare classifications should improve our understanding of future trials.

The incidence and relative risk of adverse events in patients treated with bisphosphonate therapy for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Adjuvant bisphosphonates reduce the rate of breast cancer recurrence in the bone and improve breast cancer survival. However, the risk of adverse events associated with bisphosphonate therapy for breast cancer remains poorly defined.

Methods:

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science libraries. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated to evaluate the adverse events of the meta-analytic results. Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) incidence was calculated using the random effect model (D+L pooled) for meta-analysis.

Results:

A total of 47 studies comprising 20,607 patients were included; 23 randomized controlled studies (RCTs) provided data of adverse events for bisphosphonate therapy versus without bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates were significantly associated with influenza-like illness (RR = 4.52), fatigue (RR = 1.08), fever (RR = 1.82), dyspepsia (RR = 1.25), anorexia (RR = 1.29), and urinary tract infection (RR = 1.32). No differences were observed in other adverse events. We combined the incidence of ONJ in 24 retrospective studies to analyze the incidence of ONJ using bisphosphonates. The pooled probability of ONJ toxicity in the bisphosphonates group was 2%.

Conclusions:

Bisphosphonates were significantly associated with influenza-like illness, fatigue, fever, dyspepsia, anorexia, and urinary tract infection. Furthermore, bisphosphonates increase the risk of ONJ toxicity.

Accurate unconditional p-values for a two-arm study with binary endpoints

Unconditional exact tests are increasingly used in practice for categorical data to increase the power of a study and to make the data analysis approach being consistent with the study design. In a two-arm study with a binary endpoint, p-value based on the exact unconditional Barnard test is computed by maximizing the tail probability over a nuisance parameter with a range from 0 to 1. The traditional grid search method is able to find an approximate maximum with a partition of the parameter space, but it is not accurate and this approach becomes computationally intensive for a study beyond two groups. We propose using a polynomial method to rewrite the tail probability as a polynomial. The solutions from the derivative of the polynomial contain the solution for the global maximum of the tail probability. We use an example from a double-blind randomized Phase II cancer clinical trial to illustrate the application of the proposed polynomial method to achieve an accurate p-value. We also compare the performance of the proposed method and the traditional grid search method under various conditions. We would recommend using this new polynomial method in computing accurate exact unconditional p-values.

Effects on bone resorption markers of continuing pamidronate or switching to zoledronic acid in patients with high risk bone metastases from breast cancer

Background

Switching patients who remain at high risk of skeletal related events (SREs) despite pamidronate to the more potent bisphosphonate zoledronate, may be an effective treatment strategy. As part of a previously reported clinic study in this setting, we evaluated whether biomarkers for bone resorption, such as Bone-Specific Alkaline Phosphatase (BSAP), bone sialoprotein (BSP), and N-terminal telopeptide (NTX) correlated with subsequent SRE risk.

Methods

Breast cancer patients who remained at high risk of SREs despite at least 3 months of q.3–4 weekly pamidronate were randomized to either continue on pamidronate or to switch to zoledronate (4 mg) once every 4 weeks for 12-weeks. High risk bone metastases were defined by either: occurrence of a prior SRE, bone pain, radiologic progression of bone metastases and/or serum C-terminal telopeptide (CTx) levels > 400 ng/L despite pamidronate use. Serum samples were collected at baseline and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 (CTx and BSAP) and baseline and week 12 (NTx and BSP), and all putative biomarkers were measured by ELISA. Follow up was extended to 2 years post trial entry for risk of subsequent SREs. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time-to-event outcomes. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to evaluate if laboratory values over time or the change in laboratory values from baseline were associated with having a SRE within the time frame of this study.

Results

From March 2012 to May 2014, 76 patients were screened, with 73 eligible for enrolment. All 73 patients were available for biochemical analysis, with 35 patients receiving pamidronate and 38 patients receiving zoledronate. The GEE analysis found that no laboratory value was associated with having a subsequent SRE. Interaction between visit and laboratory values was also investigated, but no interaction effect was statistically significant. Only increased number of lines of prior hormonal treatment was associated with subsequent SRE risk.

Conclusion

Our analysis failed to find any association between serum BSAP, BSP, CTx or NTx levels and subsequent SRE risk in this cohort of patients. This lack of correlation between serum biomarkers and clinical outcomes could be due to influences of prior bisphosphonate treatment or presence of extra-osseous metastases in a significant proportion of enrolled patients. As such, caution should be used in biomarker interpretation and use to direct decision making regarding SRE risk for high risk patients in this setting.

Bisphosphonates and other bone agents for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Bone is the most common site of metastatic disease associated with breast cancer (BC). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and novel targeted therapies such as denosumab inhibit other key bone metabolism pathways. We have studied these agents in both early breast cancer and advanced breast cancer settings. This is an update of the review originally published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2005 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and other bone agents in addition to anti-cancer treatment: (i) in women with early breast cancer (EBC); (ii) in women with advanced breast cancer without bone metastases (ABC); and (iii) in women with metastatic breast cancer and bone metastases (BCBM).

SEARCH METHODS

In this review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: (a) one treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent with the same treatment without a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent; (b) treatment with one bisphosphonate versus treatment with a different bisphosphonate; (c) treatment with a bisphosphonate versus another bone-acting agent of a different mechanism of action (e.g. denosumab); and (d) immediate treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent versus delayed treatment of the same bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was bone metastases for EBC and ABC, and a skeletal-related event (SRE) for BCBM. We derived risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the meta-analyses used random-effects models. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and disease-free survival for EBC; we derived hazard ratios (HRs) for these time-to-event outcomes where possible. We collected toxicity and quality-of-life information. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes in each treatment setting.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 RCTs involving 37,302 women.In women with EBC, bisphosphonates were associated with a reduced risk of bone metastases compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate (RR 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03, 11 studies; 15,005 women; moderate-quality evidence with no significant heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates provided an overall survival benefit with time-to-event data (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; P = 0.04; 9 studies; 13,949 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity). Subgroup analysis by menopausal status showed a survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.90; P = 0.001; 4 studies; 6048 women; high-quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity) but no survival benefit for premenopausal women (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22; P = 0.78; 2 studies; 3501 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). There was evidence of no effect of bisphosphonates on disease-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% 0.87 to 1.02; P = 0.13; 7 studies; 12,578 women; high-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity present) however subgroup analyses showed a disease-free survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women only (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 8314 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates did not significantly reduce the incidence of fractures when compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08, P = 0.13, 6 studies, 7602 women; moderate-quality evidence due to wide confidence intervals). We await mature overall survival and disease-free survival results for denosumab trials.In women with ABC without clinically evident bone metastases, there was no evidence of an effect of bisphosphonates on bone metastases (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43; P = 0.86; 3 studies; 330 women; moderate-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) or overall survival (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; P = 0.28; 3 studies; 330 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates however the confidence intervals were wide. One study reported a trend towards an extended period of time without a SRE with bisphosphonate compared to placebo (low-quality evidence). One study reported quality of life and there was no apparent difference in scores between bisphosphonate and placebo (moderate-quality evidence).In women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduced the SRE risk by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003; 9 studies; 2810 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity) compared with placebo/no bisphosphonates. This benefit persisted when administering either intravenous or oral bisphosphonates versus placebo. Bisphosphonates delayed the median time to a SRE with a median ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.58; P < 0.00001; 9 studies; 2891 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) and reduced bone pain (in 6 out of 11 studies; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate. Treatment with bisphosphonates did not appear to affect overall survival (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; P = 0.85; 7 studies; 1935 women; moderate-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity). Quality-of-life scores were slightly better with bisphosphonates than placebo at comparable time points (in three out of five studies; moderate-quality evidence) however scores decreased during the course of the studies. Denosumab reduced the risk of developing a SRE compared with bisphosphonates by 22% (RR 0.78, 0.72 to 0.85; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2345 women). One study reported data on overall survival and observed no difference in survival between denosumab and bisphosphonate.Reported toxicities across all settings were generally mild. Osteonecrosis of the jaw was rare, occurring less than 0.5% in the adjuvant setting (high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For women with EBC, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of bone metastases and provide an overall survival benefit compared to placebo or no bisphosphonates. There is preliminary evidence suggestive that bisphosphonates provide an overall survival and disease-free survival benefit in postmenopausal women only when compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate. This was not a planned subgroup for these early trials, and we await the completion of new large clinical trials assessing benefit for postmenopausal women. For women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of developing SREs, delay the median time to an SRE, and appear to reduce bone pain compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate.

A phase 2 trial exploring the clinical and correlative effects of combining doxycycline with bone-targeted therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer

Background

Bone-targeting agents (BTAs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, have demonstrated no discernable effects on tumour response or disease free/overall survival in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. Doxycycline is both osteotropic and has anti-cancer effects. When combined with zoledronate in animal models, doxycycline showed significantly increased inhibition of tumour burden and increased bone formation. We evaluated the effects of adding doxycycline to ongoing anti-cancer therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Methods

Breast cancer patients with bone metastases and ≥3 months of BTA use, entered this single-arm study. Patients received doxycycline 100 mg orally, twice a day for 12 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were; effect on validated pain scores (FACT-Bone pain and Brief Pain Inventory) and bone resorption markers (serum C-telopeptide, [sCTx]). All endpoints (pain scores, sCTx, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, skeletal-related events, toxicity) were evaluated at baseline, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Bone marrow was sampled at baseline and week 12 for exploratory biomarker analysis.

Results

Out of 37 enroled patients, 27 (73%) completed 12 weeks of therapy. No significant changes were seen in pain scores or bone turnover markers. Failure to complete treatment: drug toxicity (70%) and disease progression (30%). Sixteen (43%) patients had GI adverse events.

Conclusions

Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 12 weeks had no significant effects on either bone pain or bone turnover markers. Its toxicity profile in this patient population would make further evaluation challenging.

A national portfolio of bone oncology trials-The Canadian experience in 2012

BACKGROUND

The impact of both cancer and its treatment on bone is an essential component of oncological practice. Bone oncology not only affects patients with both early stage and metastatic disease but also covers the entire spectrum of tumour types. We therefore decided to review and summarise bone oncology-related trials that are currently being conducted in Canada.

METHOD

We assessed ongoing and recently completed trials in Canada. We used available North American and Canadian cancer trial websites and also contacted known investigators in this field for their input.

RESULTS

Twenty seven clinical trials were identified. Seven pertained to local treatment of bone metastasis from any solid tumour type. Seven were systemic treatment trials, five focused on bone biology and predictive factors, three evaluated safety of bone-targeted agents, three were adjuvant trials and two trials investigated impact of cancer therapy on bone health. The majority of trials were related to systemic treatment and bone biology in breast cancer. Most were small, single centre, grant-funded studies. Not surprisingly the larger safety and adjuvant studies were pharmaceutical company driven.

DISCUSSION

Despite the widespread interest in bone-targeted therapies our survey would suggest that most studies are single centre and breast cancer focused. If major advances in bone oncology are to be made then collaborative strategies are needed to not only increase current sample sizes but to also expand these studies into non-breast cancer populations.