Effect of denosumab on low bone mineral density in postmenopausal Japanese women receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors for non-metastatic breast cancer: 24-month results

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.

Osteoporotic fracture risk in women with breast cancer treated with aromatase inhibitors: a health insurance claims database study in Japan

BACKGROUND

Hormone therapy with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) for estrogen receptor-dependent breast cancer may expose patients to an increased osteoporosis risk. This study was performed to estimate fracture risk in women with breast cancer to whom AIs were prescribed in Japan.

METHODS

This retrospective study used data from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Women with breast cancer prescribed AIs over a 12-month period were identified and matched to women not prescribed AIs using a propensity score. Fracture rates were estimated by a cumulative incidence function and compared using a cause-specific Cox hazard model. The proportion of women undergoing bone density tests was retrieved.

RESULTS

For all fractures sites combined, cumulative fracture incidence at 10 years was 0.19 [95%CI: 0.16-0.22] in women prescribed AIs and 0.18 [95%CI: 0.15-0.21] without AIs. AI prescription was not associated with any changes in risk (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.08 [95%CI: 0.99-1.17] p = 0.08). Women prescribed AI more frequently underwent bone density testing (31.9% [95% CI: 31.2%; 32.6%] versus 2.2% [95% CI: 2.0%; 2.4%]).

CONCLUSIONS

The anticipated association between AI exposure and osteoporotic fracture risk in Japanese women with breast cancer was not seen clearly.

Osteoblasts and osteoclasts: an important switch of tumour cell dormancy during bone metastasis

Bone metastasis occurs when tumour cells dissociate from primary tumours, enter the circulation (circulating tumour cells, CTCs), and colonize sites in bone (disseminated tumour cells, DTCs). The bone marrow seems to be a particularly dormancy-inducing environment for DTCs, yet the mechanisms of dormancy initiation, reactivation, and interaction within the bone marrow have to be elucidated. Intriguingly, some evidence has suggested that dormancy is a reversible state that is switched 'on' or 'off' depending on the presence of various bone marrow resident cells, particularly osteoclasts and osteoblasts. It has become clear that these two cells contribute to regulating dormant tumour cells in bone both directly (interaction) and indirectly (secreted factors). The involved mechanisms include TGFβ signalling, the Wnt signalling axis, the Notch2 pathway, etc. There is no detailed review that specifically focuses on ascertaining the dynamic interactions between tumour cell dormancy and bone remodelling. In addition, we highlighted the roles of inflammatory cytokines during this 'cell-to-cell' communication. We also discussed the potential clinical relevance of remodelling the bone marrow niche in controlling dormant tumour cells. Understanding the unique role of osteoclasts and osteoblasts in regulating tumour dormancy in bone marrow will provide new insight into preventing and treating tumour bone metastasis.

Cancer Treatment-Induced Bone Loss: Role of Denosumab in Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer

Chemotherapeutic agents, endocrine therapy and radiotherapy used in the management of breast cancer are known to cause decreased bone mineral density, and thus, increased incidence of fractures. A majority (~60%) of the breast cancer patients in India are either estrogen (ER) or progesterone hormone receptor (PR) positive. Adjuvant treatment with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) is the treatment mainstay for hormone-sensitive disease in postmenopausal (PM) women, with reduced bone mineral density (BMD), which results in increased fracture rates. Zoledronic acid, alendronate, risedronate and denosumab have been the agents of choice for managing bone loss. Denosumab 60 mg is approved for gaining bone mass in women with breast cancer who are at high risk for fracture following adjuvant AI treatment. The phase III HALT-BC data indicate an improvement in BMD with denosumab and a 50% reduction in clinical fractures, with significant improvements seen at the lumbar spine, distal third of the radius, and total hip. Denosumab has several advantages over other bone modifying agents such as subcutaneous self-administration by the patient themselves, no requirement of hospitalization, no dose modifications in renal impairment, and low incidence of acute phase anaphylactic reactions. We review the available evidence of denosumab for managing bone loss in non-metastatic breast cancer patients.

Early Denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in breast cancer women undergoing aromatase inhibitors: A case-control retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) might have a detrimental impact on bone health in breast cancer (BC) women. Denosumab has been shown to reduce the risk of fractures, but the appropriate time for starting is yet to be clearly defined.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of early treatment with Denosumab (⩽ 12 months after starting AIs) compared to a delayed treatment in BC women.

METHODS

In this retrospective case-control study, we included medical records of BC post-menopausal women, treated with AIs therapy; they were divided as: study group (starting Denosumab ⩽ 12 months after AIs) and control group (> 12 months). At the baseline (T0) and at 18 months (T1), we evaluated the lumbar spine (LS) Tscore and femoral neck (FN) Tscore. Furthermore, at T1 we assessed the incident fragility fractures.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine BC survivors (mean age: 61.5 ± 11.5 years) were included: 28 with Early Denosumab and 31 with Late Denosumab. At T1, the study group did not show any incident hip or vertebral fragility fracture, whereas the Late Denosumab group showed 2 incident hip fractures (6.5%) and 4 (12.9%) vertebral fragility fractures. Early Denosumab showed a significant positive effect on both LS (p= 0.044) and FN (p= 0.024) Tscore variations.

CONCLUSION

Taken together, our findings suggest that an early start of Denosumab might be considered for the osteoporosis management in BC women undergoing AIs.

Updated guidance on the management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) in pre- and postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Adjuvant endocrine therapy induces bone loss and increases fracture risk in women with hormone-receptor positive, early-stage breast cancer (EBC). We aimed to update a previous position statement on the management of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) induced bone loss and now included premenopausal women.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of the medical databases from January 2017 to May 2020 and assessed 144 new studies.

RESULTS

Extended use of AIs beyond 5 years leads to persistent bone loss in breast cancer extended adjuvant trials and meta-analyses. In addition to bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) and trabecular bone score (TBS) were shown to independently predict fracture risk in real life prospective studies. FRAX® tool does not seem to be reliable for assessing fracture risk in CTIBL. In premenopausal women, there is strong evidence that intravenous zoledronate prevents bone loss but weak conflicting evidence on reducing disease recurrence from independent randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In postmenopausal women, the strongest evidence for fracture prevention is for denosumab based on a well-powered RCT while there is strong evidence for bisphosphonates (BPs) to prevent and reduce CTIBL but no convincing data on fractures. Adjuvant denosumab has failed to show anticancer benefits in a large, well-designed RCT.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Extended use of AIs and persistent bone loss from recent data reinforce the need to evaluate fracture risk in EBC women initiated on AIs. Fracture risk should be assessed with clinical risk factors and BMD along with VFA, but FRAX is not adapted to CTIBL. Anti-resorptive therapy should be considered in those with a BMD T-score < -2.0 SD or with ≥ 2 clinical risk factors including a BMD T-score < -1.0 SD. In premenopausal women, intravenous zoledronate is the only drug reported to prevent bone loss and may have additional anticancer benefits. In postmenopausal women, either denosumab or BPs can be prescribed for fracture prevention with pertinent attention to the rebound phenomenon after stopping denosumab. Adjuvant BPs, in contrast to denosumab, have shown high level evidence for reducing breast cancer recurrence in high-risk post-MP women which should be taken into account when choosing between these two.

The effect of denosumab in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors: 36-month results

INTRODUCTION

Aromatase inhibitor (AI)-associated bone loss increases the risk of bone fracture and reduces patients' quality of life, making it a critical issue worldwide. We conducted a prospective non-randomized clinical trial (UMIN-CTR, UMIN 000016173) to assess the effect of denosumab on bone loss in patients treated with adjuvant AI and have previously reported the results at 12 and 24 months. This study aimed to present the results at 36 months of treatment with denosumab for osteopenia in breast cancer patients who were undergoing treatment with adjuvant AI; 36 months is the longest denosumab treatment period reported so far.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients received 60-mg denosumab subcutaneously every 6 months. Daily supplements containing 500-mg elemental calcium and at least 400 international units of vitamin D were highly recommended throughout the study period. The levels of bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers, serum tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase isoform 5b, and bone alkaline phosphatase were determined at baseline and 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months.

RESULTS

At 36 months, the bone mineral density of the lumbar spine, right femoral neck, and left femoral neck were found to increase by 8.8% (95% confidence interval CI 7.6-10.1), 4.3% (95% CI 3.0-5.5), and 3.1% (95% CI 2.1-4.1), respectively. No non-traumatic clinical fractures occurred in patients receiving AI and denosumab.

CONCLUSION

Twice-yearly administration of denosumab to the breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant AI, regardless of the skeletal site, resulted in consistent increases in BMD without severe adverse events at 36 months.

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.

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Denosumab with Bisphosphonates in Increasing Bone Mineral Density in Patients with Prostate Cancer and Breast Cancer on Antihormonal Treatment

Osteoporosis is a common condition prevalent in both sexes that can be primary and secondary. Secondary osteoporosis may occur in cancer patients undergoing antihormonal treatment, leading to an increased risk of fractures. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with prostate cancer and aromatase inhibitors (AI) in patients with breast cancer can drastically increase the risk of osteoporosis. Bisphosphonates are one of the key medications in managing these patients and are widely prescribed. A monoclonal antibody called denosumab, which is a relatively new treatment option, is also used in this population group. To conduct a detailed comparison of these groups, we performed a thorough literature search using Pubmed and Google Scholar to extract data in the form of research papers/clinical trials. A total of 18 research papers were extracted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and other inclusion and exclusion criteria. Seven of these papers were based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing denosumab with either placebo or bisphosphonates in patients with breast cancer and prostate cancer. Two meta-analyses comparing the safety and efficacy of both these drugs in this population group were also included. Denosumab was found to significantly increase bone mineral density (BMD) for up to two years and showed better results than bisphosphonates, while both had a comparable safety profile. More trials should be conducted in patients with prostate cancer or breast cancer on ADT or AI therapy, respectively, for longer durations to assess the long-term safety of these drugs in this population.

Predictive factors for the efficacy of denosumab in postmenopausal Japanese women with non-metastatic breast cancer receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors: a combined analysis of two prospective clinical trials

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the gold standard therapy for breast cancer in postmenopausal women. AI suppresses the conversion of androgens to estrogens; however, this results in osteopenia, osteoporosis, and bone fracture, thus reducing the patient's quality of life. The use of adjuvant denosumab reduces the risk of clinical fractures in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer receiving AI. However, the efficacy of denosumab in the treatment of AI-associated bone loss has not been prospectively evaluated in Japan. In this study, we aimed to investigate the predictive factors for the efficacy of denosumab in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with AI by analyzing the results of two prospective trials. The patients received 60 mg denosumab subcutaneously every 6 months. The primary endpoint was percentage change in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) from baseline to month 12 in lumbar spine. Post hoc analysis and T tests were performed. A total of 205 patients were enrolled. At 12 and 24 months, the lumbar spine BMD increased by 5.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.9-6.3] and 8.3% (95% CI 7.5-9.1), respectively. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the time of AI therapy initiation, type of AI therapy, age, time since menopause, baseline body mass index, and BMD. The results showed that baseline lumbar and left femoral BMD was significantly associated with a percentage change in these sites, respectively. In addition, baseline left femoral BMD was also associated with a change in lumbar BMD. In conclusion, the baseline BMD in the lumbar spine was a predictive indicator for the efficacy of denosumab in this site and the baseline BMD in left femoral neck was a predictive indicator in lumbar spine and left femur.