A double-blind, crossover trial of intravenous clodronate in metastatic bone pain

Bisphosphonates in Oncology: Physiopathologic Bases and Clinical Activity

Osteoclastic activation is the ultimate way of bone resorption in neoplasia, induced by the combined effects of tumor-secreted humoral factors (especially parathyroid hormone-related peptides) and osteoclastic-osteoblastic interaction. Bisphosphonates inhibit the osteoclast activity and reduce bone resorption and are a valuable supportive measure for bone disease of neoplasms. Experimental models also suggest an activity of bisphosphonates against cancer cells. Controlled studies, especially in advanced breast cancer and multiple myeloma, indicate different effectiveness against the distinct skeletal-related events. Intravenous clodronate and, especially, pamidronate and zoledronate are the first-choice drugs for hypercalcemia, and they play a significant role in reducing metastatic bone pain. Their prolonged use delays, without hampering, the progression of bone disease, including the appearance of osteolysis and the occurrence of pathologic fractures. This effect is probably more valuable when bisphosphonates are administered early in the course of the disease. The evidence that adjuvant bisphosphonates improve survival needs to be confirmed in ongoing studies. Although poorly absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract, oral bisphosphonates are effective in preventing and treating cancer-induced osteoporosis in long-living patients with operable breast cancer. At present, there is little hope that newer bisphosphonates are more effective than those currently used.

Evidence on the analgesic role of bisphosphonates and denosumab in the treatment of pain due to bone metastases: A systematic review within the European Association for Palliative Care guidelines project

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates and denosumab are well-established therapies to reduce the frequency and severity of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastasis. However, the analgesic effect of these medications on bone pain is uncertain.

AIM

To identify, critically appraise and synthesize existing evidence to answer the following questions: 'In adult patients with metastatic bone pain, what is the evidence that bisphosphonates and denosumab are effective and safe in controlling pain?' and 'What is the most appropriate schedule of bisphosphonate/denosumab administration to control bone pain?'. This review also updates the 2002 Cochrane review 'Bisphosphonates for the relief of pain secondary to bone metastases'.

DESIGN

Standard systematic review and narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched for relevant articles published through 31 January 2014. A manual search was also performed. Study inclusion criteria were: a) conducted in adult patients; b) randomized controlled trial or meta-analisys; c) reported efficacy of bisphosphonates or denosumab on pain and/or decribed side effects versus placebo or other bisphosphonate; and d) English language.

RESULTS

The database search yielded 1585 studies, of which 43 (enrolling 8595 and 7590 patients, respectively, in bisphosphonate and denosumab trials) met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two (79%) of the 28 placebo-controlled trials found no analgesic benefit for bisphosphonates. None of the denosumab studies assessed direct pain relief.

CONCLUSION

Evidence to support an analgesic role for bisphosphonates and denosumab is weak. Bisphosphonates and denosumab appear to be beneficial in preventing pain by delaying the onset of bone pain rather than by producing an analgesic effect per se.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is the third updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library and first updated in 2007. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain, and to assess the incidence and severity of adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015); and EMBASE (1974 to October 2015). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (1 October 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using placebo or active comparators reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. We excluded trials with fewer than 10 participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for the analgesic effect. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven new studies in this update. We excluded six, and one study is ongoing so also not included in this update. This review contains a total of 62 included studies, with 4241 participants. Thirty-six studies used a cross-over design ranging from one to 15 days, with the greatest number (11) for seven days for each arm of the trial. Overall we judged the included studies to be at high risk of bias because the methods of randomisation and allocation concealment were poorly reported. The primary outcomes for this review were participant-reported pain and pain relief.Fifteen studies compared oral morphine modified release (Mm/r) preparations with morphine immediate release (MIR). Fourteen studies compared Mm/r in different strengths; six of these included 24-hour modified release products. Fifteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Three studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Two studies compared Mm/r with Mm/r at different times and two compared MIR with MIR given at a different time. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine.In the previous update, a standard of 'no worse than mild pain' was set, equivalent to a score of 30/100 mm or less on a visual analogue pain intensity scale (VAS), or the equivalent in other pain scales. Eighteen studies achieved this level of pain relief on average, and no study reported that good levels of pain relief were not attained. Where results were reported for individual participants in 17 studies, 'no worse than mild pain' was achieved by 96% of participants (362/377), and an outcome equivalent to treatment success in 63% (400/638).Morphine is an effective analgesic for cancer pain. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12- or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration was undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. A small number of participants did not achieve adequate analgesia with morphine. Adverse events were common, predictable, and approximately 6% of participants discontinued treatment with morphine because of intolerable adverse events.The quality of the evidence is generally poor. Studies are old, often small, and were largely carried out for registration purposes and therefore were only designed to show equivalence between different formulations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions have not changed for this update. The effectiveness of oral morphine has stood the test of time, but the randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many people had good pain relief, but where it was reported, over 90% had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The review demonstrates the wide dose range of morphine used in studies, and that a small percentage of participants are unable to tolerate oral morphine. The review also shows the wide range of study designs, and inconsistency in cross-over designs. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in cross-over design studies. It was not clear if these trials were sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. New studies added to the review for the previous update reinforced the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence that oral morphine has much the same efficacy as other available opioids.

A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Ibandronate Compared With Single-Dose Radiotherapy for Localized Metastatic Bone Pain in Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

The radiotherapy or ibandronate (RIB) trial was a randomized multicenter nonblind two-arm trial to compare intravenous ibandronate given as a single infusion with single-dose radiotherapy for metastatic bone pain.

METHODS

Four hundred seventy prostate cancer patients with metastatic bone pain who were suitable for local radiotherapy were randomly assigned to radiotherapy (single dose, 8 Gy) or intravenous infusion of ibandronate (6mg) in a noninferiority trial. Pain was measured using the Brief Pain Inventory at baseline and four, eight, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. Pain response was assessed using World Health Organization (WHO) criteria and the Effective Analgesic Score (EAS); the maximum allowable difference was ±15%. Patients failing to respond at four weeks were offered retreatment with the alternative treatment. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed at baseline and four and 12 weeks. Because the trial was designed with a 5% one-sided test, we provide 90% confidence intervals (two-sided) for differences in pain response.

RESULTS

Overall, pain response was not statistically different at four or 12 weeks (WHO: -3.7%, 90% confidence interval [CI] = -12.4% to 5.0%; and 6.7%, 90% CI = -2.6 to 16.0%, respectively). Corresponding differences using the EAS were -7.5% and -3.5%. However, a more rapid initial response with radiotherapy was observed. There was no overall difference in toxicity, although each treatment had different side effects. QoL was similar at four and 12 weeks. Overall survival was similar between the two groups but was better among patients having retreatment than those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

A single infusion of ibandronate had outcomes similar to a single dose of radiotherapy for metastatic prostate bone pain. Ibandronate could be considered when radiotherapy is not available.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is the second updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library and first updated in 2007. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain, and assess the incidence and severity of adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Trials Register (June 2013); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5, May); MEDLINE (1966 to June 2013); and EMBASE (1974 to June 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using placebo or active comparators reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. Trials with fewer than ten participants were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for the analgesic effect. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales).

MAIN RESULTS

Ten new studies (638 participants) were identified for this update, bringing the total of included studies to 62, with 4241 participants. Thirty-six studies used a cross-over design ranging from one to 15 days, with the greatest number (11) for seven days for each arm of the trial.Fifteen studies compared oral morphine modified release (Mm/r) preparations with morphine immediate release (MIR). Fourteen studies compared Mm/r in different strengths; six of these included 24-hour modified release products. Fifteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Three studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Two studies compared Mm/r with Mm/r at different times and two compared MIR with MIR given at a different time. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine.In this update a standard of 'no worse than mild pain' was set equivalent to a score of 30/100 mm or less on a visual analogue pain intensity scale (VAS), or the equivalent in other pain scales. Eighteen studies achieved this level of pain relief on average, and no study reported that good levels of pain relief were not attained. Where results were reported for individual participants in 17 studies, 'no worse than mild pain' was achieved by 96% of participants (362/377), and an outcome equivalent to treatment success in 63% (400/638).Morphine is an effective analgesic for cancer pain. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12- or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration was undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. A small number of participants did not achieve adequate analgesia with morphine. Adverse effects were common and approximately 6% of participants discontinued treatment because of intolerable adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of oral morphine has stood the test of time, but the randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many people had good pain relief, but where it was reported, over 90% had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The review demonstrates the wide dose range of morphine used in studies, and that a small percentage of participants are unable to tolerate oral morphine. The review also shows the wide range of study designs, and inconsistency in cross-over designs. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in cross-over design studies. It was not clear if these trials are sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. New studies added to the review reinforce the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence that oral morphine has much the same efficacy as other available opioids.

Clodronic acid formulations available in Europe and their use in osteoporosis: a review

Clodronic acid (Cl(2)-MBP [dichloromethylene bisphosphonic acid], clodronate) is a halogenated non-nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate with antiresorptive efficacy in a variety of diseases associated with excessive bone resorption. The drug is believed to inhibit bone resorption through induction of osteoclast apoptosis, but appears also to possess anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties that contrast with the acute-phase and inflammatory effects seen with nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates. Clodronic acid has been shown to be effective in the maintenance or improvement of bone mineral density when given orally, intramuscularly or intravenously in patients with osteoporosis. Use of the drug is also associated with reductions in fracture risk. The intramuscular formulation, which is given at a dose of 100 mg weekly or biweekly, is at least as effective as daily oral therapy and appears more effective than intermittent intravenous treatment. Intramuscular clodronic acid in particular has also been associated with improvements in back pain. The drug is well tolerated, with no deleterious effects on bone mineralization, and use of parenteral therapy eliminates the risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects that may be seen in patients receiving bisphosphonate therapy.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a previous Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain and to assess the incidence and severity of adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched: Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Trials Register (December 2006); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006); and EMBASE (1974 to December 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. Any comparator trials were considered. Trials with fewer than ten participants were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data, which was checked by the other review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) for the analgesic effect.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, nine new studies with 688 participants were added. Fifty-four studies (3749 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen studies compared oral modified release morphine (Mm/r) preparations with immediate release morphine (MIR). Twelve studies compared Mm/r in different strengths, five of these included 24-hour modified release products. Thirteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Two studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine. Morphine was shown to be an effective analgesic. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12 or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration were undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. Adverse effects were common but only 4% of patients discontinued treatment because of intolerable adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in crossover design studies. It was not clear if these trials are sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. Studies added to the review reinforce the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence for effectiveness of oral morphine which compares well to other available opioids. There is limited evidence to suggest that transmucosal fentanyl provides more rapid pain relief for breakthrough pain compared to morphine.

Giving patients a choice improves quality of life: a multi-centre, investigator-blind, randomised, crossover study comparing letrozole with anastrozole

AIMS

Although the third-generation aromatase inhibitors are generally well tolerated, side-effects still occur in up to 40% of women. As more women are taking these drugs for longer, the issue as to which version is better tolerated is now a significant patient concern. This study aimed to assess whether tolerance for either letrozole or anastrozole can differ for each individual in terms of early quality of life (QoL), whether patients welcome being given a preference and whether this correlated with formal toxicity scoring.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-blind, crossover trial, with 72 women with breast cancer who had experienced tamoxifen failure. Randomised to either letrozole 2.5 mg or anastrozole 1 mg, for 4 weeks, 1 week off, then crossover for 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Patients were confidently able to choose which drug suited them best (letrozole 68%, anastrozole 32%; P < 0.01). Fewer patients, when taking letrozole, experienced adverse events than when taking anastrozole (43% vs 65%; P = 0.0028). QoL was better when patients were taking letrozole than when they took anastrozole (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

As toxicity and QoL strongly correlated with patient preference for either drug, albeit with a tendency towards letrozole, this suggests that patient preference is now a legitimate and useful end point for future crossover studies. In routine practice, women would warmly welcome extra involvement in the decision-making process via a crossover manoeuvre if side-effects develop, whichever aromatase inhibitor is prescribed initially.

Oral ibandronate improves bone pain and preserves quality of life in patients with skeletal metastases due to breast cancer

The objective of this study is to assess the effect of oral ibandronate on bone pain and quality of life in women with metastatic bone disease from breast cancer. In two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, 564 patients were randomised to receive oral ibandronate, 50mg once daily, or placebo for up to 96 weeks. Throughout the studies, we assessed bone pain (on a 5-point scale from 0=none to 4=intolerable), analgesic use (7-point scale) and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 [EORTC QLQ-C30], 100-point scale). Oral ibandronate significantly reduced and maintained bone-pain scores below baseline throughout the 96-week study period (at endpoint, -0.1 vs +0.2, P=0.001 vs placebo). Analgesic use increased in both groups; however, the increase was significantly less in the ibandronate group (0.60 vs 0.85, P=0.019). Although quality of life deteriorated during the study, the decrease in quality of life was significantly lower with ibandronate therapy (-8.3 vs -26.8, P=0.032). Drug-related adverse events were generally minor and as expected with oral bisphosphonates. Oral ibandronate had beneficial effects on bone pain and quality of life and was well tolerated. These results suggest that this treatment is of considerable clinical value as a co-analgesic to patients with painful bone metastases.

Ibandronate in metastatic bone pain

Bone pain is a frequent complication of metastatic bone disease, with severe consequences for patient mobility and quality of life. Bisphosphonates can reduce bone pain and augment palliative radiotherapy, although relief is often for a relatively short period of time. Ibandronate is the first bisphosphonate to provide sustained bone pain relief over 2 years and, unlike other bisphosphonates, has shown improvements in quality of life. In phase III studies of patients with bone disease from breast cancer, intravenous ibandronate 6 mg and oral ibandronate 50 mg reduced bone pain below baseline levels within 6 weeks. Significant reductions were maintained throughout the 96-week study phase compared with placebo ( P < or =.001). Two open, nonrandomized studies examined the effect of intensive, high-dose intravenous ibandronate (4 mg on 4 consecutive days, or 6 mg on 3 consecutive days) in patients with breast cancer or other tumor types with opioid-resistant bone pain and in patients with urologic cancer. In each study, ibandronate rapidly relieved moderate-to-severe metastatic bone pain, improving quality of life and patient functioning. Both intravenous and oral ibandronate provide effective long-term relief from metastatic bone pain. This clinical benefit may reduce the burden of metastatic bone disease on health care resources by limiting the need for analgesics and radiotherapy to the bone.

Efficacy and Safety of Ibandronate in the Treatment of Opioid-Resistant Bone Pain Associated With Metastatic Bone Disease: A Pilot Study

Purpose

Bone metastases are associated with severe and sometimes intractable pain, compromising patient quality of life (QOL). This open-label pilot study investigated the effects of short-term intensive treatment with intravenous (IV) ibandronate on opioid-resistant bone pain in patients with skeletal metastases.

Patients and Methods

Eighteen patients with advanced tumors and metastatic bone disease received nonstandard treatment with 4 mg of ibandronate administered IV (2-hour infusion) for 4 consecutive days (16-mg total dose). Baseline opioid analgesic use was equivalent to 400 mg/d of morphine. Patients were assessed for 6 weeks or until death. Changes from baseline were determined for bone pain, opioid consumption, patient functioning, QOL, performance status, and biochemical markers of calcium metabolism and bone turnover. Renal function was assessed by serum urea and creatinine measurement.

Results

Short-term, intensive ibandronate treatment significantly reduced bone pain scores within 7 days (P < .001). Pain reductions were sustained over the study period. Ibandronate significantly improved QOL, patient functioning, and performance status (P < .05). Mean values of the urinary cross-links pyridinoline and deoxypyridinoline tended to increase after day 21, returning close to baseline values by day 42. There was no correlation between the change in crosslinks values and the change in pain scores after ibandronate treatment. Ibandronate was well tolerated, with no evidence of renal toxicity.

Conclusion

Nonstandard, intensive treatment with IV ibandronate seems to have a marked analgesic effect in patients with opioid-resistant bone pain from metastatic bone disease. Further investigation is warranted.

Metastatic bone disease and tumour-induced hypercalcaemia: treatment options

Metastatic bone disease in malignancy is responsible for considerable morbidity and mortality. Problems include debilitating bone pain and skeletal-related events (SREs), including tumour-induced hypercalcaemia. This article provides an overview of the different approaches to managing bone disease in malignancy with particular focus on the role of bisphosphonates. The three generations of bisphosphonates are discussed in relation to their role in treating bone pain and hypercalcaemia, and also in terms of their potential for being used in a prophylactic way to prevent or delay SREs.

Clinical and economic issues in the treatment of advanced breast cancer with bisphosphonates

An ideal palliative therapy for bone metastases would successfully reduce skeletal complications in several thousands of breast cancer patients. Second- and third-generation bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the overall skeletal complication rate and the time to first skeletal complication. Nevertheless, not enough evidence supports their benefit on quality of life. Furthermore, bisphosphonates are expensive (up to 775 US dollars per month, 2002 value) and cost-effectiveness evaluations have been limited to pamidronate (pamidronic acid). In economic evaluations of pamidronate, resulting incremental dollar per quality-adjusted life year gained ranged from cost savings to 108,000 US dollars per quality-adjusted life year. The data were quite sensitive to quality-of-life estimates and country-specific cost values. Because of the wide range of the cost-effectiveness ratio, it is uncertain whether the universal prescription of bisphosphonates in this setting represents an efficient use of healthcare resources. Probably, country- and drug-specific policies might increase the efficiency of this treatment. Further outcomes research is required to assess these agents more fully.

Effects of combined androgen blockade on bone metabolism and density in men with locally advanced prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether combined androgen blockade (CAB) produces any adverse effects on bone metabolism and mineral density in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study group consisted of 17 stage T4 prostate cancer patients treated with CAB and had no evidence of bone metastasis on bone scintigraphy. The mean duration of CAB and final total prostate specific antigen (PSA) level at the time of study were found at 28.5 +/- 15.9 (6-58) months and 0.39 +/- 0.5 (0.1-2) ngml, respectively. Twenty age and socioeconomically matched benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) patients were taken as the control group. Both groups were compared with regard to lumbar bone mineral density (LBD), femur bone mineral density (FBD) and serum parameters of bone metabolism namely calcium (Ca), phosphate (P), magnesium (Mg) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP). Bone mineral density was measured with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry.

RESULTS

The mean FBD, LBD and serum Ca, P, Mg and ALP measurement of the patients treated with CAB were 0.85 +/- 0.1 g/cm2, 1.16 +/- 0.2 g/cm2, 9.1 +/- 0.3 mg/dl, 3.6 +/- 0.6 mg/dl, 1.95 +/- 0.14 mg/dl, 187.5 +/- 61 mg/dl, respectively. No significant difference was found between patients subjected to CAB and the age matched controls in any of the studied parameters namely age, FBD, LBD, Ca, Mg and ALP except serum phosphate. Serum phosphate levels were significantly (p = 0.001) higher in patients treated with CAB suggesting a minor effect of CAB on bone metabolism.

CONCLUSION

No convincing evidence was found about the detrimental effect of CAB on bone mineral density and metabolism in a highly selected group of patients with advanced prostate cancer without bone metastases.

Safety of subcutaneous clodronate and efficacy in hypercalcemia of malignancy: a novel route of administration

Bisphosphonates have become standard treatment in management of malignancy-induced hypercalcemia and malignant bone pain. One obstacle to the routine use of bisphosphonates in palliative patients is that oral bisphosphonates have low bioavailability and a degree of gastrointestinal toxicity that may explain poor compliance. Intravenous administration can be cumbersome in patients admitted to long-term care settings or at home. We have developed and tested a new way of administering clodronate via subcutaneous infusion. This retrospective cohort study evaluated 150 patients admitted to a tertiary palliative care unit from May 1996 to May 2000 who received 254 subcutaneous infusions of clodronate for hypercalcemia or bony complications. Data were collected by chart review and specifically evaluated site toxicity and biochemistry. There was minimal local toxicity and only 2 infusions needed to be discontinued because of pain at the subcutaneous site. Clodronate showed efficacy in normalizing the serum calcium within 5 days post-infusion in 32 of 43 infusions given for hypercalcemia. This study shows that subcutaneous clodronate is safe and can lower serum calcium levels in malignant hypercalcemia.

Clinical efficacy of bisphosphonate therapy for bone metastasis from breast cancer

Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclastic bone resorption and are being used as treatment for bone metastases from breast cancer. Intravenous bisphosphonate therapy can significantly reduce skeletal related events (SREs) when administered concurrently with chemotherapy or endocrine therapy. In addition, intravenous bisphosphonate monotherapy is also able to alleviate cancer induced bone pain, and to improve bone metastases in some patients. Oral bisphosphonates are not routinely used for the treatment of bone metastases due to their low bioavailability. However, minodronate, a bisphosphonate 100-fold more potent than pamidronate, is now in phase II clinical studies in Japan, and may alter the role of oral bisphosphonates in the treatment of bone metastasis from breast cancer. The ASCO guidelines recommend that patients with osteolytic bone metastases be treated not with bisphosphonate monotherapy, but with concurrent bisphosphonate and systemic therapy. In addition, it is also recommended that current standards of care for cancer pain, analgesics and radiotherapy, should not be replaced with bisphosphonate therapy.

Hypercalcemic complication in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma

Hypercalcemia is one of the metabolic complications associated with cancer. To assess the frequency of hypercalcemia in patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), 242 patients who were evaluated as having SCC in the oral cavity between July 1995 and June 2001 were investigated. All patients were periodically monitored for their serum level of calcium (Ca). Hypercalcemia was defined as a serum Ca concentration higher than 11 mg/dl. By this definition, hypercalcemia was detected in 12 of the 242 patients (5.0%). All 12 patients were at an advanced stage of oral SCC. In these 12 patients, the serum level of parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTH-rP) was also significantly elevated. Therefore, we diagnosed these diseases as humoral hypercalcemia of malignancy (HHM). Moreover, we studied the efficacy of anti-hypercalcemic therapy on the quality of life (QOL). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 was used for estimation of QOL. The patients with HHM who were administrated drugs such as bisphosphonate and calcitonin showed a reduction in their Ca and PTH-rP levels, and the six of ten EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales (emotional functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, dyspnoea, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss) were also improved after the anti-hypercalcemic therapy. However, these suppressive effects were temporary. The median survival time after the diagnosis of HHM was only 54.9+/-18.3 days (range 27-86 days). Therefore, HHM in SCC appears to be an ominous prognostic sign. Although anti-hypercalcemic therapy has a palliative role, the patients may be in less discomfort during the terminal stage of their illness.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Morphine has been used to relieve pain for many years. Oral morphine in either immediate release or sustained release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain. To assess the incidence and severity of adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2002; the trials register of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care group (February 2002); MEDLINE 1966 to December 2002; EMBASE 1988 to December 2002; and the Oxford Pain Relief database 1950 to 1994.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (full reports) reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. Any comparator trials were considered. Trials with fewer than 10 subjects were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer extracted data, and the findings were checked by two other reviewers. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken, or to produce numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) for the analgesic effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty five studies (3061 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies compared oral sustained release morphine (MSR) preparations with immediate release morphine (MIR). Eight studies compared MSR and MSR in different strengths. Nine studies compared MSR with other opioids. Five studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral MSR with rectal MSR. One study was found comparing each of the following: MSR tablet with MSR suspension; MSR with MSR at different dose frequencies; MSR with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; oral morphine with epidural morphine; and MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Morphine was shown to be an effective analgesic. Pain relief did not differ between MSR and MIR. Sustained release versions of morphine were effective for 12 or 24 hour dosing depending on the formulation. Adverse effects were common but only 4% of patients discontinued treatment because of intolerable adverse effects.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants, and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing subjects over in crossover design studies. It is not clear if these trials are sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs.

Bisphosphonates: biological response modifiers in breast cancer

Bone recurrence constitutes one third of initial sites of relapse and one half of distant sites of relapse at 10 years from diagnosis of breast cancer. Bone pain, fracture (including vertebral fracture resulting from increased bone resorption following chemotherapy-induced menopause), and hypercalcemia are components of skeletal morbidity. The pathophysiology of malignant osteopathy occurs because of the secretion of substances (such as parathyroid hormone-related peptide), by the malignant cell, which stimulate osteoclast function; this in turn feeds further growth, which causes a vicious cycle. Interruption of this cycle by bisphosphonates may inhibit the growth of malignant cells. Bisphosphonates are drugs that inhibit bone turnover by decreasing bone resorption. Side effects of bisphosphonates include upper gastrointestinal symptoms (in oral nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates) and diarrhea (in oral non-nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates) and an acute phase-like reaction with intravenous (I.V.) pamidronate. Bisphosphonates have different molecular mechanisms of action: Nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (eg, pamidronate and alendronate) inhibit the mevalonate-signaling pathway while the non-nitrogen-containing drugs (eg, clodronate) incorporate into adenosine triphosphate analogues. There is in vitro evidence that these drugs also possess anticancer properties. In hypercalcemia patients, treatment with pamidronate and zoledronate produce prompt and efficient normocalcemia. Intravenous pamidronate and zoledronate, oral clodronate, and ibandronate reduce skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases; I.V. pamidronate and clodronate are useful for bone pain relief. Three adjuvant bisphosphonate trials are discussed herein: 2 small open-label studies giving conflicting results and a large placebo-controlled trial of oral clodronate. This latter trial shows a reduction in the incidence of skeletal metastases (while the patients are on therapy) and an improved survival at 5 years.

The clinical and cost considerations of bisphosphonates in preventing bone complications in patients with metastatic breast cancer or multiple myeloma

The bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and are now the treatment of choice for the management of hypercalcaemia of malignancy. The incidences of hypercalcaemia and other skeletal complications (bone pain, pathological fracture) remain high despite apparent responses to systemic therapy, with particularly high event rates in women with advanced skeletal metastases of breast cancer. This review focuses on studies addressing the long-term efficacy of bisphosphonates to reduce skeletal complications in breast cancer (5 studies) and multiple myeloma (4 studies), with particular reference to controlled studies of sufficient magnitude and duration to allow confidence in the estimation of efficacy. Bearing in mind the limitations of differences in trial design and the lack of direct studies comparing drugs, adequate exposure to a bisphosphonate reduces the incidence of skeletal complication by 30 to 40% in both breast cancer and multiple myeloma. Oral clondronate and intravenous pamidronate have similar efficacy in both diseases, but the duration of efficacy may differ between drugs. Both agents have shown intriguing survival benefits in subgroups of patients. The numbers needed to treat (NNT) to prevent a skeletal complication during one year are lowest in metastatic skeletal disease in breast cancer (NNT < 8) but also compare very favourably with other disease for patients with recurrent nonskeletal breast cancer or multiple myeloma (NNTs 7 to 31 depending on the complication to be prevented). Treatment costs of both breast cancer and multiple myloma are driven by inpatient and outpatient hospital visits so that bisphosphonate regimens should be developed that reduce both. Further research is required to determine if subgroups of patients can be better identified that will derive particular benefit, or perhaps no benefit at all, from bisphosphonate therapy. It is not known whether more potent bisphosphonates will deliver greater clinical efficacy in the future.

The role of bisphosphonates in breast cancer management: review article

Bone metastases are a common problem in the management of breast cancer and are associated with considerable morbidity. Bone pain, hypercalcaemia, fractures and cord compression all occur requiring interventions such as analgesia, radiotherapy and surgery. Bisphosphonates are drugs that are active in the bone microenvironment. Their effects on osteoclasts are well described: they potently inhibit osteoclast mediated bone resorption by delaying the maturation of immature osteoclasts and by directly inducing osteoclast apoptosis. It has been known for some time that bisphosphonates, in combination with intravenous rehydration, effectively treat hypercalcaemia associated with solid malignancies. It has now been demonstrated In clinical trials in breast cancer patients that regular bisphosphonate administration reduces the morbidity associated with osteolytic skeletal metastases. There is an emerging suggestion from clinical trial work that bisphosphonates may be able to reduce or delay the development of skeletal metastases although this remains controversial as the three published trials present conflicting results. The more potent third-generation bisphosphonates, such as zoledronate, are now being tested for each of these indications with promising results and may replace other bisphosphonates in the future. Laboratory studies have recently demonstrated that bisphosphonates have direct cytotoxic effects against breast cancer cells in vitro, inducing apoptosis and preventing adhesion to bone. This adds support to the hypothesis that bisphosphonates may have a genuine beneficial effect in the adjuvant setting.

Bisphosphonates for the relief of pain secondary to bone metastases

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates form part of standard therapy for hypercalcemia and the prevention of skeletal events in some cancers. However, the role of bisphosphonates in pain relief for bony metastases remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of bisphosphonates for the relief of pain from bone metastases.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE (1966-1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), CancerLit (1966-1999), the Cochrane library (Issue 1, 2000) and the Oxford Pain Database were searched using the strategy devised by the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group with additional terms 'diphosphonate', 'bisphosphonate', 'multiple myeloma' and 'bone neoplasms'. (Last search: January 2000).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of bisphosphonates compared with open, blinded, or different doses/types of bisphosphonates in cancer patients were included where pain and/or analgesic consumption were outcome measures. Studies where pain was reported only by observers were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Article eligibility, quality assessment and data extraction were undertaken by both reviewers. The proportions of patients with pain relief at 4, 8 and 12 weeks were assessed. The proportion of patients with analgesic reduction, the mean pain score, mean analgesic consumption, adverse drug reactions, and quality of life data were compared as secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty randomized controlled studies (21 blinded, four open and five active control) with a total of 3682 subjects were included. For each outcome, there were few studies with available data. For the proportion of patients with pain relief (eight studies) pooled data showed benefits for the treatment group, with an NNT at 4 weeks of 11[95% CI 6-36] and at 12 weeks of 7 [95% CI 5-12]. In terms of adverse drug reactions, the NNH was 16 [95% CI 12-27] for discontinuation of therapy. Nausea and vomiting were reported in 24 studies with a non-significant trend for greater risk in the treatment group. One study showed a small improvement in quality of life for the treatment group at 4 weeks. The small number of studies in each subgroup with relevant data limited our ability to explore the most effective bisphosphonates and their relative effectiveness for different primary neoplasms.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence to support the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in providing some pain relief for bone metastases. There is insufficient evidence to recommend bisphosphonates for immediate effect; as first line therapy; to define the most effective bisphosphonates or their relative effectiveness for different primary neoplasms. Bisphosphonates should be considered where analgesics and/or radiotherapy are inadequate for the management of painful bone metastases.

Comparison of the effects of intravenous pamidronate and oral clodronate on symptoms and bone resorption in patients with metastatic bone disease

BACKGROUND

There is considerable debate as to the optimum schedule of bisphosphonate treatment in advanced malignancy. Short term studies using symptomatic response and biochemical markers of bone resorption may provide useful insight into differences between agents.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-one patients with metastatic bone disease were randomly allocated to either oral clodronate 1,600 mg daily (group 1), intravenous clodronate followed by the same schedule of oral clodronate (group 2). or intravenous pamidronate 90 mg monthly (group 3). No radiotherapy was delivered or other systemic anticancer treatments were allowed except for long term endocrine therapy. Bone resorption was assessed by measurement of urinary collagen crosslinks. At each visit a pain score was recorded.

RESULTS

Symptomatic response was more frequent in the pamidronate group than in patients receiving clodronate. Nine of sixteen patients experienced a sustained improvement in pain score in the pamidronate-treated group, in contrast to only 4 of 16 and 2 of 11 patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. There was a significant improvement in pain scores in the pamidronate arm compared with the clodronate treated patients after both three months of treatment (P <0.01) and at the last measurement (P <0.05). Biochemical changes correlated with changes in the pain score (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous pamidronate appears to be more effective than oral clodronate in both controlling symptoms and suppressing bone resorption.

Disodium clodronate in the treatment of diffuse sclerosing osteomyelitis (DSO) of the mandible

Diffuse sclerosing osteomyelitis (DSO) of the mandible is a chronic condition, the cause of which is not known. Jaw pain, occurring irregularly, is a typical symptom. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of disodium clodronate for relieving pain in patients with DSO. Disodium clodronate is a bisphosphonate used to treat diseases of bone and calcium metabolism. Ten DSO patients experiencing pain received disodium clodronate or placebo intravenously on a randomized double-blind basis. Both minimum (300 mg) and maximum (900 mg) doses were well tolerated. Disodium clodronate administration did not result in better immediate pain relief than placebo administration. However, 6 months after treatment there was a statistically significant difference in pain intensity between the groups, with the disodium clodronate group experiencing significantly less pain.

Bone mineral density in multiple myeloma patients after intravenous clodronate therapy

Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclastic bone destruction that may be stimulated by myeloma cells. By this way, bisphosphonates carry the potential to lower the number of new pathological fractures, of hypercalcaemic events, and of intensity of bone pain as was published earlier. Clodronate has been administered orally in most clinical studies so far despite of its poor bioavailability from the gastrointestinal tract. The aim of our study was to evaluate bone mineral density (BMD) changes in 34 newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients regularly treated by 900 mg of clodronate in slow intravenous infusions on an outpatient basis in two-week intervals for at least 24 months. BMD was evaluated by CT scanning every six months. Initial values of trabecular BMD were only about 60 per cent of age- and sex-adjusted healthy population values. Clodronate therapy seemed to preserve BMD within the period of two or three years. This effect was seen not only in patients responding to chemotherapy but even in the small subgroup of patients with persisting active disease. We conclude that the long-term intravenous clodronate therapy may contribute to the preservation of BMD and thus calcium hydroxyapatite in bones in multiple myeloma patients concomitantly treated by chemotherapy. The administration of clodronate should start early in the course of disease, before BMD has been markedly reduced.

Metastatic bone disease and tumour-induced hypercalcaemia: the role of bisphosphonates

Tumour-induced hypercalcaemia (TIH) is the most common metabolic disorder associated with cancer, and if left untreated is associated with a low survival rate. Bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of bone resorption. They have emerged as the standard method of treatment for TIH and a new form of medical therapy for bone metastases in addition to current treatments. Newer forms of bisphosphonates are 100-1000 times more potent than pamidronate, the current gold standard. One of these third generation bisphosphonates, zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis Pharmaceuticals) has already been shown to provide more effective treatment of TIH than pamidronate. Ongoing research is aimed at choosing the optimum route, type of bisphosphonate and combination therapy to inhibit the development of bone metastases and TIH.

Use of bisphosphonates in skeletal metastasis

At present, there is sufficient evidence to propose practice guidelines that would include the use of bisphosphonates in the management of hypercalcemia, in breast cancer with bone metastases and multiple myeloma. Future research should concentrate on investigating the adjuvant use of bisphosphonates in breast cancer, particularly in order to find out the adequate target groups. Phase III studies comparing the old and new generation bisphosphonates are important as well as trials comparing the other palliative regimens with bisphosphonates. A widespread use of bisphosphonates would have a major impact on drug budgets. Does the cost of achieved palliation represent the optimal use of resources when compared with other possible options for palliation? This issue has not become easier with the emerging new expensive regimens in oncology. An economical analysis, ideally in the setting of randomized trials, is needed.

Antalgic treatment of pain associated with bone metastases

Pain from metastases of primitive cancer is the first symptom of disease in 15--20% of patients and remains the most common cause of cancer-related pain. 30--70% of patients have metastases at diagnosis, and 80% of them at the moment of death. Functional impairment of skeleton, neurologic symptoms, pathological fractures and pain are the most important indications for palliative treatment which should result in tumor regression, relief in cancer-related symptoms and maintainance of functional integrity. Bone metastases are treated with the systemic therapies including radiotherapy, hormonal manipulation, biphosphonates, calcitonin, surgical treatment, and chemotherapy. Conventional use of opioids or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs does not always produce satisfactory analgesic result in treated patients because of incidental and intermittent nature of pain and unacceptable side effects. Alternative strategies (peripheric and central nerve blocks, neurolysis) are frequently required. A proper use of different modalities of treatment enhances the probability of achieving relief of pain and maintaining an acceptable quality of life.

Using bisphosphonates to control the pain of bone metastases: evidence-based guidelines for palliative care

This work was undertaken by the Science Committee of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland (APM) as a demonstration project in developing clinical guidelines relevant to palliative care from a pragmatic approach to literature review and grading of clinical evidence. CANCERLIT and Embase were searched for relevant papers written in English, published since 1980. Each study identified was rated against agreed criteria for levels of evidence. Most studies were not specifically designed to define speed of response, and were not undertaken in palliative care patients. Thus, careful reading and grading of each study was necessary. Sufficient evidence was identified to make recommendations for clinical practice in a palliative care population of patients, and areas for future research have been identified. Bisphosphonates appear to have a role in managing pain from metastases which has been refractory to conventional analgesic management and where oncological or orthopaedic intervention is delayed or inappropriate.

The potential role of bisphosphonates as adjuvant therapy in the prevention of bone metastases

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates (BPs) reduce bone resorption rates by inhibiting osteoclast function, although direct antineoplastic effects and poorly understood effects on bone pain also may occur. Within the family of BPs there are more similarities in pharmacologic effects than differences, although side effect profiles, rates of oral absorption, and potency do differ. Oral clodronate and intravenous pamidronate reduce skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from breast carcinoma (as well as in myeloma). Uncontrolled trials of prostate carcinoma also suggest clinical benefit.

METHODS

Animal studies show that BPs can reduce the rate of development of bone metastases (for example, in Walker 256 carcinoma), but there is little evidence of an effect at nonosseous sites. The hypothesis that the growth of subclinical osseous metastases is augmented by products of bone resorption (a "vicious cycle") and may be diminished by a local reduction of these substances has led to trials of BPs involving patients with no clinical evidence of bone metastases. These trials are critically assessed in this review.

RESULTS

In patients with recurrent breast carcinoma but no overt bone metastases, oral clodronate reduced the number of diagnosed bone metastases; but the number of patients who had relapses in bone, though smaller, was not significantly different from the number among patients who took placebo. In a trial of oral pamidronate, no effect was seen, but compliance was a problem because of gastrointestinal side effects. Patients treated for operable breast carcinoma have four or five times the normal rate of vertebral fracture, and BPs do reduce the rate of bone loss. Three adjuvant clodronate trials have been reported. The first, an open-label controlled trial (Diel et al.), showed a reduction in osseous and nonosseous recurrences and an increase in disease free and overall survival with 2 years of clodronate. A second open-label trial (Saarto et al.) of similar size involving lymph node positive breast carcinoma patients showed no effect on the rate of bone metastasis relapse and a deleterious effect on relapse rates of nonosseous metastases with 3 years of clodronate. A third placebo-controlled trial involving 1079 patients reported, in an interim analysis, a reduction in osseous metastases during treatment with 2 years of clodronate, but no effect on nonosseous metastases or survival.

CONCLUSIONS

A confirmatory clinical trial is required for two interrelated reasons: 1) scientifically, it is important to demonstrate that an agent that has its dominant effect on a normal tissue cell, the osteoclast, can influence the growth of neoplastic cells; and 2) from the perspective of patient care, it must be unequivocally shown that a reduction in the rate of osseous recurrence translates into an improvement in disease free survival or an improvement in quality of life through reduction of adverse skeletal events. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project has committed to conducting this study and including women with operable breast carcinoma.

Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

Myelomatosis is associated with considerable skeletal morbidity, particularly bone pain and fractures. Hypercalcaemia is a common presenting feature but less common after adequate chemotherapy. These complications are caused by progressive focal and generalized osteolysis due, in turn, to increased activation of osteoclasts by osteoclast activating factors. These include tumor necrosis factor-beta, interleukin-1, and interleukin-6. The knowledge that disturbed bone remodeling is due to the activation of authentic osteoclasts provides the rationale for the use of bisphosphonates in myelomatosis.

METHODS

This article reviews the place of bisphosphonates in the management of myeloma.

RESULTS

There is good evidence that hypercalcaemia can be corrected with intravenous or oral bisphosphonates, and they are now the specific treatment of choice. Several studies have shown that their intravenous administration is beneficial in the acute management of bone pain due to malignancy, but studies in myelomatosis are lacking. In contrast, a number of well designed controlled studies have shown significant effects of long term treatment with clodronate and pamidronate to decrease the incidence of skeletal complications in myelomatosis. Benefits reported are a decreased incidence of bone pain, hypercalcaemia, vertebral and long-bone fractures, and the extension of osteolytic lesions. There may be a beneficial effect on survival, but this is much less certain.

CONCLUSIONS

These agents provide a valuable adjunct to the management of myelomatosis.

American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the role of bisphosphonates in breast cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology Bisphosphonates Expert Panel

PURPOSE

To determine clinical practice guidelines for the use of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of bone metastases in breast cancer and their role relative to other therapies for this condition.

METHODS

An expert multidisciplinary panel reviewed pertinent information from the published literature and meeting abstracts through May 1999. Additional data collected as part of randomized trials and submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration were also reviewed, and investigators were contacted for more recent information. Values for levels of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned by expert reviewers and approved by the panel. Expert consensus was used if there were insufficient published data. The panel addressed which patients to treat and when in their course of disease, specific drug delivery issues, duration of therapy, management of bony metastases with other therapies, and the public policy implications. The guideline underwent external review by selected physicians, members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee, and the ASCO Board of Directors.

RESULTS

Bisphosphonates have not had an impact on the most reliable cancer end point: overall survival. The benefits have been reductions in skeletal complications, ie, pathologic fractures, surgery for fracture or impending fracture, radiation, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia. Intravenous (IV) pamidronate 90 mg delivered over 1 to 2 hours every 3 to 4 weeks is recommended in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have imaging evidence of lytic destruction of bone and who are concurrently receiving systemic therapy with hormonal therapy or chemotherapy. For women with only an abnormal bone scan but without bony destruction by imaging studies or localized pain, there is insufficient evidence to suggest starting bisphosphonates. Starting bisphosphonates in patients without evidence of bony metastasis, even in the presence of other extraskeletal metastases, is not recommended. Studies of bisphosphonates in the adjuvant setting have yielded inconsistent results. Starting bisphosphonates in patients at any stage of their nonosseous disease, outside of clinical trials, despite a high risk for future bone metastasis, is currently not recommended. Oral bisphosphonates are one of several options which can be used for preservation of bone density in premenopausal patients with treatment-induced menopause. The panel suggests that, once initiated, IV bisphosphonates be continued until evidence of substantial decline in a patient's general performance status. The panel stresses that clinical judgment must guide what is a substantial decline. There is no evidence addressing the consequences of stopping bisphosphonates after one or more adverse skeletal events. Symptoms in the spine, pelvis, or femur require careful evaluation for spinal cord compression and pathologic fracture before bisphosphonate use and if symptoms recur, persist, or worsen during therapy. The panel recommends that current standards of care for cancer pain, analgesics and local radiation therapy, not be displaced by bisphosphonates. IV pamidronate is recommended in women with pain caused by osteolytic metastasis to relieve pain when used concurrently with systemic chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy, since it was associated with a modest pain control benefit in controlled trials.

CONCLUSION

Bisphosphonates provide a meaningful supportive but not life-prolonging benefit to many patients with bone metastases from cancer. Further research is warranted to identify clinical predictors of when to start and stop therapy, to integrate their use with other treatments for bone metastases, to identify their role in the adjuvant setting in preventing bone metastases, and to better determine their cost-benefit consequences.

The effect of two different doses of oral clodronate on pain in patients with bone metastases

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of low dose oral clodronate in palliation of pain arising from bone metastases (BM) and to determine the optimal oral clodronate dose which inhibits osteolysis caused by tumor. Fifty patients with bone pain caused by BM were included in this study. All were receiving antitumor chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. The patients were randomized into three groups according to the dose of clodronate. Groups A and B were given 800 mg/d and 1600 mg/d of oral clodronate respectively for 3 months. Group C was the control group. The effect of clodronate in pain palliation was evaluated with pain score, performance status, and changes in analgesic use. The effect on osteolysis was examined with urinary calcium, hydroxyproline (OHP) and serum cross-linked carboxyterminal telopeptide region of type I collagen (ICTP) levels. Group A contained 16 patients, and groups B and C contained 17 patients each. After 3 months use of oral clodronate, significant decrease in the pain score of groups A and B was noted when compared to group C (P = 0.024 and P = 0.007, respectively). The analgesic use of 11 patients in group A (69%) and 8 patients in group B (47%) was decreased, but only the decrease in group A was statistically significant (P = 0.038). Pain score increased in 5 patients in group C (29%), and 3 patients in groups A (19%) and B (18%) each. Urinary calcium, OHP and serum ICTP levels increased in group C and decreased in groups A and B, but only the decrease of urinary calcium levels of group B was significant (P = 0.003). In conclusion, low dose (800 mg/d) oral clodronate seems to be as effective as standard dose (1600 mg/d) in palliation of bone pain secondary to BM.

Clodronate: a review of its use in breast cancer

Like other members of its class, the bisphosphonate clodronate (clodronic acid) inhibits bone resorption. The efficacy of oral clodronate 1600 mg/day in reducing the incidence of skeletal complications and metastasis development has been assessed in several clinical trials in patients with breast cancer. Long term use of oral clodronate significantly reduced the total cumulative incidence of skeletal events (including fractures, hypercalcaemia, and the need for radiotherapy for bone pain) compared with that in placebo recipients in 2 randomised double-blind placebo-controlled studies, each involving >100 patients. Significant differences in favour of clodronate were also seen in the frequency of some individual skeletal events in 1 trial. A nonblind trial in 302 patients considered to be at high risk of developing metastases found that, at a 3-year follow-up, significantly fewer patients who received clodronate for 2 years developed skeletal metastases than those in a control group. Clodronate recipients were also significantly less likely than controls to develop visceral metastases, and had significantly higher survival rates. A smaller double-blind placebo-controlled study in women with recurrent breast cancer found that clodronate significantly decreased the total number of new skeletal metastases, but not the number of patients who developed them. In a nonblind trial in 299 patients with node-positive breast cancer, however, the incidence of skeletal metastases did not differ significantly between patients who received clodronate for 3 years and those in a control group. In addition, clodronate recipients had a significantly greater incidence of nonskeletal metastases (local and visceral), and significantly lower survival rates. Intravenous or oral clodronate has been well tolerated in clinical trials. The most common adverse effects reported were mild gastrointestinal disturbances such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. All these events were transient, and usually resolved without stopping treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Clodronate is a well tolerated bisphosphonate, available in both oral and intravenous forms, that significantly reduces the incidence of skeletal complications associated with breast cancer. Further research is needed to establish more clearly its efficacy in reducing metastasis development, to assess its efficacy compared with other bisphosphonates, and to determine which patients will benefit most from treatment. Currently, clodronate is probably most effective in the treatment and prevention of general skeletal complications in patients with breast cancer.

Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study of oral ibandronate in patients with metastatic bone disease

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates are an important component of the treatment of metastatic bone disease but more potent, oral formulations are required to improve the effectiveness and convenience of treatment. An oral formulation of the new bisphosphonate, ibandronate (BM 21.0955) has recently been developed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred ten patients with bone metastases (77 breast, 16, prostate, 3 myeloma, 14 others) were recruited from a single institution to this double blind placebo-controlled evaluation of four oral dose levels (5, 10, 20 and 50 mg) of ibandronate. No changes in systemic anti-cancer treatment were allowed in the month before commencing treatment or during the study period. After an initial four-week tolerability phase, patients could continue on treatment for a further three months without unblinding; patients initially allocated to placebo received ibandronate 50 mg. The primary endpoint was urinary calcium excretion (UCCR). Bone resorption was also assessed by measurement of pyridinoline (Pyr), deoxypyridinoline (Dpd), and the N-terminal (NTX) and C-terminal (Crosslaps) portions of the collagen crosslinking molecules.

RESULTS

Two patients did not receive any trial medication thus, 108 patients were evaluable for safety. Ninety-two patients were evaluable for efficacy. A dose dependent reduction was observed in both UCCR and collagen crosslink excretion. At the 50 mg dose level, the percentage reductions from baseline in UCCR, Pyr, Dpd, Crosslaps and NTX were 71%, 28%, 39%, 80% and 74% respectively. One or more gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events occurring in the first month of treatment were reported by six (30%), seven (33%), nine (39%), nine (41%) and eleven (50%) patients at the placebo, 5, 10, 20 and 50 mg dose levels respectively. One patient (20 mg dose) developed radiographically confirmed oesophageal ulceration. GI tolerability may have been adversely affected by concomitant administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents. Nine (8%) patients stopped treatment within the first month due to GI intolerability but these patients were evenly distributed across the five treatment groups. There was no difference in non-GI adverse events between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral ibandronate has potent effects on the rate of bone resorption at doses which are generally well tolerated. Further development is appropriate to evaluate the effects of long-term administration in the prevention of metastatic bone disease and the management of established skeletal metastases.

Economic impact of using clodronate in the management of patients with multiple myeloma

The economic impact of using prophylactic clodronate as an adjunct to chemotherapy in the management of multiple myeloma for the first 4 years following diagnosis was established from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). A state-transition model of the course of multiple myeloma was constructed using the MRC VI myelomatosis trial results and information on patient management obtained retrospectively from clinical trialists. Data were collected on resource use and corresponding costs for standard management and managing severe hypercalcaemia, vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Managing patients with prophylactic clodronate cost the NHS a mean 22 934 pound silver per patient; comprising 16 697 pounds silver for standard management, 4862 pound silver for clodronate therapy and 1376 pound silver for adverse events. Managing patients without prophylactic clodronate cost a mean 19 557 pound silver (16 697 pound silver and 2860 pound silver for standard management and adverse events respectively). Therefore prophylactic clodronate therapy increased the cost by 3377 pound silver, or 17% per patient. Hospitalization accounted for 32% of the total cost, whereas chemotherapy accounted for 5%. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses (range 2605 pound silver-4150 pound silver). Further studies are required to assess the impact of prophylactic clodronate on quality of life to enable the clinical benefits and additional cost of this treatment to be compared with other healthcare interventions.