Incidence and risk factors for low trauma fractures in men with prostate cancer

Fracture risk and assessment in adults with cancer

Individuals with cancer face unique risk factors for osteoporosis and fractures. Clinicians must consider the additive effects of cancer-specific factors, including treatment-induced bone loss, and premorbid fracture risk, utilizing FRAX score and bone mineral densitometry when available. Pharmacologic therapy should be offered as per cancer-specific guidelines, when available, or local general osteoporosis guidelines informed by clinical judgment and patient preferences. Our objective was to review and summarize the epidemiologic burden of osteoporotic fracture risk and fracture risk assessment in adults with cancer, and recommended treatment thresholds for cancer treatment-induced bone loss, with specific focus on breast, prostate, thyroid, gynecological, multiple myeloma, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. This narrative review was informed by PubMed searches to July 25, 2022, that combined terms for cancer, stem cell transplantation, fracture, bone mineral density (BMD), trabecular bone score, FRAX, Garvan nomogram or fracture risk calculator, QFracture, prediction, and risk factors. The literature informs that cancer can impact bone health in numerous ways, leading to both systemic and localized decreases in BMD. Many cancer treatments can have detrimental effects on bone health. In particular, hormone deprivation therapies for hormone-responsive cancers such as breast cancer and prostate cancer, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant for hematologic malignancies, adversely affect bone turnover, resulting in osteoporosis and fractures. Surgical treatments such as hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for gynecological cancers can also lead to deleterious effects on bone health. Radiation therapy is well documented to cause localized bone loss and fractures. Few studies have validated the use of fracture risk prediction tools in the cancer population. Guidelines on cancer-specific treatment thresholds are limited, and major knowledge gaps still exist in fracture risk and fracture risk assessment in patients with cancer. Despite the limitations of current knowledge on fracture risk assessment and treatment thresholds in patients with cancer, clinicians must consider the additive effects of bone damaging factors to which these patients are exposed and their premorbid fracture risk profile. Pharmacologic treatment should be offered as per cancer-specific guidelines when available, or per local general osteoporosis guidelines, in accordance with clinical judgment and patient preferences.

Bone Metastases and Health in Prostate Cancer: From Pathophysiology to Clinical Implications

Clinically relevant bone metastases are a major cause of morbidity and mortality for prostate cancer patients. Distinct phenotypes are described: osteoblastic, the more common osteolytic and mixed. A molecular classification has been also proposed. Bone metastases start with the tropism of cancer cells to the bone through different multi-step tumor-host interactions, as described by the "metastatic cascade" model. Understanding these mechanisms, although far from being fully elucidated, could offer several potential targets for prevention and therapy. Moreover, the prognosis of patients is markedly influenced by skeletal-related events. They can be correlated not only with bone metastases, but also with "bad" bone health. There is a close correlation between osteoporosis-a skeletal disorder with decreased bone mass and qualitative alterations-and prostate cancer, in particular when treated with androgen deprivation therapy, a milestone in its treatment. Systemic treatments for prostate cancer, especially with the newest options, have improved the survival and quality of life of patients with respect to skeletal-related events; however, all patients should be evaluated for "bone health" and osteoporotic risk, both in the presence and in the absence of bone metastases. Treatment with bone-targeted therapies should be evaluated even in the absence of bone metastases, as described in special guidelines and according to a multidisciplinary evaluation.

Performance of FRAX in Men With Prostate Cancer: A Registry-Based Cohort Study

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) was created to predict major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) and hip fractures in the general population. Whether FRAX accurately predicts fractures in men with prostate cancer is unknown. Our objective was to assess the performance of FRAX for predicting incident fractures in men with prostate cancer. Men from the Manitoba Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Registry (1996-2018) with prostate cancer diagnoses in the 3 years prior to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) were identified. FRAX scores with and without BMD were calculated. From population-based healthcare data we identified incident MOF, hip fracture, any osteoporotic fracture and death from the date of BMD testing to March 31, 2018. Cox regression was performed to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) per standard deviation increase in FRAX score. Observed 10-year probability (estimated with competing risk of mortality) was compared with 10-year FRAX-predicted fracture probability to assess calibration. The study population included 684 men with prostate cancer (mean age 74.6 years) and 8608 men without prostate cancer (mean age 65.5 years). FRAX stratified risk for MOF (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.48-2.45 with BMD; HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.43-2.69 without BMD) and hip fracture (HR 3.37, 95% CI 1.90-6.01 with BMD; HR 4.58, 95% CI 2.17-9.67 without BMD) in men with prostate cancer. There was no effect modification observed with prostate cancer status or current androgen deprivation therapy. Observed 10-year fracture probability in men with prostate cancer showed good agreement with FRAX with and without BMD included in the calculation (observed/predicted calibration ratios MOF 0.97, hip 1.00 with BMD; MOF 0.92, hip 0.93 with BMD). In conclusion, FRAX reliably predicts incident fractures in men with prostate cancer. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Osteoporosis in men

Osteoporosis in men is a common but often overlooked disorder by clinicians. The criterion for osteoporosis diagnosis in men is similar to that in women-namely, a bone mineral density (BMD) that is 2·5 standard deviations or more below the mean for the young adult population (aged 20-29 years; T-score -2·5 or lower), measured at the hip or lumbar spine. Sex steroids are important for bone health in men and, as in women, oestrogens have a key role. Most men generally have bigger and stronger bones than women and typically have less bone loss during their lifetime. Men typically fracture less often than women, although they have a higher mortality rate after a fracture. Secondary osteoporosis is more common in men than in women. Lifestyle changes, adequate calcium, vitamin D intake, and exercise programmes are recommended for the management of osteoporosis in men. Bisphosphonates, denosumab, and teriparatide have been shown to increase BMD and are used for pharmacological treatment. In this Review, we report an updated overview of osteoporosis in men, describe new treatments and concepts, and discuss persistent controversies in the area.

Effect on bone mineral density in surgical versus medical castration for metastatic prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study aimed to objectively assess the osteoporotic effect caused by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with prostate cancer and compare this effect in surgical versus medical castration, specifically with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) antagonists.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 60 patients with metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma treated with either bilateral orchidectomy (group I) or LHRH antagonist (Degarelix) injection (group II). The patients had a baseline bone mineral density (BMD) assessment before the start of ADT using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan and then follow-up assessment after 6 months. BMD was measured at the spine (lumbar vertebrae L2-L4), femur (total), and forearm (one-third radius).

RESULTS

Group I included 33 patients and group II 27 patients. Both the groups showed significant reduction in BMD at the spine and femur after 6 months, whereas the forearm did not show a significant reduction. Spine BMD showed 5.9%±2.6% and 4.7%±2.6% reduction whereas the femur BMD showed 6%±7.4% and 6%±4.7% reduction in the orchiectomy and the Degarelix groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups at the 3 measured sites.

CONCLUSION

Both surgical castration and LHRH antagonists were associated with significant accelerated osteoporotic effect at the spine and femur after 6 months without difference between both the methods. Assessment of osteoporotic risk together with preventive or management measures should be started early during ADT.

Effects of Medical Treatment of Prostate Cancer on Bone Health

Medical treatment of prostate cancer (PC) is multidisciplinary, resulting in prolonged survival. Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) can have negative effects on skeletal metabolism, particularly if combined with glucocorticoids. We discuss the pathophysiology and effects of ADT and glucocorticoids on skeletal endpoints, as well as the awareness and management of bone fragility. Coadministration of glucocorticoids is necessary with abiraterone because this causes a novel acquired form of 17-hydroxylase deficiency and synergistically increases the risk of fracture by affecting bone quality. Bone antiresorptive agents [selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMS), bisphosphonates, and denosumab] increase bone mineral density (BMD) and in some instances reduce fracture risk in PC patients on ADT. Awareness and management of bone health in PC can be improved by integrating endocrinologists into the multidisciplinary PC team.

Guidance for the assessment and management of prostate cancer treatment-induced bone loss. A consensus position statement from an expert group

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Incidence of prostate cancer (PC) is increasing, but androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and other therapies are substantially improving survival. In this context, careful consideration of skeletal health is required to reduce the risk of treatment-related fragility fractures and their associated morbidity and mortality. This risk is currently not well-managed. ADT causes significant loss of bone mineral density (BMD). In the metastatic setting, systemic treatments (e.g. chemotherapy, abiraterone, enzalutamide) are used alongside ADT and may require concomitant glucocorticoids. Both ADT and glucocorticoids pose significant challenges to skeletal health in a population of patients already likely to have ongoing age-related bone loss and/or comorbid conditions. Current PC guidelines lack specific recommendations for optimising bone health. This guidance presents evidence for assessment and management of bone health in this population, with specific recommendations for clinical practitioners in day-to-day PC management.

METHODS

Structured meetings of key opinion leaders were integrated with a systematic literature review. Input and endorsement was sought from patients, nursing representatives and specialist societies.

SUMMARY OF GUIDANCE

All men starting or continuing long-term ADT should receive lifestyle advice regarding bone health. Calcium/vitamin D supplementation should be offered if required. Fracture risk should be calculated (using the FRAX® tool), with BMD assessment included where feasible. BMD should always be assessed where fracture risk calculated using FRAX® alone is close to the intervention threshold. Intervention should be provided if indicated by local or national guidelines e.g. UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) thresholds. Men requiring bone protection therapy should be further assessed (e.g. renal function), with referral to specialist centres if available and offered appropriate treatment to reduce fracture risk. Those near to, but below an intervention threshold, and patients going on to additional systemic therapies (particularly those requiring glucocorticoids), should have FRAX® (including BMD) repeated after 12-18 months.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Modern treatments for prostate cancer have led to significant improvements in survival and quality of life. However, some of these treatments may lead to weakening of patient's bones with risk of fracture and it is therefore important to monitor patients' bone health and provide bone protection where needed. This paper provides specific guidance to clinical teams, based on the most recent research evidence, to ensure optimal bone health in their patients.

French recommendations for osteoporosis prevention and treatment in patients with prostate cancer treated by androgen deprivation

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with prostate cancer can be achieved surgically or chemically, notably by prescribing LHRH analogs. Major bone loss occurs rapidly in both cases, due to the decrease in testosterone levels, and can increase the fracture risk. The objective of developing these recommendations was to achieve a practical consensus among various scientific societies, based on a literature review, about osteoporosis prevention and treatment in patients on ADT. The following scientific societies contributed to the work: Société française de rhumatologie (SFR), Groupe de recherche et d'information sur les ostéoporoses (GRIO), Groupe européen d'études des métastases osseuses (GEMO), Association francophone pour les soins de support (AFSOS), Association française d'urologie (AFU), Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Medication prescription and reimbursement modalities in France were taken into account. The recommendations state that a fracture-risk evaluation and interventions targeting risk factors for fractures should be provided to all patients on ADT. Those patients with a history of severe osteoporotic fracture and/or a T-score < -2.5 should receive osteoporosis therapy. Patients whose T-score is between -1.5 and -2.5 should be treated if they exhibit at least two other risk factors among the following: age ≥ 75 years, history of non-severe fracture after 50 years of age, body mass index < 19 kg/m², at least three comorbidities (e.g., cardiovascular disease, depression, Parkinson's disease, and dementia), current glucocorticoid therapy, and repeated falls. When the decision is difficult, FRAX^® score determination and an assessment by a bone disease specialist may be helpful. When osteoporosis therapy is not indicated, general measures should be applied, and bone mineral density measured again after 12-24 months. The anti-tumor effects of bisphosphonates and denosumab fall outside the scope of these recommendations.

Medication-induced osteoporosis: screening and treatment strategies

Drug-induced osteoporosis is a significant health problem and many physicians are unaware that many commonly prescribed medications contribute to significant bone loss and fractures. In addition to glucocorticoids, proton pump inhibitors, selective serotonin receptor inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, anticonvulsants, medroxyprogesterone acetate, aromatase inhibitors, androgen deprivation therapy, heparin, calcineurin inhibitors, and some chemotherapies have deleterious effects on bone health. Furthermore, many patients are treated with combinations of these medications, possibly compounding the harmful effects of these drugs. Increasing physician awareness of these side effects will allow for monitoring of bone health and therapeutic interventions to prevent or treat drug-induced osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis in men

Osteoporosis in men causes significant morbidity and mortality. Bone health declines gradually, often insidiously; and in light of the advancing aging population poses a serious public health issue that is not well recognized. Studies of the past decade have expanded our understanding of the events within, as well as the regulation of, bone remodeling and provided better insight into the physiology and pathophysiology specific to the adult male skeleton. The clinical measurement of bone mineral density using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry remains the gold standard for diagnosis of osteoporosis in males; and fracture risk assessment is now recognized as a preferred approach to guide treatment decisions. Utilizing surrogate end-points such as increasing bone mineral density and decreasing concentrations of bone resorption markers, clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy in pharmacological treatment of osteoporosis in the adult male. Unfortunately, few studies have evaluated the anti-fracture benefits in this population. Measurement of bone turnover markers may be an additional tool to monitor therapeutic responsiveness in addition to the measurement of bone mineral density.

Low rates of bone mineral density measurement in Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer initiating androgen deprivation therapy

BACKGROUND

Men with prostate cancer who undergo androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are at risk for bone loss and fractures. Our objective was to determine if Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer in the state of Texas underwent DXA scans when initiating ADT.

METHODS

We identified men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2005 and 2007 in the Texas Cancer Registry/Medicare linked database, and who received parenteral ADT or orchiectomy. We identified DXA claims within 1 year before or 6 months after starting ADT. We examined use of bone conservation agents in the subgroup of patients enrolled in Medicare Part D. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine determinants of DXA use.

RESULTS

The analysis included 2,290 men (2,262 parenteral ADT, 28 orchiectomy); 197 (8.6 %) underwent DXA within 1 year before and 6 months after starting ADT. Men aged 75 years or older were more likely to undergo DXA than men aged 66-74 years (OR 1.5; 95 % CI 1.1-2.1). Those living in small urban areas were less likely to undergo DXA than those in big areas (OR 0.40; 95 % CI 0.19-0.82). Of the 1,060 men enrolled in Medicare part D, 59 (5.6 %) received bone conservation agents when starting ADT; 134 (12.6 %) either received bone conservation agents or underwent DXA.

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than one in ten Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer initiating ADT underwent a DXA exam. Variation in utilization was also related to residence area size. Further research is needed to identify whether the use of DXA in patients with prostate cancer receiving ADT will result in fracture prevention.

Exercise medicine for prostate cancer

Since initial reports in the mid-1980s, there has been increasing interest in the application of exercise as medicine for the prevention and management of cancer. A large number of high-quality, randomised, controlled trials with cancer survivors have confirmed both aerobic and resistance exercise to be highly beneficial for improving body composition, quality of life, mental health functional capacity and reducing risk of cancer recurrence and development of other chronic diseases. Such benefits have ultimately been realised in reduced cancer mortality between 30 and 60 % in large cohort retrospective studies. Treatments for prostate cancer are increasingly effective with quite high 5- and 10-year survival rates; however, side effects of endocrine treatments in particular impact on quality of life and increased co-morbidities for the survivor. Testosterone deprivation while highly effective for controlling prostate cancer growth results in loss of muscle and bone, increased fat mass, increased incidence of metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease and sudden death. Exercise has been demonstrated to be a very effective medicine for counteracting all of these treatment toxicities as well as improving mental health and quality of life. Exercise has been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated by cancer patients. Current recommendation is to complete at least 150 min of aerobic exercise and two or more sessions of resistance training per week. More specific exercise prescription is required to address particular treatment toxicities such as bone loss or obesity. This paper is a review of key research from our group into exercise medicine for prostate cancer.

Clinical review. Risk factors for low bone mass-related fractures in men: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Testing men at increased risk for osteoporotic fractures has been recommended.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to estimate the magnitude of association and quality of supporting evidence linking multiple risk factors with low bone mass-related fractures in men.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Cochrane CENTRAL through February 2010. We identified further studies by reviewing reference lists from selected studies and reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible studies had to enroll men and quantitatively evaluate the association of risk factors with low bone density-related fractures.

DATA EXTRACTION

Reviewers working independently and in duplicate determined study eligibility and extracted study description, quality, and outcome data.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Fifty-five studies provided data sufficient for meta-analysis. The quality of these observational studies was moderate with fair levels of multivariable adjustment and adequate exposure and outcome ascertainment. Statistically significant associations were established for age, low body mass index, current smoking, excessive alcohol use, chronic corticosteroid use, history of prior fractures, history of falls, history of hypogonadism, history of stroke, and history of diabetes. Statistical heterogeneity of the meta-analytic estimates of all associations was significant except for chronic corticosteroid use. None of these associations were of large magnitude (i.e. adjusted odds ratios were generally <2). No evidence supporting a particular effective testing or screening strategy was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple risk factors for fractures in men were identified, but their usefulness for stratifying and selecting men for bone density testing remains uncertain.

Timing of androgen deprivation therapy use and fracture risk among elderly men with prostate cancer in the United States

PURPOSE

Fractures are a recognized consequence of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT); however, less is known about the incidence of fracture in relation to the timing of ADT use or the impact of fracture on mortality in men with prostate cancer.

METHODS

Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, we estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) using time-dependent Cox regression for fracture incidence related to the recency of exposure and dose among prostate cancer patients on gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, as well as mortality associated with fractures.

RESULTS

In our cohort of 80 844 patients, ADT was associated with an increased rate of fracture in both non-metastatic patients (aHR = 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.29-1.39) and metastatic patients (aHR = 1.51; 95%CI = 1.36-1.67). Fracture rates increased with increasing cumulative GnRH dose but decreased with increasing number of months since last use in each dose category. The mortality rate doubled for men experiencing a fracture after their diagnosis compared with that for men who did not experience a fracture (aHR = 2.05; 95%CI = 1.98-2.12).

CONCLUSIONS

ADT in elderly men with prostate cancer increased the incidence of fractures, and the effect appears to diminish with increasing time since the last dose of a GnRH agonist. Experiencing a fracture after the diagnosis of prostate cancer was associated with decreased survival.

Fracture risk in men with prostate cancer: a population-based study

Fractures are increased among men with prostate cancer, especially those on androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), but few data are available on men with localized prostate cancer. The purpose of this investigation was to estimate fracture risk among unselected community men with prostate cancer and systematically assess associations with ADT and other risk factors for fracture. In a population-based retrospective cohort study, 742 Olmsted County, MN, men with prostate cancer first diagnosed in 1990-1999 (mean age 68.2 ± 8.9 years) were followed for 6821 person-years. We estimated cumulative fracture incidence, assessed relative risk by standardized incidence ratios, and evaluated risk factors in time-to-fracture regression models. All together, 482 fractures were observed in 258 men (71 per 1000 person-years). Overall fracture risk was elevated 1.9-fold, with an absolute increase in risk of 9%. Relative to rates among community men generally, fracture risk was increased even among men not on ADT but was elevated a further 1.7-fold among ADT-treated compared with untreated men with prostate cancer. The increased risk following various forms of ADT was accounted for mainly by associations with pathologic fractures (14% of all fractures). Among men not on ADT (62% of the cohort), more traditional osteoporosis risk factors were implicated. In both groups, underlying clinical characteristics prompting different treatments (indication bias) may have been partially responsible for the associations seen with specific therapies. To the extent that advanced-stage disease and pathologic fractures account for the excess risk, the effectiveness of fracture prevention among men with prostate cancer may be limited.

Drug-induced osteoporosis: mechanisms and clinical implications

Drug-induced osteoporosis is common and has a significant impact on the prognosis of patients suffering from chronic debilitating diseases. Glucocorticoids are the drugs causing osteoporotic fractures most frequently, but osteoporosis with fractures is observed also in women treated with aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer, in men receiving anti-androgen therapy for prostate cancer, in postmenopausal women treated with high doses of thyroxine, and in men and women treated with thiazolinediones for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Bone loss with fractures also occurs in patients treated with drugs targeting the immune system, such as calcineurin inhibitors, antiretroviral drugs, selective inhibitors of serotonin reuptake, anticonvulsants, loop diuretics, heparin, oral anticoagulants, and proton pump inhibitors.

Bone continuum of cancer

Many patients with solid tumors, especially breast and prostate cancers, and with multiple myeloma will develop bone metastases or other skeletal complications. The management of bone loss and symptomatic bone metastases is an important issue in the care and maintenance of quality of life for these patients. Morbidity caused by skeletal complications include pain (bone metastases are known as the most common cause of cancer-related pain), hypercalcemia, pathologic fracture, compression of the spinal cord or cauda equine, and spinal instability. Currently, the only Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy for metastatic bone disease is bisphosphonate therapy. A greater understanding of the biomolecular pathways that govern the bone continuum of cancer has helped identify novel targets for drug development. New therapeutic options are currently being investigated for the treatments of bone loss and symptomatic bone metastases. Some of these new drugs and modalities are in advanced stages of clinical development and may soon reach the clinic.