Denosumab Toxicity When Combined With Anti-angiogenic Therapies on Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A GETUG Study

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab in bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma: Results of the GETUG-AFU26-NIVOREN multicentre phase II study

INTRODUCTION

Bone metastases (BM) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are associated with a poor prognosis based on retrospective studies evaluating antiangiogenic agents. Few data are available regarding immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with bone metastatic RCC. NIVOREN is a multicentre prospective study in which patients were treated with nivolumab after the failure of antiangiogenic agents. We aim to assess the impact of BM on prognosis, and the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients enrolled in the NIVOREN trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients with BM at inclusion were included in our study. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and skeletal-related events (SRE).

RESULTS

Among 720 patients treated with nivolumab, 194 presented BM at inclusion. The median follow-up was 23.9 months. Median OS was 17.9 months in patients with BM versus 26.1 months in patients without BM (p = 0.0023). The difference was not statistically significant after adjustment (p = 0.0707). The median PFS was shorter in patients with BM even after adjustment (2.8 versus 4.6 months, p = 0.0045), as well as the ORR (14.8% versus 23.3%). SRE occurred for 36% of patients with BM. A post-hoc analysis evaluating the impact of bone-targeting agents (BTA) on SRE incidence showed a significant benefit of BTA on the incidence of SRE (OR = 0.367, CI95% [0.151-0.895]).

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab is associated with shorter PFS, and lower ORR in RCC patients with BM. Our study suggests that BTA in association with immunotherapy decreases the incidence of SRE.

Bone Metabolism Effects of Medical Therapy in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

The medical therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is based on the use of targeted therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). These therapies are characterized by multiple endocrine adverse events, but the effect on the bone is still less known. Relatively few case reports or small case series have been specifically focused on TKI and ICI effects on bone metabolism. However, the importance to consider these possible side effects is easily intuitable because the bone is one of the most frequent metastatic sites of RCC. Among TKI used in RCC, sunitinib and sorafenib can cause hypophosphatemia with increased PTH levels and low-normal serum calcium levels. Considering ICI, nivolumab and ipilimumab, which can be used in association in a combination strategy, are associated with an increased risk of hypocalcemia, mediated by an autoimmune mechanism targeted on the calcium-sensing receptor. A fearsome complication, reported for TKI and rarely for ICI, is osteonecrosis of the jaw. Awareness of these possible side effects makes a clinical evaluation of RCC patients on anticancer therapy mandatory, especially if associated with antiresorptive therapy such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, which can further increase the risk of these complications.

Difficult Therapeutic Decisions in Gorham-Stout Disease-Case Report and Review of the Literature

Gorham-Stout disease (GSD) is a very rare, life-threatening condition characterized by the proliferation of lymphatic vessels and osteolysis. Unfortunately, no standard treatment has been determined for management of GSD. The available therapies are not equally effective and carry substantial side-effects. We report a 42-year-old female with GSD manifested in multifocal osteolysis and chronic chylothorax and ascites. The combined treatment with sirolimus and zoledronic acid due to its synergism of action was introduced. To our knowledge, this is the first Polish case report of adult patients with Gorham-Stout disease.

Risk evaluation of denosumab and zoledronic acid for medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with bone metastases: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in patients with cancer who received denosumab or zoledronic acid (ZA) for treating bone metastasis.

METHODS

The medical records of patients were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who did not undergo a dental examination at baseline were excluded. The primary endpoint was a comparison of the risk of developing MRONJ between the denosumab and ZA groups. Propensity score matching was used to control for baseline differences between patient characteristics and compare outcomes for both groups.

RESULTS

Among the 799 patients enrolled, 58 (7.3%) developed MRONJ. The incidence of MRONJ was significantly higher in the denosumab group than in the ZA group (9.6% [39/406] vs. 4.8% [19/393], p = 0.009). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that denosumab treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 2.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-5.25; p < 0.001) and tooth extraction after starting ZA or denosumab (HR, 4.26; 95% CI, 2.38-7.44; p < 0.001) were significant risk factors for MRONJ. Propensity score-matched analysis confirmed that the risk of developing MRONJ was significantly higher in the denosumab group than in the ZA group (HR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.17-5.01; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that denosumab poses a significant risk for developing MRONJ in patients treated for bone metastasis, and thus these patients require close monitoring.

Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw in Patients Treated Concurrently with Antiresorptive and Antiangiogenic Agents: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ) is a known adverse event related to the use of antiresorptive (AR) drugs. More recently, an association between antiangiogenic (AA) drugs and MRONJ has been suggested. This review aimed to investigate the overall prevalence and relative risk of MRONJ in patients treated concurrently with AA and AR agents in comparison with a single AA or AR drug.

Methods

A review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020214244). A systematic literature search, study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were carried out following PRISMA guidelines. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to summarize relative estimates for the outcomes, namely prevalence and relative risk of MRONJ. Exposure variable included type of drug, specifically AA and AR agents administered either concurrently or individually.

Results

Eleven studies were included in the final qualitative and quantitative syntheses. The overall pooled weighted prevalence of MRONJ with concurrent AA-AR drugs was 6% (95% CI: 3–8%), compared with 0% (95% CI: 0–0%) for AA only and 5% (95% CI: 0–10%) for AR only. However, high heterogeneity was noted among included studies. Retrospective cohort studies showed a higher pooled prevalence of 13% (95% CI: 10–17%) for concurrent AA-AR therapy. The pooled risk ratio for MRONJ revealed a risk with concurrent AA-AR drugs 2.57 times as high as with AR only (95% CI: 0.84–7.87); however, this difference was not statistically significant. Concurrent AA-AR drugs had a risk for MRONJ 23.74 times as high as with AA only (95% CI: 3.71–151.92).

Conclusions

High-quality, representative studies are needed for accurate estimation of relative risk of MRONJ with concurrent AA and AR therapy.

Antiresorptive agent-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (ARONJ) in urological malignancies: a multi-center retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the incidence and risk factors for antiresorptive agent-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (ARONJ) in prostate and kidney cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 547 patients from 13 hospitals. Prostate and kidney cancer patients with bone metastases who were treated with a bone-modifying agent (BMA) between January 2012 and February 2019 were enrolled. Exclusion criteria were BMA use for hypercalcemia, a lack of clinical data, a follow-up period of less than 28 days and a lack of evaluation by dentists before BMA administration. The diagnosis and staging of ARONJ were done by dentists.

RESULTS

Two-hundred eighteen patients were finally enrolled in the study, including 168 prostate cancer patients and 50 kidney cancer patients. Of them, 49 (29%) prostate cancer patients and 18 (36%) kidney cancer patients needed tooth extraction prior to BMA initiation. The mean follow-up period after BMA initiation was 552.9 ± 424.7 days (mean ± SD). In the cohort, 23% of the patients were diagnosed with ARONJ in the follow-up period. The 1-year cumulative incidences of ARONJ were 9.4% and 15.4% in prostate and kidney cancer patients, respectively. Multivariate analysis indicated that kidney cancer, tooth extraction before BMA and a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m² were significant predictors for ARONJ.

CONCLUSION

ARONJ is not a rare adverse event in urological malignancies. Especially, kidney cancer, high BMI patients and who needed tooth extraction before BMA were high risk for developing ARONJ.

Switching from zoledronic acid to denosumab increases the risk for developing medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with bone metastases

Purpose

Switch from zoledronic acid (ZA) to denosumab may increase the risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) owing to the additive effect of denosumab on the jawbone and residual ZA activities. We evaluated the risk of developing MRONJ in patients who received ZA, denosumab, or ZA-to-denosumab for the treatment of bone metastases.

Methods

The medical charts of patients with cancer who received denosumab or ZA for bone metastases were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who did not undergo a dental examination at baseline were excluded. Primary endpoint was the evaluation of the risk of developing MRONJ in the ZA-to-denosumab group. Secondary endpoints were probability of MRONJ and the relationship between risk factors and the time to the development of MRONJ.

Results

Among the 795 patients included in this study, 65 (8.2%) developed MRONJ. The incidence of MRONJ was significantly higher in the ZA-to-denosumab group than in the ZA group [7/43 (16.3%) vs. 19/350 (5.4%), p = 0.007]. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that denosumab treatment [hazard ratio (HR), 2.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.37–4.39; p = 0.002], ZA-to-denosumab treatment (HR, 4.36; 95% CI, 1.63–10.54, p = 0.005), tooth extraction after starting ZA or denosumab (HR, 4.86; 95% CI, 2.75–8.36; p < 0.001), and concomitant use of antiangiogenic agents (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.06–2.96; p = 0.030) were significant risk factors for MRONJ.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that switching from ZA to denosumab significantly increases the risk for developing MRONJ in patients with bone metastases.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00280-021-04262-w.

Associated characteristics and treatment outcomes of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients receiving denosumab or zoledronic acid for bone metastases

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the association between clinical characteristics and development of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in patients who underwent dental examinations before the initiation of treatment with denosumab or zoledronic acid, which are bone-modifying agents (BMAs), for bone metastases. Additionally, the clinical outcomes of patients who developed MRONJ were evaluated along with the time to resolution of MRONJ.

Methods

The medical charts of patients with cancer who received denosumab or zoledronic acid for bone metastases between January 2012 and September 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were excluded if they did not undergo a dental examination at baseline.

Results

Among the 374 included patients, 34 (9.1%) developed MRONJ. The incidence of MRONJ was significantly higher in the denosumab group than in the zoledronic acid (27/215 [12.6%] vs 7/159 [4.4%], P = 0.006) group. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that denosumab treatment, older age, and tooth extraction before and after starting BMA treatments were significantly associated with developing MRONJ. The time to resolution of MRONJ was significantly shorter for patients who received denosumab (median 26.8 months) than for those who received zoledronic acid (median not reached; P = 0.024).

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that treatment with denosumab, age > 65 years, and tooth extraction before and after starting BMA treatments are significantly associated with developing MRONJ in patients undergoing treatment for bone metastases. However, MRONJ caused by denosumab resolves faster than that caused by zoledronic acid.