The efficacy of zoledronic acid in breast cancer adjuvant therapy: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Adjuvant denosumab in early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials

Background

In early breast cancer (BC) the impact of denosumab on survival outcomes is still unclear. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of adjuvant denosumab in addition to standard anticancer therapy.

Methods

PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Embase, and oncological meetings websites were screened to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Survival outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS), bone-metastasis-free survival (BMFS), and overall survival (OS). Fracture incidence and time to first fracture were bone-health outcomes. Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), atypical femur fractures (AFF), and other adverse events were also evaluated. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RR) with respective 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed using a random-effects model. Exploratory subgroup analyses were performed.

Results

Two phase III RCTs were included, the Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group-18 (ABCSG-18) and the D-CARE trials, for a total of 7929 patients. In the ABCSG-18 trial, denosumab was administered every 6 months during endocrine therapy (for a median of seven cycles) while the D-CARE trial used an intensive schedule for a total treatment duration of 5 years. Adjuvant denosumab showed no difference in DFS (HR: 0.932; 95% CI: 0.748-1.162), BMFS (HR: 0.9896; 95% CI: 0.751-1.070), and OS (HR: 0.917; 95% CI: 0.718-1.171) compared to placebo in the overall population. In hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative BC patients, a DFS (HR: 0.883; 95% CI: 0.782-0.996) and BMFS (HR: 0.832; 95% CI: 0.714-0.970) benefit was observed and BMFS was prolonged in all hormone receptor positive patients (HR: 0.850; 95% CI: 0.735-0.983). Fracture incidence (RR: 0.787; 95% CI: 0.696-0.890) and time to first fracture (HR: 0.760; 95% CI: 0.665-0.869) were also improved. No increase in overall toxicity was seen with denosumab and no differences were observed for ONJ and AFF between the 60-mg every 6-month schedule and placebo.

Conclusion

Denosumab addition to anticancer treatment does not improve DFS, BMFS, or OS in the overall population, although a DFS improvement was observed in hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative BC patients and a BMFS improvement in all hormone receptor positive patients. Bone-health outcomes were improved with no added toxicity with the 60-mg schedule.

Registration

PROSPERO identifier: CRD42022332787.

Efficacy of Antiresorptive Drugs on Bone Mineral Density in Post-Menopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer Receiving Adjuvant Aromatase Inhibitors: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) is a frequent complication of breast cancer therapies affecting both disability and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). To date, there is still a lack of consensus about the most effective approach that would improve bone health and HRQoL. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to summarize the evidence on the effects of antiresorptive drugs on CTIBL in patients with early breast cancer.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to April 30, 2021 to identify RCTs satisfying the following PICO model: P) Participants: postmenopausal women with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AI), age >18 years; I) Intervention: antiresorptive drugs (i.e. bisphosphonates and/or denosumab); C) Comparator: any comparator; O) Outcome: bone mineral density (BMD) modifications. Moreover, a quality assessment was performed according to the Jadad scale.

Results

Out of the initial 2415 records, 21 papers (15 studies) were included in the data synthesis. According to the Jadad scale, 6 studies obtained a score of 5, 1 study obtained a score of 4, 13 studies obtained a score of 3, and 1 study with score 1. Although both bisphosphonates and denosumab showed to increase BMD, only denosumab showed significant advantages on fractures.

Conclusions

Bone health management in patients with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant AIs remains challenging, and the optimal therapeutic approach is not standardized. Further studies are needed to investigate CTIBL, focusing on both the need for antiresorptive drugs and their duration based on individual patients’ characteristics.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42021267107.

Bisphosphonates and breast cancer survival: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of 81508 participants from 23 prospective epidemiological studies

BACKGROUND

We assessed the effect of bisphosphonates (BPs) on breast cancer (BCa) patient survival and explored how long the effect can persist after treatment.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of prospective studies including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. We performed extensive sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the findings.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs and eight cohorts with 81508 BCa patients were identified. A significant beneficial effect of BPs on BCa survival was found (RR, 0.725; 95% CI, 0.627-0.839), and the TSA results also suggested firm evidence for this beneficial effect. Both summarized results from RCTs and cohorts provided firm evidence for this effect, although the effect estimates were stronger from cohorts than RCTs (RR, 0.892; 95% CI, 0.829-0.961; 0.570; 95% CI, 0.436-0.745; respectively). This beneficial effect was confirmed for bone-metastases (RR, 0.713; 95% CI, 0.602-0.843) and postmenopausal women (RR, 0.737; 95% CI, 0.640-0.850). Importantly, our results demonstrated that this beneficial effect was retained at least 1-2 years after treatment completion (RR, 0.780; 95% CI, 0.638-0.954) and could persist for up to more than 4 years after treatment completion (RR, 0.906; 95% CI, 0.832-0.987). Extensive sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of our results. The GRADE quality of evidence was generally judged to be moderate to high.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provides firm evidence for a significant beneficial effect of BPs on BCa survival in patients with early-stage BCa, and this effect was retained at least 1-2 years after BP treatment completion.

Bone recurrence in early breast cancer patients: The paradox of aromatase inhibitors induced bone resorption

BACKGROUND

Despite the increase in chances of cure for early breast cancer (EBC) patients, approximately 20-45% of them will experience a disease recurrence, particularly bone metastases in 60-80% of cases, which occur more frequently in luminal subtypes. Endocrine therapy (ET) has always been the milestone of adjuvant treatment for hormone receptor-positive EBC patients, leading to indubitable reduction of disease recurrence risk. However, adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AIs) therapy may promote a progressive decrease in bone mineral density (BMD), which can lead to osteoporosis. The increased bone resorption associated with osteoporosis may provide fertile soil for cancer growth and accelerate the development of bone metastases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this single-institution cohort study, we performed a retrospective analysis of "luminal-like" EBC patients who experienced bone recurrence after a subsequent disease free interval. The aim of the study was to evaluate the median time to skeletal recurrence (TSkR).

RESULTS

143 patients experienced bone recurrence. Median TSkR was 54 months (95%CI: 45-65). Among patients who received adjuvant AIs median TSkR was 35 months (95%CI: 25-54), while among patients who did not was 61 months (95%CI: 50-80) (HR = 1.45 [95%CI: 0.97-2.17], p = 0.0644). After adjusting for TNM stage (AJCC 8th edition), adjuvant AIs treatment was significantly related to a shorter TSkR (HR = 1.60 [95%CI: 1.06-2.42], p = 0.0244). Adjuvant Tamoxifen, adjuvant AIs/Tamoxifen and no-treatment did not revealed to be associated to TSkR.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of EBC patients with bone recurrence, AIs treatment seems to be related to a shorter TSkR. AIs-induced bone resorption might represent the underlying mechanism.

Appraising the quality of meta-analysis for breast cancer treatment in the adjuvant setting: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the tumor with highest incidence in women worldwide and adjuvant treatment is extremely important to achieve disease control. Given the relevance of systematic reviews, their rigor should be warranted to avoid biased conclusions. Our objective was to investigate the methodological quality of meta-analysis of early breast cancer adjuvant treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Comprehensive searches were performed using electronic databases from 1/1/2007 to 11/12/2018. All studies identified as a systematic review with meta-analysis investigating the efficacy of breast cancer adjuvant treatments were included. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, then full-texts for eligibility. Quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) version 2 tool.

RESULTS

Of 950 citations retrieved, 66 studies (7.0%) were deemed eligible. Methodological quality was highly variable, median AMSTAR score 8.5 (IQR 7-9.5) and range 0-16. There was a weak positive correlation between journal impact factor and AMSTAR score (r = 0.17) and citation rate and AMSTAR score (r = 0.16). Cochrane Systematic Reviews were of higher quality than reviews from other journals. Overall confidence was critically low for 61 (92.4%) studies, and the least well-reported domains were the statement of conflict of interest and funding source for the included studies (4.6%), the report of a pre-defined study protocol (15.2%), and the description of details of excluded studies (6.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reinforce concerns about the design, conduction and interpretation of meta-analysis in current literature. Methodological quality should be carefully considered and journal editors, decision makers and readers in general, must follow a critical approach to this studies.

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells expand during breast cancer progression and promote tumor-induced bone destruction

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), identified as Gr1⁺CD11b⁺ cells in mice, expand during cancer and promote tumor growth, recurrence and burden. However, little is known about their role in bone metastases. We hypothesized that MDSCs may contribute to tumor-induced bone disease, and inoculated breast cancer cells into the left cardiac ventricle of nude mice. Disease progression was monitored weekly by X-ray and fluorescence imaging and MDSCs expansion by fluorescence-activated cell sorting. To explore the contribution of MDSCs to bone metastasis, we co-injected mice with tumor cells or PBS into the left cardiac ventricle and Gr1⁺CD11b⁺ cells isolated from healthy or tumor-bearing mice into the left tibia. MDSCs didn’t induce bone resorption in normal mice, but increased resorption and tumor burden significantly in tumor-bearing mice. In vitro experiments showed that Gr1⁺CD11b⁺ cells isolated from normal and tumor-bearing mice differentiate into osteoclasts when cultured with RANK ligand and macrophage colony-stimulating factor, and that MDSCs from tumor-bearing mice upregulate parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP) mRNA levels in cancer cells. PTHrP upregulation is likely due to the 2-fold increase in transforming growth factor β expression that we observed in MDSCs isolated from tumor-bearing mice. Importantly, using MDSCs isolated from GFP-expressing animals, we found that MDSCs differentiate into osteoclast-like cells in tumor-bearing mice as evidenced by the presence of GFP⁺TRAP⁺ cells. These results demonstrate that MDSCs expand in breast cancer bone metastases and induce bone destruction. Furthermore, our data strongly suggest that MDSCs are able to differentiate into osteoclasts in vivo and that this is stimulated in the presence of tumors.

The possible different roles of denosumab in prevention and cure breast cancer bone metastases: A 'hypothesis-generator' study from clinical practice

The most frequent site of recurrence in breast cancer (BC) is the bone, particularly in patients with ‘luminal-like’ disease. Denosumab has been shown to prevent aromatase inhibitors (AIs) induced bone resorption in postmenopausal early BC patients and reduce skeletal-related events (SREs) in bone metastatic breast cancer (BMBC). A ‘real life’ analysis of 90 BMBC patients treated with denosumab was performed. Eighty-six patients (95.6%) had ‘luminal-like’ disease, 72 (80%) had bone metastases at the time of first recurrence of disease. Among 50 patients with metachronous ‘luminal-like’ disease, 40 (80%) had first recurrence to the bone. Among these patients median time to skeletal recurrence (TSkR) was shorter for patients who were previously exposed to AIs compared to those who were not (53.0 vs. 102.0 months, respectively; P=0.0300) and longer for patients previously treated with tamoxifen compared to those who were not (102.0 vs. 59.0 months, respectively; P=0.0466). Both of them were not confirmed at multivariate analysis. In the overall population, 17 first SREs were observed (16 radiation therapy) and median time to first SRE was not reached. A statistically significant difference in the incidence of SREs was detected only between patients with exclusively osteolytic bone metastases vs. those without (P=0.013). The presence of exclusively-osteolytic bone metastases was the only factor significantly associated with a shorter time to first SRE (P=0.011). The only G3 toxicity reported was hypocalcemia in one patient. No osteonecrosis of the jaw events (ONJ) occurred. This study demonstrated that a pro-active attitude enables the treatment of the majority of patients with denosumab without significant class-related toxicities. The majority of SREs were from radiation therapy, so pain still remains the clinical hallmark of bone metastases, particularly for osteolytic ones. The suggestion that estrogen deprivation with AIs can favor a ‘bone-related’ risk conditions for developing bone metastases must be considered with caution and surely needs further validations.

An update on the currently available and future chemotherapy for treating bone metastases in breast cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Bone metastases in breast cancer patients are a common clinical problem. Many factors influence the treatment decision, including tumor characteristics, previous treatment and tumor burden in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

AREAS COVERED

This present review summarizes the new treatment strategies and the chemotherapeutic agents currently available in the management of metastatic breast cancer with bone metastases.

EXPERT OPINION

Patients with bone metastases more often have hormone receptor-positive tumours. Although new treatment agents for metastatic breast cancer have been investigated, endocrine therapy is still considered as the treatment of choice for patients with bone metastases although chemotherapy still has an important place. In recent years, new chemotherapeutic agents such as etirinotecan and nab-paclitaxel have been established though there are few studies that have looked at particular types of metastases. In the last decade, therapies for bone metastasis resistant to endocrine therapy have predominantly focused on radiotherapy, surgical resection, chemotherapy, bone-targeting radiopharmaceuticals and targeted therapeutics. New targeted agents include: Src inhibitors, cathepsin K inhibitors, CXCR4 inhibitors, TGF-B blockade and integrin antagonists while drug delivery systems for chemotherapy have also been developed. These new treatment options could be future treatment options for bone metastatic disease if early promising results are confirmed by clinical trials.

Estradiol impairs the antiproliferative and proapoptotic effect of Zoledronic acid in hormone sensitive breast cancer cells in vitro

Background

Zoledronic acid (ZA) has antiresorptive effects and protects from bone metastasis in women with early breast cancer. In addition, in postmenopausal women with endocrine responsive breast cancer ZA prolongs DFS. The exact mechanism is still unclear. We have therefore investigated the effect of increasing concentrations of ZA in breast cancer cell lines in the absence or presence of estradiol to mimic the hormonal environment in vitro.

Materials and methods

Using assays for cell proliferation (EZ4U, BrdU) and cell death (Annexin/PI), we have analyzed the dose-dependent antiproliferative and pro-apoptotic effects of ZA in two hormone sensitive cell lines (MCF-7 and T47D) and a hormone insensitive, triple negative cell line (MDA-MB-231) in the presence of 0, 1 and 10 nM estradiol.

Results

In the absence of estradiol, ZA exerts dose-dependent antiproliferative and pro-apoptotic antitumor effects in both, hormone sensitive (MCF-7, T47D) and -insensitive (MDA-MB-231) breast cancer cell lines (p<0.0001). In the presence of estradiol, the antitumoral effect of ZA was significantly decreased only in the hormone sensitive MCF-7 and T47D cell lines (p = 0.0008 and p = 0.0008, respectively).

Conclusion

We have demonstrated that estradiol impairs the antiproliferative and proapoptotic effect of ZA in hormone sensitive, but not in hormone insensitive breast cancer cell lines. Our findings provide a possible explanation for the differential effect of ZA on DFS in pre- and postmenopausal patients with hormone sensitive early breast cancer, which has been demonstrated clinically. We further hypothesize that endocrine insensitive tumors such as triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) should benefit from ZA irrespective of their menopausal status.

The miR-21/PTEN/Akt signaling pathway is involved in the anti-tumoral effects of zoledronic acid in human breast cancer cell lines

Preclinical data indicate a direct anti-tumor effect of zoledronic acid (ZA) outside the skeleton, but its molecular mechanism is still not completely clarified. The aim of this study was to investigate the anti-cancer effects of ZA in human breast cancer cell lines, suggesting that they may in part be mediated via the miR-21/PTEN/Akt signaling pathway. The effect of ZA on cell viability was measured by MTT assay, and cell death induction was analyzed using either a double AO/EtBr staining and M30 ELISA assay. A Proteome Profiler Human Apoptosis Array was executed to evaluate the molecular basis of ZA-induced apoptosis. Cell cycle analysis was executed by flow cytometry. The effect of ZA on miR-21 expression was quantified by qRT-PCR, and the amount of PTEN protein and its targets were analyzed by Western blot. ZA inhibited cell growth in a concentration- and time-dependent manner, through the activation of cell death pathways and arrest of cell cycle progression. ZA downregulated the expression of miR-21, resulting in dephosphorilation of Akt and Bad and in a significant increase of p21 and p27 proteins expression. These results were observed also in MDA-MB-231 cells, commonly used as an experimental model of bone metastasis of breast cancer. This study revealed, for the first time, an involvement of the miR-21/PTEN/Akt signaling pathway in the mechanism of ZA anti-cancer actions in breast cancer cells. We would like to underline that this pathway is present both in the hormone responsive BC cell line (MCF-7) as well as in a triple negative cell line (MDA-MB-231). Taken together these results reinforce the use of ZA in clinical practice, suggesting the role of miR-21 as a possible mediator of its therapeutic efficacy.

Bisphosphonates for cancer treatment: Mechanisms of action and lessons from clinical trials

A growing body of evidence points toward an important anti-cancer effect of bisphosphonates, a group of inexpensive, safe, potent, and long-term stable pharmacologicals that are widely used as osteoporosis drugs. To date, they are already used in the prevention of complications of bone metastases. Because the bisphosphonates can also reduce mortality in among other multiple myeloma, breast, and prostate cancer patients, they are now thoroughly studied in oncology. In particular, the more potent nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates have the potential to improve prognosis. The first part of this review will elaborate on the direct and indirect anti-tumoral effects of bisphosphonates, including induction of tumor cell apoptosis, inhibition of tumor cell adhesion and invasion, anti-angiogenesis, synergism with anti-neoplastic drugs, and enhancement of immune surveillance (e.g., through activation of γδ T cells and targeting macrophages). In the second part, we shed light on the current clinical position of bisphosphonates in the treatment of hematological and solid malignancies, as well as on ongoing and completed clinical trials investigating the therapeutic effect of bisphosphonates in cancer. Based on these recent data, the role of bisphosphonates is expected to further expand in the near future outside the field of osteoporosis and to open up new avenues in the treatment of malignancies.

A highly sensitive prenylation assay reveals in vivo effects of bisphosphonate drug on the Rab prenylome of macrophages outside the skeleton

Bisphosphonate drugs such as zoledronic acid (ZOL), used for the treatment of common bone disorders, target the skeleton and inhibit bone resorption by preventing the prenylation of small GTPases in bone-destroying osteoclasts. Increasing evidence indicates that bisphosphonates also have pleiotropic effects outside the skeleton, most likely via cells of the monocyte/macrophage lineage exposed to nanomolar circulating drug concentrations. However, no effects of such low concentrations of ZOL have been reported using existing approaches. We have optimized a highly sensitive in vitro prenylation assay utilizing recombinant geranylgeranyltransferases to enable the detection of subtle effects of ZOL on the prenylation of Rab- and Rho-family GTPases. Using this assay, we found for the first time that concentrations of ZOL as low as 10nM caused inhibition of Rab prenylation in J774 macrophages following prolonged cell culture. By combining the assay with quantitative mass spectrometry we identified an accumulation of 18 different unprenylated Rab proteins in J774 cells after nanomolar ZOL treatment, with a >7-fold increase in the unprenylated form of Rab proteins associated with the endophagosome pathway (Rab1, Rab5, Rab6, Rab7, Rab11, Rab14 and Rab21). Finally, we also detected a clear effect of subcutaneous ZOL administration in vivo on the prenylation of Rab1A, Rab5B, Rab7A and Rab14 in mouse peritoneal macrophages, confirming that systemic treatment with bisphosphonate drug can inhibit prenylation in myeloid cells in vivo outside the skeleton. These observations begin a new era in defining the precise pharmacological actions of bisphosphonate drugs on the prenylation of small GTPases in vivo.

A hypoxic ticket to the bone metastatic niche

Hypoxia is a well-characterized driver of aggressive cancer phenotypes, including metastasis. Accumulating evidence suggests that, in addition to having local effects, the consequences of tumour hypoxia can be systemic, leading to the formation of pre-metastatic niches that can later foster metastatic colonization in distant organs. Recent findings have demonstrated that such niches can also form in the bone, possibly revealing new avenues for therapeutic intervention.

Cost-utility of adjuvant zoledronic acid in patients with breast cancer and low estrogen levels

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant zoledronic acid (za) appears to improve disease-free survival (dfs) in women with early-stage breast cancer and low levels of estrogen (lle) because of induced or natural menopause. Characterizing the cost-utility (cu) of this therapy could help to determine its role in clinical practice.

METHODS

Using the perspective of the Canadian health care system, we examined the cu of adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without za in women with early-stage endocrine-sensitive breast cancer and lle. A Markov model was used to compute the cumulative costs in Canadian dollars and the quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) gained from each adjuvant strategy, discounted at a rate of 5% annually. The model incorporated the dfs and fracture benefits of adjuvant za. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine key model parameters.

RESULTS

Compared with a no-za strategy, adjuvant za in the induced and natural menopause groups was associated with, respectively, $7,825 and $7,789 in incremental costs and 0.46 and 0.34 in qaly gains for cu ratios of $17,007 and $23,093 per qaly gained. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the results were most sensitive to changes in the za dfs benefit. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested a 100% probability of adjuvant za being a cost-effective strategy at a threshold of $100,000 per qaly gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on available data, adjuvant za appears to be a cost-effective strategy in women with endocrine-sensitive breast cancer and lle, having cu ratios well below accepted thresholds.

Bisphosphonate and risk of cancer recurrence: protocol for a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

No consensus exists on the associations between adjuvant treatment with bisphosphonates and cancer recurrence risk among patients with primary early-stage cancers. We plan to perform a comprehensive systematic review, study-level meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials to comprehensively summarise evidence of the bisphosphonate treatment for difference cancers.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

We will report our results according to the PRISMA guideline. The primary outcomes include any cancer recurrence and bone metastasis and secondary outcomes include events of local recurrence, regional recurrence or non-skeletal distant metastasis, disease-free survival and overall survival. We will perform systematic electronic searches and other manual searches. To be conservative, all statistical analyses will be conducted with random-effects models. Cumulative meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses will be performed to assess whether and when firm evidence is reached. Various sensitivity analyses and rigid publication bias analyses will be performed to challenge the consistency and robustness of results. We will also grade the quality of evidence with the GRADE system.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required in this study. The findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and also presented at relevant national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42014014699.

Screening for osteoporosis after breast cancer: for whom, why and when

Osteoporosis and breast cancer are common diseases in postmenopausal women. Bone and the breast are both estrogenic dependent tissues and different surrogate markers for osteoporosis are opposite of those for the risk of breast cancer. In particular, numerous studies have reported a positive relationship between high bone mineral density (BMD) and a greater risk of breast cancer. On the other hand, most treatments in early breast cancer women including ovarian suppression treatments (chemotherapy, surgery or GnRH agonists) and aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy induce a profound and rapid suppression of estrogen levels thereby increasing the rate of bone loss. Nevertheless, their impact on the risk of fracture is still questionable, especially in postmenopausal women with no osteoporosis at baseline. The purpose of this minireview is to examine the relationship between breast cancer and the risk of fracture and to discuss a screening strategy for osteoporosis after breast cancer.

Prevention of Bone Metastases in Breast Cancer Patients. Therapeutic Perspectives

One in four breast cancer patients is at risk of developing bone metastases in her life time. The early prevention of bone metastases is a crucial challenge. It has been suggested that the use of zoledronic acid (ZOL) in the adjuvant setting may reduce the persistence of disseminated tumor cells and thereby might improve outcome, specifically in a population of patients with a low estrogen microenvironment. More recently, the results of a large meta-analysis from 41 randomized trials comparing a bisphosphonate (BP) to placebo or to an open control have been presented at the 2013 San Antonio Breast Cancer Meeting. Data on 17,016 patients confirm that adjuvant BPs, irrespective of the type of treatment or the treatment schedule and formulation (oral or intra-venously (IV)), significantly reduced bone recurrences and improved breast cancer survival in postmenopausal women. No advantage was seen in premenopausal women. BPs are soon likely to become integrated into standard practice. Published data on the mechanisms involved in tumor cell seeding from the primary site, in homing to bone tissues and in the reactivation of dormant tumor cells will be reviewed; these might offer new ideas for innovative combination strategies.

Dosing related effects of zoledronic acid on bone markers and creatinine clearance in patients with multiple myeloma and metastatic breast cancer

Zoledronic acid (Zol) is frequently used for the treatment of bone disease in patients with multiple myeloma and breast cancer with metastasis to bone. Therefore, there is also an interest in finding the optimal dosing regimen to optimize effects, minimize side effects and reduce costs. In our phase II clinical trial we investigated the effect of Zol treatment on the serum levels of the bone markers collagen type 1 cross-linked C-telopeptide (CTX) and bone specific alkaline phosphatase (bALP) as well as on creatinine clearance (kidney function) in response to dosing and duration of treatment for each individual patient.

METHODS

We enrolled 30 multiple myeloma (MM) and 30 breast cancer (BC) patients whereof 10 of each had never received bisphosphonate and 20 had received at least six prior Zol treatments.

RESULTS

We found that Zol treatment strongly reduced CTX (Spearman's correlation, rs = -0.59, p = 0.0007) and bALP (Spearman's correlation, rs = -0.51, p = 0.0042) in MM patients while only CTX (Spearman's correlation, rs = -0.42, p = 0.024) was significantly affected in BC patients. Multiple linear regression analyses done on the entire cohort showed that the average time between each dose of Zol had the strongest impact on CTX (p < 0.001) and bALP (p = 0.011) levels while the total accumulated number of Zol infusions had a less pronounced effect on CTX levels (p = 0.015). In contrast, multiple linear regression analysis showed that the total number of Zol infusions had a strong negative impact on kidney function (p = 0.014) while the average time between each dose of Zol had no significant impact.

CONCLUSION

Thus, if MM and BC patients are not treated regularly every month with Zol bone turnover is not fully suppressed, while prolonged treatment with zoledronic acid compromises kidney function. We believe that these data significantly contribute to the knowledge needed to find the optimal Zol treatment schedule.

Addition of zoledronic acid to neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not enhance tumor response in patients with HER2-negative stage II/III breast cancer: the NEOZOTAC trial (BOOG 2010-01)

BACKGROUND

The role of zoledronic acid (ZA) when added to the neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer (BC) in enhancing the clinical and pathological response of tumors is unclear. The effect of ZA on the antitumor effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has not prospectively been studied before.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

NEOZOTAC is a national, multicenter, randomized study comparing the efficacy of TAC (docetaxel, adriamycin and cyclophosphamide i.v.) followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on day 2 with or without ZA 4 mg i.v. q 3 weeks inpatients withstage II/III, HER2-negative BC. We present data on the pathological complete response (pCR in breast and axilla), on clinical response using MRI, and toxicity. Post hoc subgroup analyses were undertaken to address the predictive value of menopausal status.

RESULTS

Addition of ZA to chemotherapy did not improve pCR rates (13.2% for TAC+ZA versus 13.3% for TAC). Postmenopausal women (N = 96) had a numerical benefit from ZA treatment (pCR 14.0% for TAC+ZA versus 8.7% for TAC, P = 0.42). Clinical objective response did not differ between treatment arms (72.9% versus 73.7%). There was no difference in grade III/IV toxicity between treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of ZA to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not improve pathological or clinical response to chemotherapy. Further investigations are warranted in postmenopausal women with BC, since this subgroup might benefit from ZA treatment.

Treatment and Prevention of Bone Metastases from Breast Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Evidence for Clinical Practice

Bone is the most common site of metastasis from breast cancer. Bone metastases from breast cancer are associated with skeletal-related events (SREs) including pathological fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to bone, as well as bone pain and hypercalcemia, leading to impaired mobility and reduced quality of life. Greater understanding of the pathophysiology of bone metastases has led to the discovery and clinical utility of bone-targeted agents such as bisphosphonates and the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANK-L) antibody, denosumab. Both are now a routine part of the treatment of breast cancer bone metastases to reduce SREs. With regards to prevention, there is no evidence that oral bisphosphonates can prevent bone metastases in advanced breast cancer without skeletal involvement. Several phase III clinical trials have evaluated bisphosphonates as adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer to prevent bone metastases. The current published data do not support the routine use of bisphosphonates in unselected patients with early breast cancer for metastasis prevention. However, significant benefit of adjuvant bisphosphonates has been consistently observed in the postmenopausal or ovarian suppression subgroup across multiple clinical trials, which raises the hypothesis that its greatest anti-tumor effect is in a low estrogen microenvironment. An individual patient data meta-analysis will be required to confirm survival benefit in this setting. This review summarizes the key evidence for current clinical practice and future directions.

Adjuvant zoledronic acid therapy for patients with early stage breast cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Zoledronic acid is a potent inhibitor of osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and has been widely used in bone metastasis malignancies and postmenopausal osteoporosis as a preventive therapy against skeletal-related events. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of zoledronic acid as an adjuvant therapy for patients with early stage breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Entries in the PubMed and EMBASE databases up to 12 July 2013 were systematically reviewed. Online abstracts from the proceedings of the Annual Meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (1992-2013) and the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) (2004-2013) were also reviewed. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), while secondary endpoints included bone metastasis-free survival (BMFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and fracture-free rate (FFR).

RESULTS

A total of eight studies including 3,866 subjects and 3,864 controls met our search criteria and were evaluated. The use of zoledronic acid was found to improve OS (relative risk (RR), 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.77-1.01; p-value = 0.06) and DMFS (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-1.00; p-value = 0.05). Furthermore, statistically significant benefits were associated with BMFS (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99; p-value = 0.04) and FFRs (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; p-value = 0.007). In contrast, there was no significant difference in DFS with the application of zoledronic acid (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.09; p-value = 0.24). Sensitivity analysis further identified the improvement of 5-year OS for the adjuvant zoledronic acid therapy in early stage breast cancer patients (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99; p-value = 0.03), while a borderline statistically significant benefit was observed for 5-year DFS (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00; p-value = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Zoledronic acid as an adjuvant therapy appears to improve the 5-year OS rate for early stage breast cancer patients, and was associated with a protective effect for the bone metastases and fractures evaluated in more than 7,000 patients. However, further research is needed to confirm our findings, and sub-group analyses according to menopause status or hormone status may provide further insight.

Can Zoledronic Acid be Beneficial for Promoting Tumor Response in Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy?

The antitumor effect of bisphosphonates (BPs) is under increasing scrutiny. Preclinical and clinical evidence has shown that BPs might sensitize breast tumors to chemotherapy. Here, we present a review of current preclinical and clinical evidence for antitumor effects of BPs, and evaluate how BPs might play a role in neoadjuvant treatment of women with breast cancer.

German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-Positive Study: A Phase III Trial to Compare Oral Ibandronate Versus Observation in Patients With High-Risk Early Breast Cancer

Purpose

Bisphosphonates prevent skeletal-related events in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Their effect in early breast cancer is controversial. Ibandronate is an orally and intravenously available amino-bisphosphonate with a favorable toxicity profile. It therefore qualifies as potential agent for adjuvant use.

Patients and Methods

The GAIN (German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-Positive) study was an open-label, randomized, controlled phase III trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Patients with node-positive early breast cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to two different dose-dense chemotherapy regimens and 2:1 to ibandronate 50 mg per day orally for 2 years or observation. In all, 2,640 patients and 728 events were estimated to be required to demonstrate an increase in disease-free survival (DFS) by ibandronate from 75% to 79.5% by using a two-sided α = .05 and 1-β of 80%. We report here the efficacy analysis for ibandronate, which was released by the independent data monitoring committee because the futility boundary was not crossed after 50% of the required DFS events were observed.

Results

Between June 2004 and August 2008, 2,015 patients were randomly assigned to ibandronate and 1,008 to observation. Patients randomly assigned to ibandronate showed no superior DFS or overall survival (OS) compared with patients randomly assigned to observation (DFS: hazard ratio, 0.945; 95% CI, 0.768 to 1.161; P = .589; OS: HR, 1.040; 95% CI, 0.763 to 1.419; P = .803). DFS was numerically longer if ibandronate was used in patients younger than 40 years or older than 60 years compared with patients age 40 to 59 years (test for interaction P = .093).

Conclusion

Adjuvant treatment with oral ibandronate did not improve outcome of patients with high-risk early breast cancer who received dose-dense chemotherapy.

Prognostic factors for patients with bone-only metastasis in breast cancer

PURPOSE

Bone is the most frequent site of metastasis among breast cancer patients. We investigated prognostic factors affecting survival following bone-only metastasis in breast cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of breast cancer patients who were treated and followed at Gangnam Severance Hospital retrospectively reviewed to identify patients with bone-only metastasis.

RESULTS

The median time from the diagnosis of bone-only metastasis to the last follow-up or death was 55.2 [95% confidence interval (CI), 38.6-71.9] months. The Kaplan-Meier overall survival estimate at 10 years for all patients was 34.9%. In the multivariate Cox regression model, bisphosphonate treatment [hazard ratio=0.18; 95% CI, 0.07-0.43], estrogen receptor positivity (hazard ratio=0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.94), and solitary bone metastasis (hazard ratio=0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.72) were significantly associated with longer overall survival in the bone-only recurrence group. Among the treatment modalities, only bisphosphonate treatment was identified as a significant prognostic factor.

CONCLUSION

Identifying the factors influencing breast cancer mortality after bone-only metastasis will help clarify the clinical course and improve the treatment outcome for patients with breast cancer and bone-only metastasis. Bisphosphonates, as a significant prognostic factor, warrant further investigation.

Adjuvant Therapy With Zoledronic Acid and Menopausal Status

Zoledronic acid as adjuvant therapy in breast cancer patients has been shown to have a beneficial effect on OS. Adjuvant treatment with clodronate also may improve OS in patients with early breast cancer. Further study with analysis of subgroups by age or menopausal status should be performed to investigate adjuvant therapy with bisphosphonates in breast cancer patients.

Role of bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women with breast cancer

Data suggest that bisphosphonates protect bone health and may have anticancer activity in postmenopausal women during adjuvant breast cancer therapy. However, key questions remain surrounding the role of adjuvant bisphosphonates in breast cancer, including patient populations deriving benefit, timing/scheduling of therapy, and specific clinical benefits. PubMed, Embase, and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium databases provide study results that address these issues in postmenopausal women. Review of these data would aid physicians in providing optimal management of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. For example, recent data reinforce use of intravenous bisphosphonates concurrently with adjuvant endocrine therapy to ameliorate bone loss in recently postmenopausal or osteopenic postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. In contrast, clinical data for oral bisphosphonates have not provided support for using anti-osteoporosis doses in this setting, and the optimal dose is unclear. Additionally, current clinical data show improvements in disease outcomes with bisphosphonates in many studies, although not in all patient subsets. Strong support for the potential adjuvant anticancer benefits from bisphosphonates has been demonstrated in women with established menopause (i.e., very low circulating estrogen levels). Initiating bisphosphonates early and concomitantly with adjuvant therapy generally provided the greatest benefits. However, questions remain such as schedule of treatment and relative potency among the intravenous bisphosphonates and elucidation of the role of oral bisphosphonates, as well as ongoing studies that might provide clarification. This review addresses these controversies in the context of translational research, which may provide the rationale for ongoing studies and evolving treatment paradigms in this area.

Adjuvant bisphosphonates: a new standard of care?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clinical studies show that bisphosphonates can ameliorate bone loss from adjuvant breast cancer therapies, with suggestions of anticancer benefit. Recent long-term studies have provided additional support for a clinical benefit from bisphosphonates in the adjuvant breast cancer setting and suggest that adjuvant bisphosphonates might be an appropriate standard of care. This review evaluates the recent clinical evidence for the effectiveness of adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy in breast cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Oral bisphosphonates did not affect breast cancer recurrence in premenopausal women and had inconsistent results in postmenopausal women. The intravenous bisphosphonate zoledronic acid demonstrated clear disease-free and overall survival benefits in patient subgroups expected to have low estrogen levels: premenopausal patients undergoing ovarian suppression and postmenopausal women who were 5 years past menopause or 60-65 years or older.

SUMMARY

Current clinical evidence is insufficient to support using oral bisphosphonates as a standard adjuvant therapy in breast cancer; however, additional studies are warranted. In contrast, zoledronic acid may be considered a new standard of care in adjuvant breast cancer, at least for some postmenopausal women and premenopausal women undergoing ovarian suppression.

Adjuvant therapy with zoledronic acid in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to estimate the impact on survival and fracture rates of the use of zoledronic acid versus no use (or delayed use) in the adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage (stages I-III) breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Trials were located through PubMed, ISI, Cochrane Library, and major cancer scientific meeting searches. All trials that randomized patients with primary breast cancer to undergo adjuvant treatment with zoledronic acid versus nonuse, placebo, or delayed use of zoledronic acid as treatment to individuals who develop osteoporosis were considered eligible. Standard meta-analytic procedures were used to analyze the study outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were considered eligible and were further analyzed. The use of zoledronic acid resulted in a statistically significant better overall survival outcome (five studies, 6,414 patients; hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.94). No significant differences were found for the disease-free survival outcome (seven studies, 7,541 patients; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70-1.06) or incidence of bone metastases (seven studies, 7,543 patients; odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.64-1.37). Treatment with zoledronic acid led to a significantly lower overall fracture rate (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96). Finally, the rate of osteonecrosis of the jaw was 0.52%.

CONCLUSION

Zoledronic acid as adjuvant therapy in breast cancer patients appears to not only reduce the fracture risk but also offer a survival benefit over placebo or no treatment.

Home-based zoledronic acid infusion therapy in patients with solid tumours: compliance and patient-nurse satisfaction

PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore patient and nurse satisfaction, compliance with best practice, technical feasibility and safety of home infusion of the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid (ZOL).

METHODS

This was a prospective 1-year survey of home ZOL therapy (4 mg Zometa, 15-min i.v., every 3-4 weeks) in patients with bone metastases secondary to a solid malignancy. A physician questionnaire, nurse satisfaction/feasibility questionnaire and patient satisfaction questionnaire were administered at several time-points.

RESULTS

Physician participation rate was 56.5% (87/154). Physicians enrolled 818 patients visited by 381 predominantly community nurses. Of the 788 case report forms received, 763 met inclusion criteria. Patient characteristics were as follows: median age, 68 years (30-95); M/F, 40/60; ECOG-PS 0 or 1, 78.6%; and primary tumour site, breast (55.2%), prostate (28.4%), lung (7.2%) or other (9.4%). Nurse satisfaction rates were high: organisation of home ZOL therapy, 90.9%; ease of infusion, 96.7%; patient-nurse relationship, 97.5%; and relationship with hospital staff, 73%. Patient satisfaction was also very high (95.3%). The main reasons were quality of the nurse-patient relationship (57.6%), less travel/waiting (68.8%), home environment (52.9%) and less disruption to daily routine (36.6%). ZOL therapy was well tolerated, the discontinuation rate due to adverse events (including deaths whether related to diseases progression or not) was 33.6%. The incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was 0.6% and of fractures, 0.2%. Practitioner compliance with best practice was 76.7-83.7% for recommended and/or tolerated dosage, 73% for dental hygiene checks at inclusion and 48-56% thereafter, 66% for pre-infusion hydration, and often undocumented for calcium/vitamin D supplementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Home ZOL therapy was well tolerated. Both patient and nurse satisfaction were very high. However, better compliance with best practice should be encouraged.

Bone homeostasis and breast cancer: implications for complex therapy and the maintenance of bone integrity

The standard of care in bone metastases is antiresorptive therapy. If present in the bone, tumor cells induce a vicious cycle by stimulating the osteoclasts, which further accelerates tumor progression. The widely-used bisphosphonates or the new therapeutic option, denosumab an inhibitor of the receptor activator of NF-κB ligand (RANKL), interrupt this vicious cycle, inhibit tumor growth, and in clinical practice prevent skeleton-related events. Adjuvant oncological therapy, including chemotherapy and endocrine manipulations (ovarian ablation and tamoxifen in premenopausal, and aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal women), increases the bone turnover and the risk of fracture. Awareness is essential for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer therapy-induced bone loss, or its prevention with appropriate calcium and vitamin D supplementation. A new possibility has been suggested for the prevention of relapse: the use of bisphosphonates in the adjuvant setting. Three large studies and their meta-analyses indicate that the inhibition of bone remodeling prevents the growth of dormant tumor cells and cancer relapse in the population of postmenopausal patients with a low-estrogen environment in the skeleton. The similar potential of a RANKL inhibitor is currently under evaluation. Since the maintenance of bone integrity is necessary for the prevention of both therapy-related side-effects and progression of the disease, the management of breast cancer at any stage requires a careful consideration of the bone homeostasis.

Zoledronic acid as an adjuvant therapy in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Zoledronic acid is widely used as adjuvant chemotherapy for the treatment of breast cancer. However, previous trials reported inconsistent findings regarding their clinical efficacy and safety. We carried out a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of zoledronic acid on disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and drug-related toxicities.

METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We systematically searched Medline, EmBase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference lists of articles and proceedings of major meetings for relevant literatures with a time limit of Dec. 1, 2011. Randomized controlled trials evaluated the effects of zoledronic acid on OS, DFS, and RFS compared with control were eligible for inclusion in our research. Of 175 identified studies, we collected data from 7 randomized controlled trials of zoledronic acid that had OS, DFS, and RFS reported as one of the endpoint. Overall, we noted that patients receiving zoledronic acid therapy had significant longer OS than the group with non-zoledronic acid therapy (HR, 0.85, 95%CI, 0.73 to 1.00, P = 0.047). Furthermore, zoledronic acid therapy also had a clear effect on frature events (RR, 0.66, 95%CI, 0.52 to 0.84, P<0.001). Subgroup analysis indicated that zoledronic acid therapy showed a great beneficial effect on disease recurrence in patients with early-stage breast cancer, however, it also significantly increased the harm of disease recurrence in patients with advanced breast cancer. Bone pain, neutropenic fever, pyrexia, rash were more frequent in the zoledronic acid therapy group.

CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE

Treatment with zoledronic acid had a clear effect on fracture events, and it might contribute an important role for overall survival.