Two-year results of a randomised trial comparing 4- versus 12-weekly bone-targeted agent use in patients with bone metastases from breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Report from the 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Innovations have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer (PC). Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of topics that greatly impact daily practice. The 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) surveyed experts on key questions in clinical management in order to supplement evidence-based guidelines. Here we present voting results for questions from APCCC 2024.

METHODS

Before the conference, a panel of 120 international PC experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 183 multiple-choice consensus questions on eight different topics. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the voting panel members ("panellists").

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Consensus was a priori defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. The voting results show varying degrees of consensus, as discussed in this article and detailed in the Supplementary material. These findings do not include a formal literature review or meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The voting results can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers in prioritising areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised on the basis of patient and cancer characteristics, and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2024 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

Efficacy and safety of denosumab de‑escalation in giant cell tumor of bone

Giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) is a locally aggressive intermediate bone tumor. Denosumab has shown effectiveness in GCTB treatment; however, the benefits of denosumab de-escalation for unresectable GCTB have not been well discussed. The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of denosumab de-escalation for GCTB. The medical records of 9 patients with unresectable GCTB or resectable GCTB not eligible for resection, who received de-escalated denosumab treatment at Okayama University Hospital (Okayama, Japan) between April 2014 and December 2021, were retrospectively reviewed. The denosumab treatment interval was gradually extended to every 8, 12 and 24 weeks. The radiographic changes and clinical symptoms during standard and de-escalated denosumab therapy were assessed. The denosumab interval was de-escalated after a median of 12 months of a standard 4-weekly treatment. Imaging showed that the re-ossification of osteolytic lesions obtained with the 4-weekly treatment were sustained with 8- and 12-weekly treatments. The extraskeletal masses reduced significantly with standard treatment, while tumor reduction was sustained during de-escalated treatment. During the 24-weekly treatment, 2 patients remained stable, while 2 patients developed local recurrence. The clinical symptoms improved significantly with standard treatment and remained improved during de-escalated treatment. There were severe adverse events including osteonecrosis of the jaw (2 patients), atypical femoral fracture (1 patient) and malignant transformation of GCTB (1 patient). In conclusion, 12-weekly de-escalated denosumab treatment showed clinical benefits as a maintenance treatment in patients with unresectable GCTB, in addition to sustained stable tumor control and improved clinical symptoms with standard treatment. A 24-weekly treatment can also be administered, with careful attention paid to detecting local recurrence.

Bone health and body composition in prostate cancer: Meet-URO and AIOM consensus about prevention and management strategies

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) treatments are associated with a detrimental impact on bone health (BH) and body composition. However, the evidence on these issues is limited and contradictory. This consensus, based on the Delphi method, provides further guidance on BH management in PCa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In May 2023, a survey made up of 37 questions and 74 statements was developed by a group of oncologists and endocrinologists with expertise in PCa and BH. In June 2023, 67 selected Italian experts, belonging to the Italian scientific societies Italian Association of Medical Oncology and Italian Network for Research in Urologic-Oncology (Meet-URO), were invited by e-mail to complete it, rating their strength of agreement with each statement on a 5-point scale. An agreement ≥75% defined the statement as accepted.

RESULTS

In non-metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa, the panel agreed that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone implies sufficient fracture risk to warrant antifracture therapy with bone-targeting agents (BTAs) for cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) prevention (79%). Therefore, no consensus was reached (48%) for the treatment with BTAs of patients receiving short-term ADT (<6 months). All patients receiving active treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa (75%), non-metastatic castration-resistant PCa (89%) and metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC) without bone metastases (84%) should be treated with BTAs at the doses and schedule for CTIBL prevention. All mCRPC patients with bone metastasis should be treated with BTAs to reduce skeletal-related events (94%). In all settings, the panel analyzed the type and timing of treatments and examinations to carry out for BH monitoring. The panel agreed on the higher risk of sarcopenic obesity of these patients and its correlation with bone fragility.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus highlights areas lacking major agreement, like non-metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients undergoing short-term ADT. Evaluation of these issues in prospective clinical trials and identification of early biomarkers of bone loss are particularly urgent.

Prevention of Skeletal-Related Events With Extended-Interval Denosumab: A Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

To review published clinical trial data related to efficacy and safety of administering denosumab at extended dosing intervals for prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in cancer patients.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of PubMed was performed (January 2006 to February 2023) using the following search terms: denosumab, bone metastasis, bone lesions, and lytic lesions. Abstracts from conferences, article bibliographies, and product monographs were also reviewed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant English-language studies were considered.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Early phase II denosumab trials included treatment arms that utilized extended-interval denosumab, and various retrospective reviews, meta-analyses, and prospective trials have included extended-interval regimens. Most recently, the ongoing randomized REDUSE trial is comparing the efficacy and safety of extended-interval denosumab to standard dosing. At this time, the best available data are restricted to small, randomized trials not designed to compare efficacy and safety of extended-interval denosumab to conventional dosing and did not use consistent endpoints. Furthermore, primary endpoints of available trials largely consisted of surrogate markers of efficacy that may not be reflective of clinical outcomes.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Historically, denosumab has been dosed at 4-week intervals for prevention of SREs. If efficacy is maintained, extending the dosing interval could potentially reduce toxicity, drug cost, and clinic visits compared to every 4-week dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

At this time, data demonstrating efficacy and safety of extended-interval denosumab remain limited, and the results of the REDUSE trial are eagerly anticipated to help answer remaining questions.

Novel Therapeutic Targets on the Horizon: An Analysis of Clinical Trials on Therapies for Bone Metastasis in Prostate Cancer

In the absence of early detection and initial treatment, prostate cancer often progresses to an advanced stage, frequently spreading to the bones and significantly impacting patients' well-being and healthcare resources. Therefore, managing patients with prostate cancer that has spread to the bones often involves using bone-targeted medications like bisphosphonates and denosumab to enhance bone structure and minimize skeletal complications. Additionally, researchers are studying the tumor microenvironment and biomarkers to understand the mechanisms and potential treatment targets for bone metastases in prostate cancer. A literature search was conducted to identify clinical studies from 2013 to 2023 that focused on pain, performance status, or quality of life as primary outcomes. The analysis included details such as patient recruitment, prior palliative therapies, baseline characteristics, follow-up, and outcome reporting. The goal was to highlight the advancements and trends in bone metastasis research in prostate cancer over the past decade, with the aim of developing strategies to prevent and treat bone metastases and improve the quality of life and survival rates for prostate cancer patients.

Establishment and validation of a predictive model for bone metastasis in prostate cancer patients based on multiple immune inflammatory parameters

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to establish and validate a predictive model for bone metastasis in prostate cancer patients based on multiple immune inflammatory parameters.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 162 prostate cancer patients who met the inclusion criteria were selected by Urology Surgery, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital. Based on the medical record number of patients and the random number table method, 40 patients were randomly included in a validation group, and the rest were in a modeling group. The patients in the modeling group were divided into a metastatic group (n=67) and a non-metastatic group (n=55) according to the whole-body bone imaging results.

RESULTS

The predictive model was established based on the results of Logistics regression analysis: Logit (P) = -5.341 + 0.930*total Gleason score + 1.426*total prostate specific antigen + 0.836*neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio + 0.896*platelet lymphocyte ratio + 0.641*lymphocyte/monocyte ratio + 0.750*albumin/globulin ratio. ROC analysis showed that the areas under the curve of the predictive model for bone metastasis in the modeling and validation groups were 0.896 and 0.870, respectively. Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed that P=0.253, indicating a high degree of the fitting. External verification results showed that the C-index for predicting prostate cancer bone metastasis in the predictive model established in this study was 0.760 (95% CI: 0.670-0.851).

CONCLUSION

The bone metastasis predictive model based on the multiple immune inflammatory parameters (neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, platelet lymphocyte ratio, lymphocyte/monocyte ratio and albumin/globulin ratio) in prostate cancer patients can reasonably predict the occurrence of bone metastasis and is well worth clinical application.

Integrating Systematic Reviews into Supportive Care Trial Design: The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program

PURPOSE

To review the successes and challenges of integrating systematic reviews (SRs) into the Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program.

METHODS

All REaCT program SRs were evaluated and descriptive summaries presented.

RESULTS

Twenty-two SRs have been performed evaluating standard of care interventions for the management of: breast cancer (n = 15), all tumour sites (n = 4), breast and prostate cancers (n = 2), and prostate cancer (n = 1). The majority of SRs were related to supportive care (n = 14) and survivorship (n = 5) interventions and most (19/22, 86%) confirmed the existence of uncertainty relating to the clinical question addressed in the SR. Most SRs (15/22, 68%) provided specific recommendations for future studies and results were incorporated into peer-reviewed grant applications (n = 6) and clinical trial design (n = 12). In 12/22 of the SRs, the first author was a trainee. All SRs followed PRISMA guidelines.

CONCLUSION

SRs are important for identifying and confirming clinical equipoise and designing trials. SRs provide an excellent opportunity for trainees to participate in research.

The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program. A Canadian-Led Pragmatic Trials Program: Strategies for Integrating Knowledge Users into Trial Design

We reviewed patient and health care provider (HCP) surveys performed through the REaCT program. The REaCT team has performed 15 patient surveys (2298 respondents) and 13 HCP surveys (1033 respondents) that have addressed a broad range of topics in breast cancer management. Over time, the proportion of surveys distributed by paper/regular mail has fallen, with electronic distribution now the norm. For the patient surveys, the median duration of the surveys was 3 months (IQR 2.5-7 months) and the median response rate was 84% (IQR 80-91.7%). For the HCP surveys, the median survey duration was 3 months (IQR 1.75-4 months), and the median response rate, where available, was 28% (IQR 21.2-49%). The survey data have so far led to: 10 systematic reviews, 6 peer-reviewed grant applications and 19 clinical trials. Knowledge users should be an essential component of clinical research. The REaCT program has integrated surveys as a standard step of their trials process. The COVID-19 pandemic and reduced face-to-face interactions with patients in the clinic as well as the continued importance of social media highlight the need for alternative means of distributing and responding to surveys.