Repurposing denosumab in lung cancer beyond counteracting the skeletal related events: an intriguing perspective

Cancer risk in patients treated with denosumab compared with alendronate: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Antiresorptive treatment is currently used in millions of patients with osteoporosis and cancer worldwide. Early studies of denosumab suggested a small signal in ovarian cancer incidence and emerging data suggest that denosumab stimulates germ cell proliferation in the gonads. This study aims to determine the association between the use of denosumab and the risk of reproductive cancers compared with the use of alendronate.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using a cohort study design, we used the Danish nationwide registries to identify a population of subjects ≥50 years of age during 2010-2017 who started denosumab after being on alendronate treatment for at least six months. The cohort was matched 1:2 with patients who had been treated with alendronate alone for at least six months. The risk of reproductive cancers and the risk difference between groups were estimated using the Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (L-TMLE) method.

RESULTS

We identified 6054 Danish individuals who underwent treatment with denosumab. These individuals were matched with 12,108 receiving alendronate. The absolute risk of reproductive cancer was 1.05 % (95 % CI 0.75-1.34) after three years for denosumab users and was not different 0.03 % (-0.34-0.39) than for alendronate users. In supplemental analyses, there was no increased risk of non-reproductive cancers associated with the use of denosumab (risk difference of 0.54 % (-0.41-1.19). Analysis comparing denosumab users with the general population gave similar results.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in the risk of cancer following treatment with denosumab compared to treatment with alendronate assessed after a short follow-up of 3 years.

Afatinib and Dacomitinib Efficacy, Safety, Progression Patterns, and Resistance Mechanisms in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Carrying Uncommon EGFR Mutations: A Comparative Cohort Study in China (AFANDA Study)

(1) Background: Afatinib has been approved for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) carrying major uncommon epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutations. Dacomitinib, another second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has also shown promising potential for uncommon EGFR mutations. However, no comparative study has been conducted. (2) Methods: Two cohorts were employed: the AFANDA cohort, an ambispective cohort including 121 patients with uncommon EGFR mutations admitted to two tertiary hospitals in China, and an external validation afatinib cohort (ex-AC), extracted from the Afatinib Uncommon EGFR Mutations Database (N = 1140). The AFANDA cohort was divided into an afatinib cohort (AC) and a dacomitinib cohort (DC) for internal exploration. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were assessed for comparison. Progression patterns and resistance mechanisms were explored. (3) Results: In total, 286 patients with advanced NSCLC carrying uncommon EGFR mutations treated with afatinib or dacomitinib were enrolled, including 79 in the AFANDA cohort (44 in the DC, 35 in the AC) and 207 in the ex-AC. In internal exploration, the ORR of the DC was significantly higher than that of the AC (60.5 vs. 26.7%, p = 0.008), but there was no significant difference in median PFS between the DC and the AC (12.0 months vs. 10.0 months, p = 0.305). Multivariate analysis confirmed an independent favorable effect of dacomitinib on PFS (hazard ratio (HR), 1.909; p = 0.047). In external validation, multivariate analysis confirmed the independent prognostic role of dacomitinib in PFS (HR, 1.953; p = 0.029). Propensity score matching analysis confirmed the superiority of dacomitinib over afatinib in terms of PFS in both univariate and multivariate analyses. Toxicity profiling analysis suggested more G1 (p = 0.006), but fewer G3 (p = 0.036) AEs in the DC than in the AC. Progression patterns revealed that the incidence of intracranial progression in the AC was significantly higher than that in the DC (50 vs. 21.1%, p = 0.002). Drug resistance analysis indicated no significant difference in the occurrence of T790M between the AC and the DC (11.8 vs. 15.4%, p = 0.772). (4) Conclusions: Compared with afatinib, dacomitinib demonstrated a more favorable activity with manageable toxicity and different progression patterns in patients with NSCLC carrying uncommon EGFR mutations.

A bibliometric research based on hotspots and frontier trends of denosumab

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets and inhibits the osteoclast activating factor receptor activator for nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL). It has been widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis, giant cell tumors of bone, and in the prevention of malignant skeletal-related events (SREs). We collected the research results and related MeSH terms of denosumab from 2011 to 2021 through the Web of Science and PubMed, respectively. The literature was visualized and analyzed by CiteSpace and bibliometric online analysis platforms. The MeSH terms were biclustered using the Bibliographic Co-Occurrence Analysis System (BICOMB) and graph clustering toolkit (gCLUTO). The results show that the number of denosumab-related annual publications had increased from 51 to 215, with the United States leading and Amgen Inc. being the most influential in the past 10 years. Articles published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research had the highest total citations. Three scholars from Shinshu University in Matsumoto, Yukio Nakamura, Takako Suzuki, and Hiroyuki Kato, joined the field relatively late but produced the most. The clinical comparison and combination of denosumab with other drugs in the treatment of osteoporosis was the most significant focus of research. Drug withdrawal rebound and management strategies have gained more attention and controversy recently. MeSH analysis revealed eight major categories of research hotspots. Among them, exploring the multiple roles of the RANK-RANKL-OPG system in tumor progression, metastasis, and other diseases is the potential direction of future mechanism research. It is a valuable surgical topic to optimize the perioperative drug administration strategy for internal spinal fixation and orthopedic prosthesis implantation. Taken together, the advantages of denosumab were broad and cost-effective. However, there were still problems such as osteonecrosis of the jaw, severe hypocalcemia, a high recurrence rate of giant cells in the treatment of bone and individual sarcoidosis, and atypical femoral fractures, which need to be adequately solved.

Efficacy and safety of concomitant immunotherapy and denosumab in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer carrying bone metastases: A retrospective chart review

Background

Synergistic anti-tumor effects were observed in vivo and in vitro when immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) were combined with denosumab. However, the clinical benefit and safety of this synergy have not been adequately evaluated in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

Consecutive charts of NSCLC patients with bone metastases between December 2020 and December 2021 in the Chinese National Cancer Center were reviewed. The entire cohort was divided into one experimental group (denosumab + ICIs [DI]) and three control groups (denosumab + non-ICIs [DnI], phosphates + ICIs [PI], phosphates + non-ICIs [PnI]). Real-world objective response rates (ORRs), median progression-free survival (mPFS), skeletal-related events (SREs), and adverse events (AEs) were compared between groups.

Results

A total of 171/410 (41.7%) patients with advanced or recurrent NSCLC carrying bone metastases who received bone-targeted therapy were eligible for analysis. Although the DI group showed a better benefit trend, differences were not statistically significant concerning the therapeutic efficacy among the DI group (n = 40), PI group (n = 74), DnI group (n = 15), and PnI group (n = 42) (ORRs: 47.5%, 43.2%, 33.3%, and 40.5%, respectively, p = 0.799; and mPFS: 378, 190, 170, and 172 days, respectively, p = 0.115; SREs: 5%, 10.8%, 13.3%, and 11.9%, respectively, p = 0.733). Nevertheless, further analysis in the NON-DRIVER cohort revealed a greater benefit for the DI group (p = 0.045). Additionally, the AEs of the DI group were not significantly different from those of the PI, DnI, and PnI groups (AEs: 27.5%, 39.2%, 26.7%, and 28.6%, respectively, p = 0.742). Furthermore, the multivariate analysis revealed the independent prognostic role of DI treatment for PFS in the overall cohort. Within the DI group, we did not observe differences in benefit among different mutational subgroups (p = 0.814), but patients with single-site bone metastasis (p = 0.319) and high PD-L1 expression (p = 0.100) appeared to benefit more, though no significant differences were observed.

Conclusions

Denosumab exhibited synergistic antitumor efficacy without increasing toxicity when used concomitantly with ICIs in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer carrying bone metastases.