Fracture incidence after 3 years of aromatase inhibitor therapy

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.

Prevention of aromatase inhibitor-induced bone loss with anti-resorptive therapy in post-menopausal women with early-stage breast cancer

We assessed if antiresorptive treatment can prevent aromatase inhibitor-induced bone loss in patients with early breast cancer. We observed that patients who did not receive antiresorptive treatment had a 20.8-fold increase in risk of bone loss after 24 months of aromatase inhibitors therapy.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to describe changes in femoral and lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) after 24 months of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and antiresorptive treatment in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

METHODS

Prospective, longitudinal study in a real-life setting with a 2-year follow-up. Patients underwent a complete baseline bone assessment including clinical assessment, biological evaluation, BMD measurement, and spine X-ray. Antiresorptive treatment was prescribed to patients with a T-score <  - 2 or a T-score <  - 1.5 SD with additional osteoporosis risk factors. A follow-up bone assessment was carried out after 24 months.

RESULTS

Among 328 patients referred to our center, 168 patients (67.7 ± 10.6 years) were included in our study, and 144 were eligible for antiresorptive treatment. After 24 months, patients receiving antiresorptive treatment experienced a significant increase of + 6.28% in femoral-BMD (F-BMD) and + 7.79% in lumbar-BMD (L-BMD). This increase was not significantly different between osteoporotic and osteopenic patients. Conversely, patients not receiving antiresorptive treatment presented significant F-BMD and L-BMD loss regardless of the baseline BMD. In the multivariate logistic model, the lack of antiresorptive treatment was the only predictive factor for major femoral bone loss with a 20.83 odds ratio (CI95%:4.2-100, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This real-life study confirmed that antiresorptive treatment significantly increases femoral and lumbar BMD regardless of the baseline BMD in postmenopausal patients receiving AIs for early breast cancer. Patients who did not receive antiresorptive treatment had a 20.8-fold increased risk of major bone loss. Nevertheless, the best threshold to adopt for starting antiresorptive agents remains undetermined.

From Theory to Practice: Bone Health in Women with Early Breast Cancer Treated with Aromatase Inhibitors

Aromatase inhibitors (AI) are extensively used as adjuvant endocrine therapy in post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer (HR+ EBC), but their impact on bone health is not negligible. This work aimed to assess bone loss, fracture incidence, and risk factors associated with these events, as well as the prognostic influence of fractures. We have conducted a retrospective cohort study of women with HR+ EBC under adjuvant therapy with AI, during a 3-year period. Four-hundred-and-fifty-one eligible women were reviewed (median age 68 years). Median time under AI was 40 months. A fracture event occurred in 8.4%, mostly in the radium and femoral neck and in older women (mean 74 vs. 68 years, p = 0.006). Age (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.01–1.07, p = 0.024) and time under AI (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00–1.04, p = 0.037) were independent predictors of fracture, with a fair discrimination (AUC 0.71). Analysis of disease-free survival according to fracture event varied between groups, disfavoring the fracture cohort (at 73 months, survival 78.6%, 95% CI, 47.6–92.4 vs. 95.6%, 95% CI, 91.2–97.8, p = 0.027). The multivariate model confirmed the prognostic impact of fracture occurrence (adjusted HR of 3.17, 95% CI 1.10–9.11; p = 0.032). Bone health is often forgotten, despite its great impact in survivorship. Our results validate the pathophysiologic link between EBC and bone metabolism, which translates into EBC recurrence. Further research in this area may help refine these findings. Moreover, early identification of women at higher risk for fractures is warranted.

Molecular mechanisms and clinical management of cancer bone metastasis

As one of the most common metastatic sites of malignancies, bone has a unique microenvironment that allows metastatic tumor cells to grow and flourish. The fenestrated capillaries in the bone, bone matrix, and bone cells, including osteoblasts and osteoclasts, together maintain the homeostasis of the bone microenvironment. In contrast, tumor-derived factors act on bone components, leading to subsequent bone resorption or excessive bone formation. The various pathways involved also provide multiple targets for therapeutic strategies against bone metastases. In this review, we summarize the current understanding of the mechanism of bone metastases. Based on the general process of bone metastases, we specifically highlight the complex crosstalk between tumor cells and the bone microenvironment and the current management of cancer bone metastases.

Fracture Risk in Women with Breast Cancer Initiating Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy: A Registry-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) used in breast cancer induce loss in bone mineral density (BMD) and are reported to increase fracture risk.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a population-based BMD registry, we identified women aged at least 40 years initiating AIs for breast cancer with at least 12 months of AI exposure (n = 1,775), women with breast cancer not receiving AIs (n = 1,016), and women from the general population (n = 34,205). Fracture outcomes were assessed to March 31, 2017 (mean, 6.2 years for AI users).

RESULTS

At baseline, AI users had higher body mass index (BMI), higher BMD, lower osteoporosis prevalence, and fewer prior fractures than women from the general population or women with breast cancer without AI use (all p < .001). After adjusting for all covariates, AI users were not at significantly greater risk for major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.42), hip fracture (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.56-1.43), or any fracture (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.88-1.28) compared with the general population.

CONCLUSION

Higher baseline BMI, BMD, and lower prevalence of prior fracture at baseline may offset the adverse effects of AI exposure. Although confirmatory data from large cohort studies are required, our findings challenge the view that all women with breast cancer initiating AI therapy should be considered at high risk for fractures.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In a population-based observational registry that included 1,775 patients initiating long-term aromatase inhibitor therapy, risk for major osteoporotic fracture, hip fracture, or any fracture was similar to the general population. Higher baseline body mass index, bone mineral density, and lower prevalence of prior fracture at baseline may offset the adverse effects of aromatase inhibitor exposure.

Adjuvant denosumab in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (ABCSG-18): disease-free survival results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer, treatment with adjuvant aromatase inhibitors is the standard of care, but it increases risk for osteoporosis and fractures. Results from the ABCSG-18 trial showed that use of denosumab as an adjuvant to aromatase inhibitor therapy significantly reduced clinical fractures. Disease-free survival outcomes from ABCSG-18 have not yet been reported.

METHODS

Postmenopausal patients with early, hormone receptor-positive, non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the breast, who had completed their initial adjuvant treatment pathway (surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy, or a combination) and were receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, were enrolled at 58 trial centres in Austria and Sweden into this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. With permuted block randomisation (block sizes 2 and 4, stratified by previous aromatase inhibitor use, total lumbar spine bone mineral density score at baseline, and type of centre), patients were assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous denosumab (60 mg) or matching placebo every 6 months during aromatase inhibitor therapy. The primary endpoint (previously reported) was the time to first clinical fracture after randomisation. The secondary endpoint reported here is disease-free survival (defined as time from randomisation to first evidence of local or distant metastasis, contralateral breast cancer, secondary carcinoma, or death from any cause) in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with EudraCT (number 2005-005275-15) and ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00556374), and is ongoing for long-term follow-up.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 18, 2006, and July 22, 2013, 3425 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned; 1711 to the denosumab group and 1709 to the placebo group (with five others withdrawing consent). After a median follow-up of 73 months (IQR 58-95), 240 (14·0%) patients in the denosumab and 287 (16·8%) in the placebo group had disease-free survival events. Disease-free survival was significantly improved in the denosumab group versus the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·69-0·98, Cox p=0·0260; descriptive analysis, without controlling for multiplicity). In the denosumab group, disease-free survival was 89·2% (95% CI 87·6-90·8) at 5 years and 80·6% (78·1-83·1) at 8 years of follow-up, compared with 87·3% (85·7-89·0) at 5 years and 77·5% (74·8-80·2) and 8 years in the placebo group. No independently adjudicated cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw or confirmed atypical femoral fractures were recorded. The total number of adverse events was similar in the denosumab group (1367 [including 521 serious] adverse events) and the placebo group (1339 [515 serious]). The most common serious adverse events were osteoarthritis (62 [3·6%] of 1709 in the denosumab group vs 58 [3·4%] of 1690 in the placebo group), meniscus injury (23 [1·3%] vs 24 [1·4%]), and cataract (16 [0·9%] vs 28 [1·7%]). One (<0·1%) treatment-related death (due to pneumonia, septic kidney failure, and cardiac decompensation) occurred in the denosumab group.

INTERPRETATION

Denosumab constitutes an effective and safe adjuvant treatment for patients with postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitor therapy.

FUNDING

Amgen.

Breast cancer treatment and its effects on aging

Breast cancer is the most common cancer of women in the United States. It is also proving to be one of the most treatable. Early detection, surgical intervention, therapeutic radiation, cytotoxic chemotherapies and molecularly targeted agents are transforming the lives of patients with breast cancer, markedly improving their survival. Although current breast cancer treatments are largely successful in producing cancer remission and extending lifespan, there is concern that these treatments may have long lasting detrimental effects on cancer survivors, in part, through their impact on non-tumor cells. Presently, the impact of breast cancer treatment on normal cells, its impact on cellular function and its effect on the overall function of the individual are incompletely understood. In particular, it is unclear whether breast cancer and/or its treatments are associated with an accelerated aging phenotype. In this review, we consider breast cancer survivorship from the perspective of accelerated aging, and discuss the evidence suggesting that women treated for breast cancer may suffer from an increased rate of physical and cognitive decline that likely corresponds with underlying vulnerabilities of genome instability, epigenetic changes, and cellular senescence.

Influence of side-effects on early therapy persistence with letrozole in post-menopausal patients with early breast cancer: Results of the prospective EvAluate-TM study

BACKGROUND

Endocrine treatment (ET) with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) is the treatment of choice in post-menopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer (EBC). However, adverse events (AEs) often lead to treatment discontinuation. This analysis aimed to identify side-effects that lead to patients failing to persist with letrozole treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Post-menopausal hormone receptor-positive EBC patients starting ET with letrozole were enroled in EvAluate-TM, a non-interventional study. Information regarding treatment compliance and persistence was gathered in months 6 and 12. Persistence was defined as the time from 30 d after the start to the end of treatment. The influence on persistence of musculoskeletal syndrome, menopausal disorder, sleep disorder and other AEs within the first 30 d was analysed using Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

Among 3887 patients analysed, the persistence rate after 12 months was >85%. In all, 568 patients (14.6%) discontinued the treatment, 358 of whom (63.0%) did so only because of side-effects. The main AEs influencing persistence were musculoskeletal symptoms (hazard ratio [HR] 2.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.90-3.42), sleep disorders (HR 1.95; 95% CI, 1.41-2.70) and other AEs (HR 2.03; 95% CI, 1.51-2.73). Menopausal disorder was not associated with non-persistence (HR 1.17; 95% CI, 0.74-1.84).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that side-effects of AIs such as musculoskeletal syndrome and sleep disorder lead to ET discontinuation within the first treatment year in significant numbers of EBC patients. Compliance programmes adapted for subgroups that are at risk for early non-persistence might help to ensure the recommended therapy duration.

CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER

CFEM345DDE19.

Causes of low peak bone mass in women

Peak bone mass is the maximum bone mass that accrues during growth and development. Consolidation of peak bone mass normally occurs during early adulthood. Low peak bone mass results from failure to achieve peak bone mass genetic potential, primarily due to bone loss caused by a variety of conditions or processes occurring at younger ages than usual. Recognized causes of low peak bone mass include genetic causes, endocrine disorders, nutritional disorders, chronic diseases of childhood or adolescence, medications, and idiopathic factors.

Impact of an osteoporosis specialized unit on bone health in breast cancer survivals treated with aromatase inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

Considering the increased fracture risk in early breast cancer patients treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI), we assessed the impact of a preventive intervention conducted by a specialized osteoporosis unit on bone health at AI treatment start.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort of postmenopausal women who started treatment with AI after breast cancer surgical/chemotherapy treatment and were referred to the osteoporosis unit for a comprehensive assessment of bone health. Bone densitometry and fracture screening by plain X-ray were performed at the baseline visit and once a year for 5 years.

RESULTS

The final record included 130 patients. At AI treatment start, 49% had at least one high-risk factor for fractures, 55% had osteopenia, and 39% osteoporosis. Based on the baseline assessment, 79% of patients initiated treatment with bisphosphonates, 88% with calcium, and 79% with vitamin D. After a median of 65 (50-77) months, 4% developed osteopenia or osteoporosis, and 14% improved their densitometric diagnosis. Fifteen fractures were recorded in 11 (8.5%) patients, all of them receiving preventive treatment (10 with bisphosphonates). During the follow-up period, patients with one or more high-risk factors for fracture showed a greater frequency of fractures (15% vs. 3%) and experienced the first fracture earlier than those without high-risk factors (mean of 99 and 102 months, respectively; P=0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

The preventive intervention of a specialized unit at the start of AI treatment in breast cancer survivors allows the identification of patients with high fracture risk and may contribute to preventing bone events in these patients.

Adverse bone effects of medications used to treat non-skeletal disorders

There is a growing list of medications used to treat non-skeletal disorders that cause bone loss and/or increase fracture risk. This review discusses glucocorticoids, drugs that reduce sex steroids, antidiabetic agents, acid-reducing drugs, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and heparin. A number of drugs are known to cause bone loss, increase fracture risk, or both. These drugs should be used in the lowest dose necessary to achieve the desired benefit and for the shortest time necessary, but in many cases, long-term treatment is required. Effective countermeasures are available for some.

Evaluation and management of skeletal disease in cancer care

Recently, there have been considerable advancements in cancer therapies thereby prolonging the life of cancer survivors. However, these recent advancements present new challenges in the management of bone disease in cancer survivors. Bone acts as a fertile soil for cancer seeding and bone health is often compromised because of increased inflammatory cytokines in cancer, direct cancer metastasis and toxic effects of anti-cancer therapies. This effect is more pronounced in elderly population who already have compromised bone mineral density leading to increased skeletal related events and bone pain. Timely diagnosis and effective interventions are essential for reducing bone-related morbidity in cancer survivors. Also, a complex interdependence exists between cancer related bone disease and tumor growth, creating a vicious circle of extensive bone destruction and cancer progression. Hence, maintenance of bone health and integrity plays a pivotal role in comprehensive cancer care. The bone-targeted treatments have been shown to preserve bone health, and modify the course of the underlying cancer. Management of long-term bone health requires a broad knowledge base that endocrinologists, oncologists and other care team members should be aware of. The manuscript highlights the skeletal effects of cancer, adjuvant therapies used for hormone-responsive cancers, chemotherapy induced bone loss and steps for accurate diagnosis and management of bone disease in cancer survivors by bridging the gaps in the comprehensive cancer care.

A Focused Review of Safety Considerations in Cancer Rehabilitation

Cancer and its treatments introduce various adverse effects that may affect survivors' physical, cognitive and psychological functioning. Frequently both tolerance to activity and exercise are affected as well. Rehabilitation providers should have substantive knowledge about the effect of cancer progression and common side effects associated with antineoplastic treatment to safely integrate rehabilitation interventions. Rehabilitation may mitigate loss of function and disability; however, these patients are among the most medically complex that providers treat. This report provides a focused review that synthesizes the current evidence regarding disease progression and oncology-directed treatment side effects within the context of safety considerations for rehabilitation interventions throughout the continuum of cancer care. Descriptive information regarding the evidence for precautions and contraindications is provided so that rehabilitation providers can promote a safe plan of rehabilitation care. It is incumbent upon but also challenging for rehabilitation providers to stay up to date on the many advances in cancer treatment, and there are many gaps in the literature regarding safety issues. Although further research is needed to inform care, this review provides clinicians with a framework to assess patients with the goal of safely initiating rehabilitation interventions.

Therapeutic Bone-Modifying Agents in the Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer Setting: The Controversy and a Value Assessment

Clinical trials and meta-analyses investigating bisphosphonates as an adjuvant breast cancer therapy have shown a consistent trend, with postmenopausal women and women receiving ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone therapy gaining improved breast cancer outcomes with the use of adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy. The interpretation of these data is controversial, because the primary endpoints of the majority of adjuvant bisphosphonate studies have been negative. Pros and cons as well as the value of adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy are discussed here.

Morphometric vertebral fractures in breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The impact of long-term adjuvant therapy with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) on vertebral fracture (VF) risk is still unclear.

OBJECTIVE

In this cross-sectional study, we explored the prevalence and determinants of VFs in breast cancer (BC) patients before and during AI therapy. Each woman underwent a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to evaluate bone mineral density (BMD) and identify VFs by a quantitative morphometric approach. Blood samples were collected to measure serum hormone and calcium levels.

RESULTS

We consecutively included 263 postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early BC. One-hundred-sixty-nine women were AI-naïve, and 94 were AI-treated. AI-treated patients had lower BMD at total hip (p=0.01) and lumbar spine (p=0.03), higher serum vitamin D (p<0.001) and parathyroid hormone (p=0.006) values as compared to AI-naïve patients. The prevalence of VFs was 18.9% in AI-naïve patients, and 31.2% in those assessed during AI therapy (odds ratio 1.90, 95% CI 1.1-3.5, p=0.03). In AI-naïve patients, VFs were associated with older age (p=0.002) and lower BMD values at femoral neck (p=0.04) and total hip (p=0.007), whereas VFs occurred without association with any parameter analyzed in AI-treated patients. In AI-treated group, the prevalence of VFs was not significantly different between patients with osteoporosis and those with normal BMD (36.7% vs. 20.0%; p=0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

In women with early BC, AI therapy is associated with high prevalence of radiological VFs, which were shown to be independent of BMD values during the adjuvant treatment. These findings may be clinically relevant since they may lead to a change in management of AI-induced skeletal fragility. Specifically, the results of this study provide a rationale for performing a morphometric evaluation of VFs in all women undergoing treatment with AIs.

Differentiating the Causes of Spontaneous Rib Fracture After Breast Cancer

Spontaneous rib fracture after treatment for primary breast cancer is not uncommon. Although metastatic disease accounts for about 30% of spontaneous rib fractures and should constitute the first line of diagnostic investigation, other possible contributors include primary osteoporosis or secondary osteoporosis resulting from cancer treatments. Chemotherapy-induced menopause, aromatase inhibitors, radiation therapy, and long-term bisphosphonate use can all contribute to bone fragility, including spontaneous rib fractures in the latter 3. Drawing on recent breast cancer practice guidelines as well as population-based studies of fracture risk for women with a history of breast cancer and systematic reviews, this Perspective will provide an update on recent developments in understanding how to differentiate the possible reasons for non-traumatic rib fracture in women treated for breast cancer. In addition to describing the various possible causes of spontaneous rib fracture, the recommended medical and imaging procedures for differentiating among the potential causes will be presented.

AI-related BMD variation in actual practice conditions: A prospective cohort study

The aim of the study was to evaluate the progression of bone mineral density (BMD) during 3 years of aromatase inhibitors (AI) therapy in actual practice conditions. This prospective, clinical cohort study of Barcelona-Aromatase induced Bone Loss in Early breast cancer (B-ABLE) assessed BMD changes during 3 years of AI treatment in women with breast cancer. Patients with osteoporosis (T score < -2.5 or T score ≤ -2.0) and a major risk factor and/or prevalent fragility fractures were treated with oral bisphosphonates (BPs). Of 685 women recruited, 179 (26.1%) received BP treatment. By the third year of AI therapy, this group exhibited increased BMD in the lumbar spine (LS; 2.59%) and femoral neck (FN; 2.50%), although the increase was significant only within the first year (LS: 1.99% and FN: 2.04%). Despite BP therapy, however, approximately 15% of these patients lost more than 3% of their baseline bone mass. At 3 years, patients without BP experienced BMD decreases in the LS (-3.10%) and FN (-2.79%). In this group, BMD changes occurred during the first (LS: -1.33% and FN: -1.25%), second (LS: -1.19% and FN: -0.82%), and third (LS: -0.57% and FN: -0.65%) years of AI treatment. Increased BMD (>3%) was observed in just 7.6% and 10.8% of these patients at the LS and FN, respectively. Our data confirm a clinically relevant bone loss associated with AI therapy amongst nonusers of preventative BPs. We further report on the importance of BMD monitoring as well as calcium and 25-hydroxy vitamin D supplementation in these patients.

Secondary osteoporosis: pathophysiology & diagnosis

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disease characterized by decreased bone mass and microarchitectural changes in bone tissue that increase the susceptibility to fracture. Secondary osteoporosis is loosely defined as low bone mineral density or increased risk of fragility fracture caused by any factor other than aging or postmenopausal status. The purpose of this review is to discuss the current understanding of the pathophysiology and contribution to fracture risk of many of the more common causes of secondary osteoporosis, as well as diagnostic considerations, outlined by organ system. While not comprehensive, included are a wide array of diseases, conditions, and medications that have been associated with bone loss and susceptibility to fractures. The hope is to highlight the importance to the general clinician of screening for and treating the osteoporosis in these patients, so to limit the resultant increased morbidity associated with fractures.

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.