Addition of zoledronic acid to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not beneficial in patients with HER2-negative stage II/III breast cancer: 5-year survival analysis of the NEOZOTAC trial (BOOG 2010-01)

A multifaceted role of bisphosphonates from palliative care to anti-cancer therapy in solid tumors

INTRODUCTION

Bisphosphonates (P-C-Ps) also called diphosphonates are the structural analogs of naturally occurring pyrophosphates. Bisphosphonates are traditionally used and shown to provide long-term success in the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis and other bone loss pathologies. Furthermore, bisphosphonates are gaining popularity in the present era of cancer therapeutics and prevention. The usage of bisphosphonates as adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy, either as a single agent or combined with other chemotherapy, has been studied in different solid tumors. This review aims to present the various roles of bisphosphonates in solid tumors.

DATA SOURCES

Articles in MEDLINE/PubMed and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry (http://www. Clinicaltrials.gov) between 1 January 2011 and 1 February 2022 were extracted using MeSH terms "bisphosphonates/diphosphosphonates and mechanism," "bisphosphonates and breast cancer," "bisphosphonates and prostate cancer," "bisphosphonates and lung cancer," "bisphosphonates and cancer risk," and "bisphosphonates and adverse events." Manual searches of some major oncology journals were also conducted.

DISCUSSION

This review article focuses on the antitumor activity of bisphosphonates, safety profile, and the role of bisphosphonates as preventive, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant chemotherapy. A significant improvement in overall survival and cancer-specific survival and recurrence-free survival with the usage of bisphosphonates is noted in breast cancer patients, particularly in post-menopausal women. Though great progress has been achieved in over 20 years, further research is needed to identify the subgroup of patients that are most likely to benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy and to determine regimens with greater efficacy and better safety profile.

Bone-modifying agents for reducing bone loss in women with early and locally advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are amongst the bone-modifying agents used as supportive treatment in women with breast cancer who do not have bone metastases. These agents aim to reduce bone loss and the risk of fractures. Bisphosphonates have demonstrated survival benefits, particularly in postmenopausal women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the effects of different bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment to reduce bone mineral density loss and osteoporotic fractures in women with breast cancer without bone metastases and generate a ranking of treatment options using network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by electronically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase until January 2023. We searched various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for women with breast cancer without bone metastases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes were bone mineral density, quality of life, overall fractures, overall survival and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven trials (35,163 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 34 trials (33,793 participants) could be considered in the NMA (8 different treatment options). Bone mineral density We estimated that the bone mineral density of participants with no treatment/placebo measured as total T-score was -1.34. Evidence from the NMA (9 trials; 1166 participants) suggests that treatment with ibandronate (T-score -0.77; MD 0.57, 95% CI -0.05 to 1.19) may slightly increase bone mineral density (low certainty) and treatment with zoledronic acid (T-score -0.45; MD 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16) probably slightly increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Risedronate (T-score -1.08; MD 0.26, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.84) may result in little to no difference compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). We are uncertain whether alendronate (T-score 2.36; MD 3.70, 95% CI -2.01 to 9.41) increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Quality of life No quantitative analyses could be performed for quality of life, as only three studies reported this outcome. All three studies showed only minimal differences between the respective interventions examined. Overall fracture rate We estimated that 70 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo had fractures. Evidence from the NMA (16 trials; 19,492 participants) indicates that treatment with clodronate or ibandronate (42 of 1000; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92; 40 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86, respectively) decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (high certainty). Denosumab or zoledronic acid (51 of 1000; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.01; 55 of 1000; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.11, respectively) probably slightly decreases the number of fractures; and risedronate (39 of 1000; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.16) probably decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Pamidronate (106 of 1000; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.06) probably increases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Overall survival We estimated that 920 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo survived overall. Evidence from the NMA (17 trials; 30,991 participants) suggests that clodronate (924 of 1000; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17), denosumab (927 of 1000; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21), ibandronate (915 of 1000; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34) and zoledronic acid (925 of 1000; HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14) may result in little to no difference regarding overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Additionally, we are uncertain whether pamidronate (905 of 1000; HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.78) decreases overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Osteonecrosis of the jaw We estimated that 1 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 23,527 participants) suggests that denosumab (25 of 1000; RR 24.70, 95% CI 9.56 to 63.83), ibandronate (6 of 1000; RR 5.77, 95% CI 2.04 to 16.35) and zoledronic acid (9 of 1000; RR 9.41, 95% CI 3.54 to 24.99) probably increases the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Additionally, clodronate (3 of 1000; RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.83 to 8.50) may increase the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Renal impairment We estimated that 14 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed renal impairment. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 22,469 participants) suggests that ibandronate (28 of 1000; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.88) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Zoledronic acid (21 of 1000; RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.58) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment while clodronate (12 of 1000; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39) and denosumab (11 of 1000; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19) probably results in little to no difference regarding the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When considering bone-modifying agents for managing bone loss in women with early or locally advanced breast cancer, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Our findings suggest that bisphosphonates (excluding alendronate and pamidronate) or denosumab compared to no treatment or placebo likely results in increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture rates. Our survival analysis that included pre and postmenopausal women showed little to no difference regarding overall survival. These treatments may lead to more adverse events. Therefore, forming an overall judgement of the best ranked bone-modifying agent is challenging. More head-to-head comparisons, especially comparing denosumab with any bisphosphonate, are needed to address gaps and validate the findings of this review.

The effects of neoadjuvant zoledronic acid in breast cancer patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

To explore the effects of Zoledronic acid (ZA) in the neoadjuvant setting, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of neoadjuvant therapy with or without ZA in breast cancer (BC). A systematic literature search was carried out by two reviewers independently on the basis of three electronic databases up to February 2022. Six RCTs with a total of 949 patients, comparing neoadjuvant therapy with or without ZA in BC were included. In the total population, adding ZA to the neoadjuvant setting didn't improved the pathological complete response (pCR) rates (Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.38, 95% CI 0.94-2.03, p = 0.10). However, subgroup analysis revealed that the addition of ZA resulted in an increased pCR rate in postmenopausal women (RR = 2.30, 95% CI 0.93-5.71, p = 0.07) and in patients with triple-negative BC (RR = 2.85, 95% CI 1.01-8.03, p = 0.05), although these results were not statistically significant. Furthermore, the additional ZA did not show benefits on objective response rate, breast-conserving surgery rate or recurrence rate. For mortality, however, the additional ZA resulting in worse outcome compared to the control group (RR = 1.48, 95% CI 1.04-2.10, p = 0.03). Our study suggested that addition of ZA to neoadjuvant therapy didn't improved the pCR rate. Further investigations are warranted in postmenopausal women and patients with triple-negative BC, since these subgroups might benefit from ZA treatment.

Evaluation of pathological complete response as surrogate endpoint in neoadjuvant randomised clinical trials of early stage breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate pathological complete response as a surrogate endpoint for disease-free survival and overall survival in regulatory neoadjuvant trials of early stage breast cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Scopus to 1 December 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised clinical trials that tested neoadjuvant chemotherapy given alone or combined with other treatments, including anti-human epidermal growth factor 2 (anti-HER2) drugs, targeted treatments, antivascular agents, bisphosphonates, and immune checkpoint inhibitors.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Trial level associations between the surrogate endpoint pathological complete response and disease-free survival and overall survival.

METHODS

A weighted regression analysis was performed on log transformed treatment effect estimates (hazard ratio for disease-free survival and overall survival and relative risk for pathological complete response), and the coefficient of determination (R2) was used to quantify the association. The secondary objective was to explore heterogeneity of results in preplanned subgroups analysis, stratifying trials according treatment type in the experimental arm, definition used for pathological complete response (breast and lymph nodes v breast only), and biological features of the disease (HER2 positive or triple negative breast cancer). The surrogate threshold effect was also evaluated, indicating the minimum value of the relative risk for pathological complete response necessary to confidently predict a non-null effect on hazard ratio for disease-free survival or overall survival.

RESULTS

54 randomised clinical trials comprising a total of 32 611 patients were included in the analysis. A weak association was observed between the log(relative risk) for pathological complete response and log(hazard ratio) for both disease-free survival (R2=0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.29) and overall survival (R2 =0.08, 0.00 to 0.22). Similar results were found across all subgroups evaluated, independently of the definition used for pathological complete response, treatment type in the experimental arm, and biological features of the disease. The surrogate threshold effect was 5.19 for disease-free survival but was not estimable for overall survival. Consistent results were confirmed in three sensitivity analyses: excluding small trials (<200 patients enrolled), excluding trials with short median follow-up (<24 months), and replacing the relative risk for pathological complete response with the absolute difference of pathological complete response rates between treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

A lack of surrogacy of pathological complete response was identified at trial level for both disease-free survival and overall survival. The findings suggest that pathological complete response should not be used as primary endpoint in regulatory neoadjuvant trials of early stage breast cancer.

Tumor-stroma ratio is associated with Miller-Payne score and pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-negative early breast cancer

The tumor-stroma ratio (TSR) has proven to be a strong prognostic factor in breast cancer, demonstrating better survival for patients with stroma-low tumors. Since the role of the TSR as a predictive marker for neoadjuvant chemotherapy outcome is yet unknown, this association was evaluated for HER2-negative breast cancer in the prospective DIRECT and NEOZOTAC trials. The TSR was assessed on 375 hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections of pre-treatment biopsies. Associations between the TSR and chemotherapy response according to the Miller-Payne (MP) grading system, and between the TSR and pathological response were examined using Pearson's chi-square, Cochran-Armitage test for trend and regression analyses. A stroma-low tumor prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was significantly associated with a higher MP score (P = .005). This relationship remained significant in the estrogen receptor (ER)-negative subgroup (P = .047). The univariable odds ratio (OR) of a stroma-low tumor on pathological complete response (pCR) was 2.46 (95% CI 1.34-4.51, P = .004), which attenuated to 1.90 (95% CI 0.85-4.25, P = .119) after adjustment for relevant prognostic factors. Subgroup analyses revealed an OR of 5.91 in univariable analyses for ER-negativity (95% CI 1.19-29.48, P = .030) and 1.48 for ER-positivity (95% CI 0.73-3.01, P = .281). In conclusion, a low amount of stroma on pre-treatment biopsies is associated with a higher MP score and pCR rate. Therefore, the TSR is a promising biomarker in predicting neoadjuvant treatment outcome. Incorporating this parameter in routine pathological diagnostics could be worthwhile to prevent overtreatment and undertreatment.

Long-term outcome of (neo)adjuvant zoledronic acid therapy in locally advanced breast cancer

PURPOSE

The role of zoledronic acid (ZOL), a bone-targeted bisphosphonate, in the treatment of patients with breast cancer remains an active area of study. Here, we report the long-term outcomes of a randomized placebo-controlled phase II clinical trial in which ZOL treatment was added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer.

METHODS

120 women with clinical stage II-III (≥ T2 and/or ≥ N1) newly diagnosed breast cancer were randomized to receive either 4 mg intravenous ZOL every 3 weeks for 1 year (17 total doses) beginning with the first dose of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. Clinical endpoints included time to recurrence (TTR), time to bone recurrence (TTBR), time to non-bone recurrence (TTNBR), breast cancer survival (BCS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

With a median follow-up interval of 14.4 years, there were no significant differences in any of the clinical endpoints studied between the control and ZOL groups in the overall study population. However, ER+/HER2- patients younger than age 45 who were treated with ZOL had significantly worse TTR and TTNBR with a trend towards worse TTBR, BCS and OS (TTR: P = 0.024, HR 6.05 [1.26-29.1]; TTNBR: P = 0.026, HR 6.94 [1.26-38.1]; TTBR: P = 0.054, HR 6.01 [0.97-37.1]; BCS: P = 0.138, HR 4.43 [0.62-31.7]; OS: P = 0.138, HR 4.43 [0.62-31.7]). These differences were not seen in older ER+/HER2- patients or triple-negative patients of any age.

CONCLUSION

Addition of ZOL to neoadjuvant therapy did not significantly affect clinical outcomes in the overall study population but was associated with increased extra-skeletal recurrence and a trend towards worse survival in ER+/HER2- patients younger than age 45. These findings suggest caution when using zoledronic acid in young, premenopausal women with locally advanced breast cancer and warrant further investigation. Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT00242203, Date of Registration: 10/17/2005.

Extra-skeletal effects of bisphosphonates

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are pyrophosphate analogues widely used in diseases related to bone loss and increased bone turnover. Their high affinity for bone hydroxyapatite makes them ideal agents for bone diseases, while preventing them from reaching other cells and tissues. Data of the last decade, however, have demonstrated extra-skeletal tissue deposition and a variety of non-skeletal effects have been recently recognized. As such, BPs have been shown to exert anti-tumor, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory and anti-diabetic effects. In addition, new delivery systems (liposomes, nanoparticles, hydrogels) are being developed in an effort to expand BPs clinical application to extra-skeletal tissues and enhance their overall therapeutic spectrum and effectiveness. In the present review, we outline current data on extra-skeletal actions of bisphosphonates and attempt to unravel the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms.

Role of Bone Targeting Agents in the Prevention of Bone Metastases from Breast Cancer

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common malignancy in women worldwide and leads, in more than 70% of patients with advanced disease, to skeleton colonization and formation of bone metastases (BM). This condition implies a severe disability and deterioration of the quality of life, with consequent additional social costs. In recent decades, several studies explored the role of agents acting within the bone microenvironment to counteract BM development, and several bone-targeting agents (BTAs) have been introduced in the clinical practice to manage bone lesions and reduce the risk of skeletal complications. However, long-term exposure to these agents is not free from potential toxicities and needs careful monitoring. In this context, the potential capability to prevent BM onset in selected BC patients, through the early administration of BTAs, has been explored by several researchers, with the belief that “prevention is better than cure” and that, ultimately, metastatic BC is an incurable condition. Here, we revised the mechanisms of BM development in BC as well as the strategies for selecting high-risk patients suitable for early BTA treatment.