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.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in European Breast Cancer Clinical Trials

Breast cancer is the most prevalent female cancer worldwide with known correlations between the race and tumor characteristics of the patients and prognosis. International and US-based studies, however, have reported a disproportionate representation of Black and Hispanic patients in clinical trials. This is the first study assessing race and ethnicity reporting trends and inclusion in European breast cancer trials. The PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for trials on breast cancer treatment conducted exclusively in Europe between 2010 and 2022. Of the 97 identified trials, race was reported in 10.31%. Multinational participation, but not the study size or trial phase, was significantly associated with higher race reporting trends. These 10 trials featured a White-predominant population, with 1.08% Asian and 0.88% Black patients included. The acquisition of the race and ethnicity data of patients in European trials is lower compared to the U.S. or worldwide studies and does not permit extensive analysis of minority participation. In a limited analysis, the low rates of minority participation are concerning, based on population-based data on minorities in select European countries. These observations should encourage race reporting practices in European breast cancer trials and adequate minority participation to support the generalizability of the results of the studies and promote healthcare equity.

Benefit of adjuvant bisphosphonates in early breast cancer treated with contemporary systemic therapy: A meta-analysis of randomized control trials

Background

The absolute and relative benefits of adjuvant bisphosphonates on disease-free survival and overall survival in patients receiving contemporary systemic therapy for early breast cancer is uncertain.

Methods

Data from randomized trials of adjuvant bisphosphonates that recruited patients exclusively after 2000 and reported disease free survival and overall survival was utilized. Five-year disease-free survival and overall survival in bisphosphonates and control group along with associated hazard ratios were extracted. Absolute data were weighted by sample size and hazard ratios were pooled using inverse variance and random effects modelling. Meta-regression comprising linear regression weighted by sample size (mixed effects) was performed to explore association between disease and treatment related factors and absolute differences in benefit from bisphosphonates.

Results

Eleven trials comprising 24023 patients were included in the analysis. For disease free survival, pooled hazard ratio was 0.89 (0.81-0.97, p = 0.008) with a 1.5 % weighted mean difference favoring bisphosphonates over control. There was no significant overall survival benefit (0.92, 0.82-1.03, p = 0.16). Among patients receiving anthracycline and taxane based chemotherapy, there were no differences in either disease free survival (0.95, 0.80-1.12) or overall survival (1.04, 0.81-1.32). Meta-regression showed lower benefits in higher risk patients (node-positive, larger tumor size, estrogen receptor-, grade 3 or those receiving chemotherapy). Overall, 1 % (95 % CI 0.75-1.15) of patients experienced osteonecrosis of jaw related to zoledronic acid.

Conclusions

Compared to the Early Breast Cancer Trialist's Collaborative Group meta-analysis, benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonates is lower in recent trials especially in higher risk patients receiving contemporary chemotherapy. The balance between benefits and risks of adjuvant bisphosphonates should be considered in individual patients.

Capecitabine-based chemotherapy in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Introduction

The efficacy and safety of adjuvant capecitabine in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer remains undefined. A meta-analysis was conducted to elucidate whether capecitabine-based regimens could improve survival in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Methods

The current study searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov proceedings up to 2023.9. Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Extracted or calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled.

Results

The capecitabine-based regimens showed significant advantages in DFS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.73-0.90; P <.001) and OS (HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65-0.87; P <.001) from 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 5,390 unselected participants. Subgroup analysis of DFS showed analogous results derived from patients with lymph node negative (HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.50-0.92; P = .006) and capecitabine duration no less than six cycles (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.62-0.86; P <.001). Improvement of DFS in the addition group (HR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.68-0.87; P <.001) and adjuvant setting (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.70-0.89; P <.001) was observed. As to safety profile, capecitabine was associated with more frequent stomatitis (OR = 5.05, 95% CI: 1.45-17.65, P = .011), diarrhea (OR = 6.11, 95% CI: 2.12-17.56; P =.001), and hand-foot syndrome (OR = 31.82, 95% CI: 3.23-313.65, P = .003).

Conclusions

Adjuvant capecitabine-based chemotherapy provided superior DFS and OS to early-stage TNBC. The benefits to DFS in selected patients with lymph node negative and the addition and extended duration of capecitabine were demonstrated.

Importance of Whole-Body Scintigraphy or Positron Emission Tomography for Early Detection of Femoral Lesions in Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Bisphosphonates

Background

We hypothesized that most of the atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) associated with bisphosphonate treatment for breast cancer (BC) could be found before the fracture event in another radiological examination already performed by breast surgeons, rather than on simple radiographs (SRs).

Methods

We thoroughly inspected the clinical charts of BC patients treated at our institute between 2008 and 2017. In total, 228 patients were categorized into three groups based on SRs: complete AFF on at least one side (group 1); incomplete fracture on at least one side, but not any complete fracture (group 2); and no suspicious lesion (group X) on either femur. Then, we inspected whole-body scintigraphy (WBS) and positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (CT) images in all groups. For group X, patients with radiological clues from at least one femur were categorized, ultimately, into final group 3 and the rest made up the normal group.

Results

About 35% of the patients showed AFFs (complete or incomplete) or suspicious lesions as AFFs, associated with the side effect of Bisphosphonate. In group 1, bilateral lesions (complete or incomplete fractures) were more frequently seen on SRs than unilateral lesions (p = 0.008). The initially identified findings in WBS and PET-CT for the respective complete and incomplete fractures on SRs of groups 1 and 2 were seen at a mean of 7 months previously. SRs did not reveal the lesions in group 3 until 5 months after the initial identification of the lesions in WBS and PET-CT.

Conclusions

Even before incomplete AFFs were detectable on SRs, they could be found at check-ups using WBS and PET-CT that had been previously examined by breast surgeons and radiologists for metastasis surveillance. Awareness of the lesions creates an opportunity for prophylactic surgery before complete fractures occur.

Metastasis prevention with bone-targeted agents: a complex interaction between the microenvironment and tumour biology

INTRODUCTION

The use of bone-targeted treatments has transformed the clinical care of many patients with metastatic breast cancer. In addition, due to the profound effects of bisphosphonates and denosumab on bone physiology and the bone microenvironment, the potential of bone-targeted agents to modify the process of metastasis has been studied extensively.

FINDINGS

Many adjuvant trials with bisphosphonates in early breast cancer have been performed. Variable outcomes in terms of disease recurrence have been reported, with any treatment benefits apparently influenced by the age and menopausal status of the patients. Results show that in breast cancer the use of adjuvant bisphosphonates reduce bone metastases and breast-cancer deaths in postmenopausal women. These effects are in addition to the benefits associated with the use of standard adjuvant endocrine, cytotoxic and targeted treatments with prevention of one in six breast-cancer deaths at 10 years. Biomarkers that can predict patient benefit from the use of bone-targeted treatments in the adjuvant setting are being evaluated. Currently, tumour expression of the transcription factor, MAF, seems to be the most promising biomarker; benefits from adjuvant bisphosphonates are seen in the 80% of patients with normal levels of expression irrespective of menopausal status and age, while over expression is associated with a poor prognosis and a higher rate of visceral metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant bisphosphonates are now part of standard clinical guidelines for postmenopausal women with early breast cancer at intermediate to high risk of recurrence. MAF testing of primary tumours may improve patient selection for treatment.

Bisphosphonates and Prevention of the Perimenopausal Breast Cancer Recurrence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Bisphosphonates (BPs) have a powerful effect on reducing bone resorption and improving the survival of patients with breast cancer. We aimed to investigate the impact of BP treatment on the prevention of recurrence, metastasis, and death of breast cancer survivors in the perimenopausal period.

METHODS

The search strategy aimed to identify both published and unpublished studies in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, ProQuest, and Google Scholar in March 2021. Two independent reviewers assessed quantitative papers selected for retrieval for methodological validity before being included in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI). Statistical meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 statistical software when the data were homogenous. Meta-analysis was performed by calculating the effect size (hazard ratio; HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were eligible for this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall The HRs for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in women who received BPs were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.97; p = 0.005), and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63-0.89; p = 0.001), respectively. The results showed that BPs had a significant effect on the prevention of locoregional (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.97; p = 0.04), bone (95% CI, 0.74-0.95; p ≤ 0.001), and distant metastases (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94; p = 0.01). In the subgroup analysis based on study design, the only insignificant HR in the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was that of locoregional metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Although BPs have a promising effect on DFS, OS, and bone metastasis of perimenopausal women survivors of breast cancer, more RCTs are needed to evaluate their effect on other survivors' outcomes.

Daily Oral Ibandronate With Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Postmenopausal Women With Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer (BOOG 2006-04): Randomized Phase III TEAM-IIB Trial

PURPOSE

For postmenopausal patients with breast cancer, previous subgroup analyses have shown a modest benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment. However, the efficacy of oral nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates such as ibandronate is unclear in this setting. TEAM-IIB investigates adjuvant ibandronate in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer.

METHODS

TEAM-IIB is a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III study. Postmenopausal women with stage I-III ER+ breast cancer and an indication for adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) were randomly assigned 1:1 to 5 years of ET with or without oral ibandronate 50 mg once daily for 3 years. Major ineligibility criteria were bilateral breast cancer, active gastroesophageal problems, and health conditions that might interfere with study treatment. Primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), analyzed in the intention-to-treat population.

RESULTS

Between February 1, 2007, and May 27, 2014, 1,116 patients were enrolled, 565 to ET with ibandronate (ibandronate arm) and 551 to ET alone (control arm). Median follow-up was 8.5 years. DFS was not significantly different between the ibandronate and control arms (HR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.24; log-rank P = .811). Three years after random assignment, DFS was 94% in the ibandronate arm and 91% in the control arm. Five years after random assignment, this was 89% and 86%, respectively. In the ibandronate arm, 97/565 (17%) of patients stopped ibandronate early because of adverse events. Significantly more patients experienced GI issues, mainly dyspepsia, in the ibandronate arm than in the control arm (89 [16%] and 54 [10%], respectively; P < .003). Eleven patients in the ibandronate arm developed osteonecrosis of the jaw.

CONCLUSION

In postmenopausal women with ER+ breast cancer, adjuvant ibandronate 50 mg once daily does not improve DFS and should not be recommended as part of standard treatment regimens.

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.

The Clinical Value of Chemotherapy Combined With Capecitabine in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer-A Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is the most dangerous subtype of breast cancer with high rates of metastasis and recurrence. The efficacy of capecitabine in chemotherapy for TNBC is still controversial. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of capecitabine combining with standard, adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for TNBC.

Methods: We systematically searched clinical studies through PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, Wanfang Database, China Academic Journals (CNKI), and American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO) annual conference report. Studies were assessed for design and quality by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager to quantify the effect of capecitabine combined with standard, adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the disease-free survival (DFS) rate and overall survival (OS) rate of TNBC patients. Furthermore, safety analysis was performed to evaluate the adverse events.

Results: Twelve randomized controlled clinical trials involving totally 4854 TNBC patients were included, of which 2,214 patients received chemotherapy as control group, and 2,278 patients received capecitabine combining with chemotherapy. The results indicated that capecitabine could significantly improve the DFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71–0.90, P = 0.0003] and OS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74–0.93, P = 0.001). In subgroup analysis, the combination of capecitabine and cyclophosphamide exhibited a significant benefit in all outcomes (DFS HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63–0.90, P = 0.002; OS HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52–0.80, p < 0.0001). Additionally, defferent dose of capecitabine subgroup showed same significant effect on the results. Safety analysis showed that the addition of capecitabine was associated with a much higher risk of hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea and mucositis or stomatitis.

Conclusion: The results showed that adjuvant capecitabine could bring significant benefits on DFS and OS to unselected TNBC patients, the combination of capecitabine and cyclophosphamide could improve the survival rate of patients, although the addition of capecitabine could bring significant side effects such as hand foot syndrome (HFS) and diarrhea.

Application of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (V.1.1) to the field of early breast cancer therapies

Click here to listen to the Podcast

TGFB-induced factor homeobox 1 (TGIF) expression in breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer (BC) is the most frequent female cancer and preferentially metastasizes to bone. The transcription factor TGFB-induced factor homeobox 1 (TGIF) is involved in bone metabolism. However, it is not yet known whether TGIF is associated with BC bone metastasis or patient outcome and thus of potential interest.

METHODS

TGIF expression was analyzed by immunohistochemistry in 1197 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples from BC patients treated in the GAIN (German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-Positive) study with two adjuvant dose-dense schedules of chemotherapy with or without bisphosphonate ibandronate. TGIF expression was categorized into negative/low and moderate/strong staining. Endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and time to primary bone metastasis as first site of relapse (TTPBM).

RESULTS

We found associations of higher TGIF protein expression with smaller tumor size (p = 0.015), well differentiated phenotype (p < 0.001) and estrogen receptor (ER)-positive BC (p < 0.001). Patients with higher TGIF expression levels showed a significantly longer disease-free (DFS: HR 0.75 [95%CI 0.59-0.95], log-rank p = 0.019) and overall survival (OS: HR 0.69 [95%CI 0.50-0.94], log-rank p = 0.019), but no association with TTPBM (HR 0.77 [95%CI 0.51-1.16]; p = 0.213). Univariate analysis in molecular subgroups emphasized that elevated TGIF expression was prognostic for both DFS and OS in ER-positive BC patients (DFS: HR 0.68 [95%CI 0.51-0.91]; log-rank p = 0.009, interaction p = 0.130; OS: HR 0.60 [95%CI 0.41-0.88], log-rank p = 0.008, interaction p = 0.107) and in the HER2-negative subgroup (DFS:HR 0.67 [95%CI 0.50-0.88], log-rank p = 0.004, interaction p = 0.034; OS: HR 0.57 [95%CI 0.40-0.81], log-rank p = 0.002, interaction p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that moderate to high TGIF expression is a common feature of breast cancer cells and that this is not associated with bone metastases as first site of relapse. However, a reduced expression is linked to tumor progression, especially in HER2-negative breast cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This clinical trial has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ; registration number: NCT00196872 .

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.

Phase III Randomized Trial of Bisphosphonates as Adjuvant Therapy in Breast Cancer: S0307

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant bisphosphonates, when given in a low-estrogen environment, can decrease breast cancer recurrence and death. Treatment guidelines include recommendations for adjuvant bisphosphonates in postmenopausal patients. SWOG/Alliance/Canadian Cancer Trials Group/ECOG-ACRIN/NRG Oncology study S0307 compared the efficacy of three bisphosphonates in early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

Patients with stage I-III breast cancer were randomly assigned to 3 years of intravenous zoledronic acid, oral clodronate, or oral ibandronate. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) with overall survival as a secondary outcome. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

A total of 6097 patients enrolled. Median age was 52.7 years. Prior to being randomly assigned, 73.2% patients indicated preference for oral vs intravenous formulation. DFS did not differ across arms in a log-rank test (P = .49); 5-year DFS was 88.3% (zoledronic acid: 95% confidence interval [CI] = 86.9% to 89.6%), 87.6% (clodronate: 95% CI = 86.1% to 88.9%), and 87.4% (ibandronate: 95% CI = 85.6% to 88.9%). Additionally, 5-year overall survival did not differ between arms (log rank P = .50) and was 92.6% (zoledronic acid: 95% CI = 91.4% to 93.6%), 92.4% (clodronate: 95% CI = 91.2% to 93.5%), and 92.9% (ibandronate: 95% CI = 91.5% to 94.1%). Bone as first site of recurrence did not differ between arms (P = .93). Analyses based on age and tumor subtypes showed no treatment differences. Grade 3/4 toxicity was 8.8% (zoledronic acid), 8.3% (clodronate), and 10.5% (ibandronate). Osteonecrosis of the jaw was highest for zoledronic acid (1.26%) compared with clodronate (0.36%) and ibandronate (0.77%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of differences in efficacy by type of bisphosphonate, either in overall analysis or subgroups. Despite an increased rate of osteonecrosis of the jaw with zoledronic acid, overall toxicity grade differed little across arms. Given that patients expressed preference for oral formulation, efforts to make oral agents available in the United States should be considered.

The role of capecitabine-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of capecitabine in neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is highly controversial. Our meta-analysis was designed to further elucidate the effects of capecitabine on survival in early-stage TNBC patients and its safety.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and papers presented at several main conferences were searched up to December 19, 2019, to investigate capecitabine-based versus capecitabine-free neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in TNBC patients. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 test, combined with hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) computed for disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and over grade 3 adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

A total of 9 randomized clinical trials and 3842 TNBC patients were included. Overall, the combined capecitabine regimens in neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy showed significantly improved DFS (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86; P < 0.001) and OS (HR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.77; P < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, there were improvements in DFS in the groups with addition of capecitabine (HR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.78; P < 0.001), adjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.63-0.85; P < 0.001), and lymph node positivity (HR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.86; P = 0.005). Capecitabine regimens were related to higher risks of diarrhea (OR = 2.88, 95% CI 2.23-3.74, P < 0.001), stomatitis (OR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.53-2.64, P < 0.001) and hand-foot syndrome (OR = 8.67, 95% CI 6.70-11.22, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy combined with capecitabine significantly improved both DFS and OS in early-stage TNBC patients with tolerable AEs. There were benefits to DFS in the groups with the addition of capecitabine, adjuvant chemotherapy, and lymph node positivity.

Comparison of capecitabine-based regimens with platinum-based regimens in Chinese triple-negative breast cancer patients with liver metastasis

Background

Capecitabine-based chemotherapy (CBC) presents potential value in patients with liver metastasis; platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) has shown promising benefit in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). For TNBC patients with liver metastasis, which treatment strategy is better remains to be further studied. The aim of this study was to report the first real-world data evaluating the efficacy and safety of PBC versus CBC in the first-line treatment in Chinese TNBC patients with liver metastasis.

Methods

TNBC patients with liver metastasis pretreated with anthracyclines/taxanes in 4 institutions of China between January 2010 and December 2019 were included. Objective response rate (ORR), overall survival, treatment pattern, and toxicity profile were assessed between PBC and CBC groups.

Results

A total of 59 TNBC patients with liver metastasis were identified. Among these, 33 were treated with PBC and 26 were treated with CBC. The ORR was higher in the CBC group than in the PBC group (57.7% versus 30.3%, P=0.035). Median overall survival was also greatly improved (19.2 versus 14.4 months, P=0.041). Docetaxel/cisplatin was more likely to be used for PBC, and paclitaxel/capecitabine was the main regimen for CBC. Multivariable Cox regression analysis indicated that CBC was an independent predictor for overall survival after adjustment for baseline factors including age, tumor size, nodal status, prior anthracyclines/taxanes use, and tumor grade (odds ratio =0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.98; P=0.042). Adverse events were not different except gastrointestinal tract toxicities, hand-foot syndrome and hematologic toxicity.

Conclusions

For TNBC patients with liver metastasis, capecitabin-based chemotherapy might be more suitable than the platinum-based regimen in the first-line treatment, as measured by objective response rate and overall survival. Further large-scale studies are warranted.

Oestrogen and zoledronic acid driven changes to the bone and immune environments: Potential mechanisms underlying the differential anti-tumour effects of zoledronic acid in pre- and post-menopausal conditions

Late stage breast cancer commonly metastasises to bone and patient survival averages 2-3 years following diagnosis of bone involvement. One of the most successful treatments for bone metastases is the bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid (ZOL). ZOL has been used in the advanced setting for many years where it has been shown to reduce skeletal complications associated with bone metastasis. More recently, several large adjuvant clinical trials have demonstrated that administration of ZOL can prevent recurrence and improve survival when given in early breast cancer. However, these promising effects were only observed in post-menopausal women with confirmed low concentrations of circulating ovarian hormones. In this review we focus on potential interactions between the ovarian hormone, oestrogen, and ZOL to establish credible hypotheses that could explain why anti-tumour effects are specific to post-menopausal women. Specifically, we discuss the molecular and immune cell driven mechanisms by which ZOL and oestrogen affect the tumour microenvironment to inhibit/induce tumour growth and how oestrogen can interact with zoledronic acid to inhibit its anti-tumour actions.

Current and Emerging Biomarkers Predicting Bone Metastasis Development

Bone is one of the preferential sites of distant metastases from malignant tumors, with the highest prevalence observed in breast and prostate cancers. Patients with bone metastases (BMs) may experience skeletal-related events, such as severe bone pain, pathological fractures, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia, with negative effects on the quality of life. In the last decades, a deeper understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying the BM onset has been gained, leading to the development of bone-targeting agents. So far, most of the research has been focused on the pathophysiology and treatment of BM, with only relatively few studies investigating potential predictors of risk for BM development. The ability to select such "high-risk" patients could allow early identification of those most likely to benefit from interventions to prevent or delay BM. This review summarizes several evidences for the potential use of specific biomarkers able to predict early the BM development.

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.

Adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy in early-stage breast cancer-Treating the soil to kill the seed

Bisphosphonates alter the tumor microenvironment, possibly preventing cancer cell growth in the bone. Analyses of data from numerous clinical trials and a large individual patient-level data meta-analysis have suggested an anti-tumor effect for bisphosphonates in patients with early-stage breast cancer who are postmenopausal. The absolute benefit from the use of bisphosphonates on breast cancer-related mortality reduction mirrors that seen with the use of anthracycline-based chemotherapy versus a first-generation chemotherapy regimen (CMF). In this review, we discuss the evidence base for the use of adjuvant bisphosphonates in early-stage breast cancer and provide recommendations for clinical use.

Adjuvant denosumab in early breast cancer (D-CARE): an international, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to, and inhibits, the receptor activator of RANKL (TNFSF11) and might affect breast cancer biology, as shown by preclinical evidence. We aimed to assess whether denosumab combined with standard-of-care adjuvant or neoadjuvant systemic therapy and locoregional treatments would increase bone metastasis-free survival in women with breast cancer.

METHOD

In this international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (D-CARE), patients were recruited from 389 centres in 39 countries. We enrolled women (aged ≥ 18 years) with histologically confirmed stage II or III breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. On eligibility confirmation, investigators at each site telephoned an interactive voice response system to centrally randomly assign patients (1:1) based on a fixed stratified permuted block randomisation list (block size 4) to receive either denosumab (120 mg) or matching placebo subcutaneously every 3-4 weeks, starting with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, for about 6 months and then every 12 weeks for a total duration of 5 years. Stratification factors were breast cancer therapy, lymph node status, hormone receptor and HER2 status, age, and geographical region. The primary endpoint was the composite endpoint of bone metastasis-free survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01077154.

FINDINGS

Between June 2, 2010, and Aug 24, 2012, 4509 women were randomly assigned to receive denosumab (n=2256) or placebo (n=2253) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The primary analysis of the study was done when all patients had the opportunity to complete 5 years of follow-up with an analysis data cutoff date of Aug 31, 2017. The primary endpoint of bone metastasis-free survival was not significantly different between the groups (median not reached in either group; hazard ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·82-1·14; p=0·70). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events, reported in patients who had at least one dose of the investigational product (2241 patients with denosumab vs 2218 patients with placebo), were neutropenia (340 [15%] vs 328 [15%]), febrile neutropenia (112 [5%] vs 142 [6%]), and leucopenia (62 [3%] vs 61 [3%]). Positively adjudicated osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in 122 (5%) of 2241 patients treated with denosumab versus four (<1%) of 2218 patients treated with placebo; treatment-emergent hypocalcaemia occurred in 152 (7%) versus 82 (4%). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the placebo group due to acute myeloid leukaemia and depressed level of consciousness.

INTERPRETATION

Despite preclinical evidence suggesting RANKL inhibition might delay bone metastasis or disease recurrence in patients with early-stage breast cancer, in this study, denosumab did not improve disease-related outcomes for women with high-risk early breast cancer.

FUNDING

Amgen.

The incidence and relative risk of adverse events in patients treated with bisphosphonate therapy for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Adjuvant bisphosphonates reduce the rate of breast cancer recurrence in the bone and improve breast cancer survival. However, the risk of adverse events associated with bisphosphonate therapy for breast cancer remains poorly defined.

Methods:

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science libraries. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated to evaluate the adverse events of the meta-analytic results. Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) incidence was calculated using the random effect model (D+L pooled) for meta-analysis.

Results:

A total of 47 studies comprising 20,607 patients were included; 23 randomized controlled studies (RCTs) provided data of adverse events for bisphosphonate therapy versus without bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates were significantly associated with influenza-like illness (RR = 4.52), fatigue (RR = 1.08), fever (RR = 1.82), dyspepsia (RR = 1.25), anorexia (RR = 1.29), and urinary tract infection (RR = 1.32). No differences were observed in other adverse events. We combined the incidence of ONJ in 24 retrospective studies to analyze the incidence of ONJ using bisphosphonates. The pooled probability of ONJ toxicity in the bisphosphonates group was 2%.

Conclusions:

Bisphosphonates were significantly associated with influenza-like illness, fatigue, fever, dyspepsia, anorexia, and urinary tract infection. Furthermore, bisphosphonates increase the risk of ONJ toxicity.

Compliance and patient reported toxicity from oral adjuvant bisphosphonates in patients with early breast cancer. A cross sectional study

Background

Adjuvant bisphosphonates (BPs) are recommended as part of routine early breast cancer treatment for many postmenopausal (PM) women within the past year. There is a paucity of ‘real world’ data on compliance and patient satisfaction with oral BPs in this population. The aim of our study was to investigate patient reported compliance and toxicity of these drugs in a retrospective cohort study.

Patients and methods

413 patient were identified as receiving adjuvant oral BPs as part of their breast cancer treatment in the past 12 months from five NHS hospitals. The validated Osteoporosis Patient Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (OPSAT-Q) was sent to all suitable patients (n = 389).

Results

295 (76%) of patients responded. Average age was median (range) 67 (35–89). The majority of patients had T1 (52%), N0 (61%) grade 2 (58%) ER positive (87%), HER2 negative (84%) breast cancer and were PM at diagnosis of breast cancer (93%). All patients had been prescribed at least 1 month of oral ibandronate 50 mg daily. Review of items rated on the 7-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied to 7 = very satisfied), the mean item scores ranged from 5.0 (lowest) for time required to take oral BPs, to 6.1 (highest) for how easy it is to remember to take the medication. <10% of patients were extremely bothered by heartburn or stomach upset. 16% of responders stopped oral BPs with 10% of those converting onto IV BPs.

Conclusions

Prevalence of severe side effects in a ‘real world’ population of PM women receiving adjuvant BPs is low and these drugs are generally well accepted and tolerated by patients.

Addition of Capecitabine in Breast Cancer First-line Chemotherapy Improves Survival of Breast Cancer Patients

Objective: Capecitabine is an antimetabolic fluoropyrimidine deoxynucleoside carbamate drug that can be converted to 5-FU in vivo. Currently, the role of capecitabine in the treatment of advanced breast cancer has been recognized. Also, Several meta-analyses have elucidated the role of capecitabine in the treatment of breast cancer, indicating that taxane-based regimen with capecitabine may be an effective, convenient, and well tolerated regimen in patients with early breast cancer. However, the correlation between capecitabine-based combination first-line chemotherapy and breast cancer survival remains unclear. Here, we present a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the safety and effectiveness of capecitabine-based combination with first-line chemotherapy treatment in breast cancer. Methods: We searched Pubmed, Embase, and Medline for relevant studies evaluating pooled estimated hazard ratios of capecitabine in breast cancer patients with the eligible criteria up to June 2018. Fixed and random-effect meta-analyses were conducted based on heterogeneity of included studies. Results: Overall, 10 articles with 12,872 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Capecitabine-based combination first-line chemotherapy compared with non-combination had significant impacts on disease-free survival (HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.76-0.93; P = 0.000) and overall survival (HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.94; P = 0.001). Also, according to the 3 articles concerning neoadjuvant chemotherapy which included 2534 participants, we found that the addition of capecitabine significantly improved OS (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.63-0.86; P = 0.011). In the subgroup analysis, TNBC patients got significant benefits with the addition of capecitabine in DFS (HR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.65-0.92; P = 0.004) and OS (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.51-0.81; P = 0.000). ER negative patients got significant benefits in OS (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57-0.93; P = 0.012). The association of DFS with the addition of capecitabine in Her- patients (HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.71-0.99; P = 0.005) was significant, as was OS (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.95; P = 0.009),. Meanwhile, patients receiving capecitabine-based combination first-line chemotherapy underwent less adverse effects especially the grade 3/4 leucopenia than patients with non-combination therapy (RR=0.72 95% CI: 0.59-0.86; P = 0.000). Conclusion: Capecitabine combined with first-line chemotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer is an effective and safe treatment option and is worthy of clinical application to improve survival of breast cancer patients. In the future, we can continue to carry out relevant researches to explore the upmost appropriate dose of capecitabine for breast cancer.

Bone-Modifying Agents in Early-Stage and Advanced Breast Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Bone-modifying agents have an important role in the treatment of patients with bone mineral density loss, early-stage breast cancer to reduce risk of recurrence, and metastatic breast cancer with bone involvement. Here we review mechanisms of action of these agents and clinical indications for their use.

RECENT FINDINGS

The meta-analysis undertaken by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group showed that the use of bisphosphonates was associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer recurrence.

SUMMARY

The effect of bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand inhibitors on bone health provides an opportunity to decrease the incidence of skeletal-related events and improve cancer outcomes in certain subsets of patients.

Benefits and risks of adjuvant treatment with zoledronic acid in stage II/III breast cancer. 10 years follow-up of the AZURE randomized clinical trial (BIG 01/04)

Adjuvant bisphosphonates improve disease outcomes in postmenopausal early breast cancer (EBC) but the long-term effects are poorly described. The AZURE trial (ISRCTN79831382) was designed to determine whether adjuvant zoledronic acid (ZOL) improves disease outcomes in EBC. Previous analyses showed no effect on overall outcomes but identified benefits in postmenopausal women. Here we present the long-term risks and benefits of adjuvant ZOL with 10-years follow-up.

Patients and methods

3360 patients with stage II/III breast cancer were included in an academic, international, phase III, randomized, open label trial. Patients were followed up on a regular schedule until 10 years. Patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to standard adjuvant systemic therapy +/− intravenous ZOL 4 mg every 3–4 weeks x6, and then at reduced frequency to complete 5 years treatment. The primary outcome was disease free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes included invasive DFS (IDFS), overall survival (OS), sites of recurrence, skeletal morbidity and treatment outcomes according to primary tumor amplification of the transcription factor, MAF. Pre-planned subgroup analyses focused on interactions between menopausal status and treatment effects.

Results

With a median follow up of 117 months [IQR 70.4–120.4), DFS and IDFS were similar in both arms (HR_DFS= 0.94, 95%CI = 0.84–1.06, p = 0.340; HR_IDFS= 0.91, 95%CI = 0.82–1.02, p = 0.116). However, outcomes remain improved with ZOL in postmenopausal women (HR_DFS= 0.82, 95%CI = 0.67–1.00; HR_IDFS= 0.78, 95%CI = 0.64–0.94). In the 79% of tested women with a MAF FISH negative tumor, ZOL improved IDFS (HR_IDFS= 0.75, 95%CI = 0.58–0.97) and OS HR_OS= 0.69, 95%CI = 0.50–0.94), irrespective of menopause. ZOL did not improve disease outcomes in MAF FISH + tumors. Bone metastases as a first DFS recurrence (B_DFS) were reduced with ZOL (HR_B-DFS= 0.76, 95%CI = 0.63–0.92, p = 0.005). ZOL reduced skeletal morbidity with fewer fractures and skeletal events after disease recurrence. 30 cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw in the ZOL arm (1.8%) have occurred.

Conclusions

Disease benefits with adjuvant ZOL in postmenopausal early breast cancer persist at 10 years of follow-up. The biomarker MAF identified a patient subgroup that derived benefit from ZOL irrespective of menopausal status.

Do older and younger patients derive similar survival benefits from novel oncology drugs? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

older patients are commonly believed to derive less benefit from cancer drugs, even if they fulfil clinical trial eligibility [Talarico et al. (2004, J Clin Oncol, 22(22):4626-31)]. We aim to examine if novel oncology drugs provide differential age-based treatment outcomes for patients on clinical trials.

Methods

a systematic review of randomised control trials (RCTs) cited for clinical efficacy evidence in novel oncology drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and Health Canada between 2006 and 2017 was conducted. Studies reporting age-based subgroup analyses for overall or progression-free survival (OS/PFS) were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) for age-based subgroups were extracted. Meta-analyses with random effects were conducted, examining patient subgroups <65 and ≥65 years separately and pooled HRs of studies primary endpoints (OS or PFS) compared to examine if differences existed between age-based subgroups. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for cancer type, primary endpoint and systemic treatment.

Results

one-hundred-two RCTs, including 65,122 patients, met the inclusion criteria. One study reported age-based toxicity and none reported age-based quality of life (QOL) results. Pooled HRs [95% CIs] for patients <65 and ≥65 years were 0.61 [0.57-0.65] and 0.65 [0.61-0.70], respectively, with no difference between them (P = 0.14). Sensitivity analyses revealed similar results.

Conclusion

our results suggest that older and young patients, who fulfil clinical trial eligibility, may derive similar relative survival benefits from novel oncology drugs. There is, however, a need to report age-based toxicity and QOL results to support patient discussions regarding the balance of treatment benefit and harm, to encourage informed decision-making.

Bisphosphonate Use and Risk of Recurrence, Second Primary Breast Cancer, and Breast Cancer Mortality in a Population-Based Cohort of Breast Cancer Patients

Background: Studies of bisphosphonate use and breast cancer recurrence have produced conflicting results. Analyses of large adjuvant trials suggest that bisphosphonates reduce recurrence risk only in postmenopausal women.Methods: We assessed the effect of noncancer treatment-related bisphosphonate use on breast cancer outcomes in a population-based prognostic cohort of women with early-stage invasive breast cancer (n = 1,813; median follow-up = 11.8 years). Using medical record, interview, and cancer registry data, information was assembled on risk factors, cancer treatment, medication use, and outcomes. Statistical analyses used Cox proportional hazards regression models.Results: Bisphosphonate use was associated with a significantly decreased risk of a breast cancer event [locoregional/distant recurrence or second primary breast cancer; HR ever use, 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-0.90]. Reduced risks were observed in both pre/peri and postmenopausal women, in both ER-negative and ER-positive breast cancers, and for both earlier and later recurrences. Bisphosphonate use was also associated with a significantly decreased risk of breast cancer mortality (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23-0.69).Conclusions: Bisphosphonate use was associated with a reduction in risk of breast cancer events and improved breast cancer-specific survival in women with early-stage breast cancer. We hypothesize that the benefit of bisphosphonates on breast cancer outcomes may be present primarily in women with low bone density and regardless of menopausal status.Impact: Our findings suggest further consideration of bone density status as a modifier of bisphosphonate's potential beneficial benefits on breast cancer outcomes is warranted. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(2); 165-73. ©2017 AACR.

Bisphosphonates and other bone agents for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Bone is the most common site of metastatic disease associated with breast cancer (BC). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and novel targeted therapies such as denosumab inhibit other key bone metabolism pathways. We have studied these agents in both early breast cancer and advanced breast cancer settings. This is an update of the review originally published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2005 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and other bone agents in addition to anti-cancer treatment: (i) in women with early breast cancer (EBC); (ii) in women with advanced breast cancer without bone metastases (ABC); and (iii) in women with metastatic breast cancer and bone metastases (BCBM).

SEARCH METHODS

In this review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: (a) one treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent with the same treatment without a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent; (b) treatment with one bisphosphonate versus treatment with a different bisphosphonate; (c) treatment with a bisphosphonate versus another bone-acting agent of a different mechanism of action (e.g. denosumab); and (d) immediate treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent versus delayed treatment of the same bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was bone metastases for EBC and ABC, and a skeletal-related event (SRE) for BCBM. We derived risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the meta-analyses used random-effects models. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and disease-free survival for EBC; we derived hazard ratios (HRs) for these time-to-event outcomes where possible. We collected toxicity and quality-of-life information. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes in each treatment setting.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 RCTs involving 37,302 women.In women with EBC, bisphosphonates were associated with a reduced risk of bone metastases compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate (RR 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03, 11 studies; 15,005 women; moderate-quality evidence with no significant heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates provided an overall survival benefit with time-to-event data (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; P = 0.04; 9 studies; 13,949 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity). Subgroup analysis by menopausal status showed a survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.90; P = 0.001; 4 studies; 6048 women; high-quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity) but no survival benefit for premenopausal women (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22; P = 0.78; 2 studies; 3501 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). There was evidence of no effect of bisphosphonates on disease-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% 0.87 to 1.02; P = 0.13; 7 studies; 12,578 women; high-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity present) however subgroup analyses showed a disease-free survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women only (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 8314 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates did not significantly reduce the incidence of fractures when compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08, P = 0.13, 6 studies, 7602 women; moderate-quality evidence due to wide confidence intervals). We await mature overall survival and disease-free survival results for denosumab trials.In women with ABC without clinically evident bone metastases, there was no evidence of an effect of bisphosphonates on bone metastases (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43; P = 0.86; 3 studies; 330 women; moderate-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) or overall survival (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; P = 0.28; 3 studies; 330 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates however the confidence intervals were wide. One study reported a trend towards an extended period of time without a SRE with bisphosphonate compared to placebo (low-quality evidence). One study reported quality of life and there was no apparent difference in scores between bisphosphonate and placebo (moderate-quality evidence).In women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduced the SRE risk by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003; 9 studies; 2810 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity) compared with placebo/no bisphosphonates. This benefit persisted when administering either intravenous or oral bisphosphonates versus placebo. Bisphosphonates delayed the median time to a SRE with a median ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.58; P < 0.00001; 9 studies; 2891 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) and reduced bone pain (in 6 out of 11 studies; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate. Treatment with bisphosphonates did not appear to affect overall survival (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; P = 0.85; 7 studies; 1935 women; moderate-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity). Quality-of-life scores were slightly better with bisphosphonates than placebo at comparable time points (in three out of five studies; moderate-quality evidence) however scores decreased during the course of the studies. Denosumab reduced the risk of developing a SRE compared with bisphosphonates by 22% (RR 0.78, 0.72 to 0.85; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2345 women). One study reported data on overall survival and observed no difference in survival between denosumab and bisphosphonate.Reported toxicities across all settings were generally mild. Osteonecrosis of the jaw was rare, occurring less than 0.5% in the adjuvant setting (high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For women with EBC, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of bone metastases and provide an overall survival benefit compared to placebo or no bisphosphonates. There is preliminary evidence suggestive that bisphosphonates provide an overall survival and disease-free survival benefit in postmenopausal women only when compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate. This was not a planned subgroup for these early trials, and we await the completion of new large clinical trials assessing benefit for postmenopausal women. For women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of developing SREs, delay the median time to an SRE, and appear to reduce bone pain compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate.

Preoperative intensity-modulated radiotherapy with a simultaneous integrated boost combined with Capecitabine in locally advanced rectal cancer: short-term results of a multicentric study

BACKGROUND

Preoperative radiotherapy (RT) in combination with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (CT) is the standard of care in patients with locally advanced, T3-T4 N0-2, rectal cancer (LARC). Given the correlation between RT dose-tumor response and the prognostic role of the tumor regression grade (TRG), treatment intensification represents an area of active investigation. The aim of the study was to analyze the role of RT dose-intensification in the preoperative treatment of LARC in terms of feasibility, efficacy and toxicity.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients with LARC treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) at five Italian radiation oncology centers. Concurrent Capecitabine was administered. Treatment response was evaluated in terms of disease down-staging and TRG. Acute toxicity was evaluated according to the CTC-AE 4.0 scale.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients were identified for this analysis. A dose of 45 Gy was prescribed to the entire mesorectum and pelvic lymph nodes with a median SIB dose of 54 Gy (range 52.5-57.5) to the tumor and corresponding mesorectum. Overall, 74/76 (97.4%) patients completed the planned RT, whereas 64/76 (84.2%) patients completed the prescribed CT. Eight (10.5%) patients developed grade 3-4 acute toxicity. Overall, 72/76 patients underwent surgery. The tumor and nodal down-staging was documented in 51 (70.8%) and 43 (67%) patients, respectively. Twenty (27.8%) patients obtained a pathologic complete response. Surgical morbidity was reported in 13/72 patients (18.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although retrospective in design, this study indicates that IMRT-SIB with a dose range of 52.5-57.5 Gy (median 54 Gy) and concomitant Capecitabine appears feasible, well tolerated and effective in terms of disease down-staging and pathological complete response. Long-term toxicity and the impact on disease control and patient survival will be evaluated with a longer follow-up time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NA.

BRCA1-like profile is not significantly associated with survival benefit of non-myeloablative intensified chemotherapy in the GAIN randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

The BRCA1-like profile identifies tumors with a defect in homologous recombination due to inactivation of BRCA1. This profile has been shown to predict which stage III breast cancer patients benefit from myeloablative, DNA double-strand-break-inducing chemotherapy. We tested the predictive potential of the BRCA1-like profile for adjuvant non-myeloablative, intensified dose-dense chemotherapy in the GAIN trial.

METHODS

Lymph node positive breast cancer patients were randomized to 3 × 3 dose-dense cycles of intensified epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide (ETC) or 4 cycles concurrent epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by 10 cycles of weekly paclitaxel combined with 4 cycles capecitabine (EC-TX). Only triple negative breast cancer patients (TNBC) for whom tissue was available were included in these planned analyses. BRCA1-like or non-BRCA1-like copy number profiles were derived from low coverage sequencing data.

RESULTS

119 out of 163 TNBC patients (73%) had a BRCA1-like profile. After median follow-up of 83 months, disease free survival (DFS) was not significantly different between BRCA1-like and non-BRCA1-like patients [adjusted hazard ratio (adj.HR) 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.86], neither was overall survival (OS; adj.HR 1.26; 95% CI 0.58-2.71). When split by BRCA1-like status, DFS and OS were not significantly different between treatments. However, EC-TX seemed to result in a trend to an improvement in DFS in patients with a BRCA1-like tumor, while the reverse accounted for ETC treatment in patients with a non-BRCA1-like tumor (p for interaction = 0.094).

CONCLUSIONS

The BRCA1-like profile is not associated with survival benefit for a non-myeloablative, intensified regimen in this study population. Considering the limited cohort size, capecitabine might have additional benefit for TNBC patients.

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.

Breast cancer

Breast cancer is one of the three most common cancers worldwide. Early breast cancer is considered potentially curable. Therapy has progressed substantially over the past years with a reduction in therapy intensity, both for locoregional and systemic therapy; avoiding overtreatment but also undertreatment has become a major focus. Therapy concepts follow a curative intent and need to be decided in a multidisciplinary setting, taking molecular subtype and locoregional tumour load into account. Primary conventional surgery is not the optimal choice for all patients any more. In triple-negative and HER2-positive early breast cancer, neoadjuvant therapy has become a commonly used option. Depending on clinical tumour subtype, therapeutic backbones include endocrine therapy, anti-HER2 targeting, and chemotherapy. In metastatic breast cancer, therapy goals are prolongation of survival and maintaining quality of life. Advances in endocrine therapies and combinations, as well as targeting of HER2, and the promise of newer targeted therapies make the prospect of long-term disease control in metastatic breast cancer an increasing reality.

Use of Adjuvant Bisphosphonates and Other Bone-Modifying Agents in Breast Cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario and American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

Purpose To make recommendations regarding the use of bisphosphonates and other bone-modifying agents as adjuvant therapy for patients with breast cancer. Methods Cancer Care Ontario and ASCO convened a Working Group and Expert Panel to develop evidence-based recommendations informed by a systematic review of the literature. Results Adjuvant bisphosphonates were found to reduce bone recurrence and improve survival in postmenopausal patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer. In this guideline, postmenopausal includes patients with natural menopause or that induced by ovarian suppression or ablation. Absolute benefit is greater in patients who are at higher risk of recurrence, and almost all trials were conducted in patients who also received systemic therapy. Most studies evaluated zoledronic acid or clodronate, and data are extremely limited for other bisphosphonates. While denosumab was found to reduce fractures, long-term survival data are still required. Recommendations It is recommended that, if available, zoledronic acid (4 mg intravenously every 6 months) or clodronate (1,600 mg/d orally) be considered as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal patients with breast cancer who are deemed candidates for adjuvant systemic therapy. Further research comparing different bone-modifying agents, doses, dosing intervals, and durations is required. Risk factors for osteonecrosis of the jaw and renal impairment should be assessed, and any pending dental or oral health problems should be dealt with prior to starting treatment. Data for adjuvant denosumab look promising but are currently insufficient to make any recommendation. Use of these agents to reduce fragility fractures in patients with low bone mineral density is beyond the scope of the guideline. Recommendations are not meant to restrict such use of bone-modifying agents in these situations. Additional information at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-adjuvant-bisphosphonates-guideline , www.asco.org/guidelineswiki , https://www.cancercareontario.ca/guidelines-advice/types-of-cancer/breast .

Should bone-targeted agents be standard of care in postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer?

The role of bone-targeted agents in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer has been debated for decades. A recent meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18,766 women provides compelling evidence supporting the use of these agents in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Postmenopausal women who received a bisphosphonate had a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality (14.7 vs 18%; p = 0.002) and in overall survival (21.1 vs 23.5%; p = 0.005). Some questions remain such as; what bone-targeted agent is the best? What are the optimum doses, durations and schedules? Which patients benefit the most? The decision to include a bone-targeted agent should consider the absolute risk of distant recurrence and breast cancer mortality.

Bayesian survival analysis in clinical trials: What methods are used in practice?

Background

Bayesian statistics are an appealing alternative to the traditional frequentist approach to designing, analysing, and reporting of clinical trials, especially in rare diseases. Time-to-event endpoints are widely used in many medical fields. There are additional complexities to designing Bayesian survival trials which arise from the need to specify a model for the survival distribution. The objective of this article was to critically review the use and reporting of Bayesian methods in survival trials.

Methods

A systematic review of clinical trials using Bayesian survival analyses was performed through PubMed and Web of Science databases. This was complemented by a full text search of the online repositories of pre-selected journals. Cost-effectiveness, dose-finding studies, meta-analyses, and methodological papers using clinical trials were excluded.

Results

In total, 28 articles met the inclusion criteria, 25 were original reports of clinical trials and 3 were re-analyses of a clinical trial. Most trials were in oncology (n = 25), were randomised controlled (n = 21) phase III trials (n = 13), and half considered a rare disease (n = 13). Bayesian approaches were used for monitoring in 14 trials and for the final analysis only in 14 trials. In the latter case, Bayesian survival analyses were used for the primary analysis in four cases, for the secondary analysis in seven cases, and for the trial re-analysis in three cases. Overall, 12 articles reported fitting Bayesian regression models (semi-parametric, n = 3; parametric, n = 9). Prior distributions were often incompletely reported: 20 articles did not define the prior distribution used for the parameter of interest. Over half of the trials used only non-informative priors for monitoring and the final analysis (n = 12) when it was specified. Indeed, no articles fitting Bayesian regression models placed informative priors on the parameter of interest. The prior for the treatment effect was based on historical data in only four trials. Decision rules were pre-defined in eight cases when trials used Bayesian monitoring, and in only one case when trials adopted a Bayesian approach to the final analysis.

Conclusion

Few trials implemented a Bayesian survival analysis and few incorporated external data into priors. There is scope to improve the quality of reporting of Bayesian methods in survival trials. Extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for reporting Bayesian clinical trials is recommended.

Pharmacologic management of bone-related complications and bone metastases in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer

There is a high risk for bone loss and skeletal-related events, including bone metastases, in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Both the disease itself and its therapeutic treatments can negatively impact bone, resulting in decreases in bone mineral density and increases in bone loss. These negative effects on the bone can significantly impact morbidity and mortality. Effective management and minimization of bone-related complications in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer remain essential. This review discusses the current understanding of molecular and biological mechanisms involved in bone turnover and metastases, increased risk for bone-related complications from breast cancer and breast cancer therapy, and current and emerging treatment strategies for managing bone metastases and bone turnover in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

Update in treatment of early breast cancer in post-menopausal women

In the last few years there have been significant advances in knowledge related to the treatment of post-menopausal women with early stage breast cancer. These include new information about the survival benefits with hormonal therapies and bone targeted treatments as well as identification of patient populations who may be able to avoid toxic treatments. In this paper we discuss these advances and provide suggested management algorithms.

Adjuvant bisphosphonates in early breast cancer: consensus guidance for clinical practice from a European Panel

Bisphosphonates have been studied in randomised trials in early breast cancer to investigate their ability to prevent cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) and reduce the risk of disease recurrence and metastasis. Treatment benefits have been reported but bisphosphonates do not currently have regulatory approval for either of these potential indications. This consensus paper provides a review of the evidence and offers guidance to breast cancer clinicians on the use of bisphosphonates in early breast cancer. Using the nominal group methodology for consensus, a systematic review of the literature was augmented by a workshop held in October 2014 for breast cancer and bone specialists to present and debate the available pre-clinical and clinical evidence for the use of adjuvant bisphosphonates. This was followed by a questionnaire to all members of the writing committee to identify areas of consensus. The panel recommended that bisphosphonates should be considered as part of routine clinical practice for the prevention of CTIBL in all patients with a T score of <-2.0 or ≥2 clinical risk factors for fracture. Compelling evidence from a meta-analysis of trial data of >18,000 patients supports clinically significant benefits of bisphosphonates on the development of bone metastases and breast cancer mortality in post-menopausal women or those receiving ovarian suppression therapy. Therefore, the panel recommends that bisphosphonates (either intravenous zoledronic acid or oral clodronate) are considered as part of the adjuvant breast cancer treatment in this population and the potential benefits and risks discussed with relevant patients.

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.

Bone antiresorptive agents in the treatment of bone metastases associated with solid tumours or multiple myeloma

Skeletal lesions contribute substantially to morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. The disease manifestation course during metastatic bone disease is driven by tumour cells in the bone marrow, which alter the functions of bone-resorbing (osteoclasts) and bone-forming (osteoblasts) cells, promoting skeletal destruction. Successful therapeutic strategies for the treatment of metastatic bone disease include bisphosphonates and denosumab that inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. Inhibitors of cathepsin K, Src and activin A are under clinical investigation as potential anti-osteolytics. In this review, we describe current knowledge and future directions of antiresorptive therapies that may reduce or prevent destructive bone lesions from solid tumours and multiple myeloma.