Bone-Modifying Agents: Complicated to Use

The trend of dental check-up and prevalence of dental complications following the use of bone modifying agents in patients with metastatic breast and prostate cancer: analysis of data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service

BACKGROUND

Bone-modifying agents (BMA) are key components in the management of cancer patients with bone metastasis. Despite their clinical benefits, the use of BMA is associated with dental adverse events (AEs) including medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). This study investigated the frequency of dental surveillance before BMA treatment and the prevalence of dental AEs including MRONJ, after BMA treatment in patients with bone metastasis from breast and prostate cancer using data from the national health insurance system.

METHODS

Data, including age, cancer diagnosis, administered BMA, and dental AEs during cancer treatment, of patients with bone metastasis from breast and prostate cancer who received at least one infusion of BMA between 2007 and 2019 were extracted from the Korean National Health Insurance Service (KNHIS) dataset.

RESULTS

Of the 15,357 patients who received BMA, 1,706 patients (11.1%) underwent dental check-ups before BMA treatment. The proportion of patients receiving dental check-up increased from 4.4% in 2007 to 16.7% in 2019. Referral to dentists for a dental check-up was more active in clinics/primary hospitals than general/tertiary hospitals, and medical doctors and urologists actively consulted to dentists than general surgeons, regardless of the patient's health insurance status. After BMA treatment, 508 patients (3.8%) developed dental AEs, including abscess (42.9%), acute periodontitis (29.7%), acute pericoronitis (14.9%), and MRONJ (12.5% of dental AEs cases, 0.5% of total BMA treated patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the long treatment period in patients with metastatic cancer, coordination between dentists and oncologists is necessary to ensure appropriate dental management before the initiation of BMA.

Treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors with bone-modifying agents: a web survey of Italian oncologists investigating patterns of practice drug prescription and prevention of side effects

PURPOSE

Optimal use of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors is uncertain in some aspects: the drug choice; the planned treatment duration and long-term therapy; the prevention and management of possible side effects, including renal toxicity, hypocalcaemia, and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ).

METHODS

Italian oncologists were invited to fulfil a 24-question web survey about prescription of BMAs for bone metastases of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and other solid tumors. Prevention and management of side effects were also investigated.

RESULTS

Answers of 191 oncologists were collected. BMAs are usually prescribed at the time of diagnosis of bone metastases by 87.0% (breast cancer) and 76.1% (solid tumors except breast and prostate cancers) of oncologists; the decision is more articulated for prostate cancer (endocrine-sensitive versus castration-resistant). The creatinine level (32.3%), the availability of patient venous access (15.8%), and the type of primary neoplasm (13.6%) are the most reported factors involved in choice between bisphosphonates and denosumab. Zoledronic acid every 3 months was considered as a valid alternative to monthly administration by 94% of Italian oncologists. Oncologists reported a good confidence with measures aimed to prevent MRONJ, whereas uncertainness about prevention and management of hypocalcemia was registered.

CONCLUSION

Italian oncologists showed a high attitude in prescribing bisphosphonates or denosumab at the time of diagnosis of bone metastases, with a large application of preventive measures of side effects. Further studies are needed to investigate some controversial aspects, such as optimal drug treatment duration and long-term drug schedules.

A Tailored Approach for Appendicular Impending and Pathologic Fractures in Solid Cancer Metastases

Simple Summary

Patients with bone metastases often suffer with complications, such as bone fractures, which have a substantial negative impact on clinical outcomes. To optimize clinical results, a tailored approach should be defined for managing impending or pathologic fractures in each individual case. The ability to control systemic disease, the extent, location and nature of bone metastases, and the biology of the underlying tumor, are the main factors that will define the strategy to follow.

Abstract

Advances in medical and surgical treatment have played a major role in increasing the survival rates of cancer patients with metastatic bone disease. The clinical course of patients with bone metastases is often impaired by bone complications, such as bone fractures, which have a substantial negative impact on clinical outcomes. To optimize clinical results and prevent a detrimental impact on patients’ health, a tailored approach should be defined for any given patient. The optimal management of impending or pathologic fractures is unknown and relies on a multidisciplinary approach to tailor clinical decisions to each individual patient. The ability to control systemic disease, the extent, location and nature of bone metastases, and the biology of the underlying tumor, are the main factors that will define the strategy to follow. The present review covers the most recent data regarding impending and pathologic fractures in patients with bone metastases, and discusses the medical and surgical management of patients presenting with metastatic bone disease in different clinical settings.

How I treat a refractory myeloma patient who is not eligible for a clinical trial

Myeloma patients not eligible for clinical trials have many treatment options. Choosing the next best therapy starts with careful assessment of the biology and dynamics of the disease at relapse, as well as the condition and situation of the patient. Fit patients should be considered for triplet regimens, whereas intermediate and frail patients warrant dose-reduced triplets or doublets. An indolent serologic relapse may be treated with dose intensification, especially in a maintenance situation, whereas a rapid relapse requires a more aggressive approach with drug class change or a second-generation immunomodulatory drug (IMID) or proteasome inhibitor (PI). Monoclonal antibodies, in combination with PIs and IMIDs, have proven highly efficacious in early and late relapse. Key elements of supportive care include infection prevention, bone health, thromboprophylaxis, and management of active symptoms, such as pain and distress.