Ibandronate: Its Role in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Combined chemotherapy of zoledronic acid and pamidronate in the treatment of bone metastases from nonsmall cell lung cancer and the effects on pain stress and bone metabolic indices

OBJECTIVE

We conducted this paper to decipher the efficacy of the combined chemotherapy of zoledronic acid and pamidronate in treating bone metastases from nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the effects on pain stress and bone metabolic indices.

METHODS

Patients with bone metastases from NSCLC were allocated into Group A and Group B. Patients in the Group A were administrated with pamidronate combined chemotherapy and patients in the Group B were administrated with zoledronic acid combined chemotherapy. The efficacy, pain symptom scores, quality of life scores, serum inflammatory factor, serum bone metabolic indices, serum pain stress indicators, and the occurrence of adverse effects were compared in patients of the two groups.

RESULTS

The total effective rate of treatment was higher in the Group B than in the Group A. After treatment, reduced Numerical Rating Scale scores and elevated Karnofsky Performance Score score, reduced serum levels of N-terminal mid-fragment of osteocalcin, N-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, and type I collagen hydroxyl terminal peptide β special sequence, reduced serum levels of C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, tumor necrosis factor-α, and interleukin-6, as well as decreased levels of bradykinin, substance P, neuropeptide Y, and β-endorphin were found in the Group B versus the Group A. No notable difference was witnessed in the rate of adverse reactions between the Group A and the Group B.

CONCLUSION

Zoledronic acid combined with chemotherapy can effectively treat bone metastases of NSCLC and improve pain stress and bone metabolic status, which has value that can be promoted and applied in clinical treatment.

Transcriptome- and proteome-oriented identification of dysregulated eIF4G, STAT3, and Hippo pathways altered by PIK3CA H1047R in HER2/ER-positive breast cancer

PURPOSE

Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT pathway aberrations are common in human breast cancer. Furthermore, PIK3CA mutations are commonly associated with resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) or anti-estrogen receptor (ER) agents in HER2 or ER positive (HER2⁺/ER⁺) breast cancer. Hence, deciphering the underlying mechanisms of PIK3CA mutations in HER2⁺/ER⁺ breast cancer would provide novel insights into elucidating resistance to anti-HER2/ER therapies.

METHODS

In this study, we systematically investigated the biological consequences of PIK3CA ^H1047R in HER2⁺/ER⁺ breast cancer by uniquely incorporating mRNA transcriptomic data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and proteomic data from reverse-phase protein arrays.

RESULTS

Our integrative bioinformatics analyses revealed that several important pathways such as STAT3 and VEGF/hypoxia were selectively altered by PIK3CA ^H1047R in HER2⁺/ER⁺ breast cancer. Protein differential expression analysis indicated that an elevated eIF4G might promote tumor angiogenesis and growth via regulation of the hypoxia-activated switch in HER2⁺ PIK3CA ^H1047R breast cancer. We observed hypo-phosphorylation of EGFR in HER2⁺ PIK3CA ^H1047R breast cancer versus HER2⁺PIK3CA^wild-type (PIK3CA ^WT). In addition, ER and PIK3CA ^H1047R might cooperate to activate STAT3, MAPK, AKT, and Hippo pathways in ER⁺ PIK3CA ^H1047R breast cancer. A higher YAP_pS127 level was observed in ER⁺ PIK3CA ^H1047R patients than that in an ER⁺ PIK3CA ^WT subgroup. By examining breast cancer cell lines having both microarray gene expression and drug treatment data from the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer and the Stand Up to Cancer datasets, we found that the elevated YAP1 mRNA expression was associated with the resistance of BCL-2 family inhibitors, but with the sensitivity to MEK/MAPK inhibitors in breast cancer cells.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, these findings shed light on the functional consequences of PIK3CA ^H1047R-driven breast tumorigenesis and resistance to the existing therapeutic agents in HER2⁺/ER⁺ breast cancer.

Loading dose ibandronate versus standard oral ibandronate in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

In this phase II trial, the efficacy and safety of loading-dose I.V. ibandronate in patients with breast cancer with bone metastases were evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-four patients were randomized to receive a loading dose of 12 mg I.V. ibandronate on day 1 then oral ibandronate 50 mg daily (arm A), or standard oral therapy of 50 mg ibandronate daily from day 1 (arm B). The primary end point was percentage change in serum C-terminal crosslinking telopeptide of type I collagen (S-CTX) from baseline by day 5 of study. Secondary/exploratory end points included percentage change in other bone turnover markers (N-terminal cross-linking telopeptides of type I collagen [NTX], procollagen type I N propeptide, bone alkaline phosphatase) and change in average bone pain score.

RESULTS

There was a significantly greater reduction in S-CTX at day 5 in arm A compared with arm B (median difference, 15.82%; P = .005). There was also a significantly greater reduction in urine NTX/creatinine at day 5 (P = .009) and at the end of weeks 1 to 8 (averaged; P = .006). Average bone pain score was lower in arm A at the end of 8 weeks (P = .012). There were no additional adverse events after administration of 12 mg I.V. loading dose of ibandronate.

CONCLUSION

A 12-mg dose of I.V. ibandronate rapidly reduced markers of bone turnover and can be administered without additional toxicity.

Adverse events across generations of bone-modifying agents in patients with solid tumor cancers reported in Phase III randomized trials

AIMS

The objective of this study is to compare adverse events experienced among different bone-modifying agents.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify Phase III bisphosphonate and bone-modifying agent trials reporting adverse effects. Thirty-seven adverse events of interest were identified for six different treatment options. Weighted linear regression modeling was performed on the adverse event proportions with treatment groups, normalized through applying natural log transformations.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in adverse events of vomiting (p = 0.045) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (p = 0.017), and combined item events of nausea/vomiting (p = 0.048), hematological and lymphatic system toxicities (p = 0.020), and any respiratory system problem (p = 0.023) between bone-modifying agent and placebo trials. The significant toxicities were observed even after adjusting for the two confounding factors of age and primary cancer site.

CONCLUSION

While adverse effects are consistently experienced more frequently in patients receiving bone-modifying agents when compared with placebos, we find that the majority of individual side effects are not significantly more frequent in patients receiving bone-modifying agents compared with placebo.

German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-Positive Study: A Phase III Trial to Compare Oral Ibandronate Versus Observation in Patients With High-Risk Early Breast Cancer

Purpose

Bisphosphonates prevent skeletal-related events in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Their effect in early breast cancer is controversial. Ibandronate is an orally and intravenously available amino-bisphosphonate with a favorable toxicity profile. It therefore qualifies as potential agent for adjuvant use.

Patients and Methods

The GAIN (German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-Positive) study was an open-label, randomized, controlled phase III trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Patients with node-positive early breast cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to two different dose-dense chemotherapy regimens and 2:1 to ibandronate 50 mg per day orally for 2 years or observation. In all, 2,640 patients and 728 events were estimated to be required to demonstrate an increase in disease-free survival (DFS) by ibandronate from 75% to 79.5% by using a two-sided α = .05 and 1-β of 80%. We report here the efficacy analysis for ibandronate, which was released by the independent data monitoring committee because the futility boundary was not crossed after 50% of the required DFS events were observed.

Results

Between June 2004 and August 2008, 2,015 patients were randomly assigned to ibandronate and 1,008 to observation. Patients randomly assigned to ibandronate showed no superior DFS or overall survival (OS) compared with patients randomly assigned to observation (DFS: hazard ratio, 0.945; 95% CI, 0.768 to 1.161; P = .589; OS: HR, 1.040; 95% CI, 0.763 to 1.419; P = .803). DFS was numerically longer if ibandronate was used in patients younger than 40 years or older than 60 years compared with patients age 40 to 59 years (test for interaction P = .093).

Conclusion

Adjuvant treatment with oral ibandronate did not improve outcome of patients with high-risk early breast cancer who received dose-dense chemotherapy.

Phase II study of loading-dose ibandronate treatment in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases suffering from moderate to severe pain

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of loading-dose intravenous (i.v.) ibandronate in women with breast cancer and bone metastases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective, phase II, open-label study, 13 women with breast cancer, bone metastases, and moderate/severe bone pain received ibandronate 6 mg/day (i.v. loading-dose 15 min infusion over 3 consecutive days) with follow-up until day 14. Endpoints included pain response (primary), duration until pain response, analgesic use, Karnofsky index, safety (including hematologic, biochemical, and urine examinations), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Pain intensity decreased on days 7 and 14 versus day 1 (mean visual analogue scale score: 3.2 ± 2.2 and 3.0 ± 2.1 versus 6.1 ± 0.9, respectively; p < 0.01 for both). Mean time to pain response was 8.2 ± 3.3 days. Mean rate of analgesic use decreased (69.2%, 16.7% and 15.4% on days 1, 7 and 14, respectively). Mean Karnofsky index score increased (80.8 ± 13.1 and 80.8 ± 13.2, on days 7 and 14 versus 77.7 ± 11.7 on day 1; p < 0.05 on both days).

CONCLUSION

Bone pain and analgesic use decreased in women with breast cancer and bone metastases following loading dose i.v. ibandronate which was well-tolerated with no renal safety concerns.

Oral ibandronate in metastatic bone breast cancer: the Florence University experience and a review of the literature

Ibandronate is an amino-bisphosphonate approved in metastatic breast cancer to reduce skeletal complications and to alleviate bone pain. we report our experience about the safety of oral ibandronate and review the literature.We treated 44 patients and administered 524 cycles of oral ibandronate (a single cycle was defined as a 50 mg capsule once daily for 28 days) with a median of 12 cycles (range 6-24). At a median follow-up of 18.5 months (range 6-28) the mean pain score decreased from 1.59 (SD+/-0.97) at baseline to 0.41 (SD+/-0.72) after 48 weeks of treatment. The mean analgesic score was 1.89 (SD+/-1.37) at baseline and 1.46 (SD+/-1.62) after 48 weeks of treatment. Ibandronate was generally well-tolerated; we had no Grade 3-4 adverse events. No patients had deterioration of renal function. No patients developed bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw. Our experience confirmed that ibandronate may be a useful and safe co-analgesic to conventional treatments for bone pain in selected metastatic breast cancer patients.

Renal function changes and NHS resource use in breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease treated with IV zoledronic acid or oral ibandronic acid: a four-centre non-interventional study

AIMS

To describe renal function monitoring practice in patients with metastatic bone disease (MBD) treated with IV zoledronic acid (ZA) and oral ibandronic acid (IA), the management pathways and NHS hospital resources used.

METHODS

Medical records of 189 patients; IA (91), ZA (98) with primary breast cancer and MBD were reviewed, and data collected on renal monitoring and hospital visits during bisphosphonate therapy. Time and motion review of resources to administer the bisphosphonates was also conducted.

RESULTS

Only 30% of patients given ZA and no patient given IA had baseline creatinine clearance (CrCl) recorded. Calculated baseline CrCl suggested impaired renal function in 33% ZA and 29% IA patients. Dose reductions were not made correctly in 29 ZA and 2 IA patients whose monitoring suggested it. ZA patients made more clinic and day care attendances than IA-treated patients, at twice the cost. Staff activity and patient time per visit was higher with ZA than IA.

CONCLUSION

Although limited by retrospective design, these results demonstrate that in many patients, CrCl is not calculated before or during treatment with bisphosphonates. Renal function deteriorated in many patients during therapy. In view of these effects, practice should be reviewed to ensure appropriate dosing.

Is there a role for ibandronate in the treatment of prostate cancer patients with bony metastases?

PURPOSE

Zoledronic acid is widely accepted as the treatment of choice for a number of cancers which metastasise to bone and is the only bisphosphonate licensed for the treatment of prostate cancer. However, drug related nephrotoxicity, although rare, does pose a significant complication when using zoledronic acid. Prostate cancer patients are generally older than 65 years of age and already exhibit some form of impaired renal function. Thus, for prostate cancer patients who are unable to tolerate zoledronic acid there is a need for an alternative bisphosphonate. One possibility could be ibandronate which is also a potent third generation, nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate and is an attractive choice for some patients due to the fact it is available in both intravenous and oral preparations.

METHODS

This article reviews the current published literature regarding the use of ibandronate in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Preliminary data emerging from small Phase II studies suggests ibandronate may provide a therapeutic alternative for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer when zoledronic acid is deemed unsuitable.

CONCLUSION

Further in vivo research with ibandronate in prostate cancer is urgently needed in order to elucidate whether this bisphosphonate may play a role in the treatment and palliative management of metastatic prostate cancer.

Sagopilone inhibits breast cancer bone metastasis and bone destruction due to simultaneous inhibition of both tumor growth and bone resorption

PURPOSE

Bone metastases have a considerable impact on quality of life in patients with breast and other cancers. Tumors produce osteoclast-activating factors, whereas bone resorption promotes the growth of tumor cells, thus leading to a "vicious cycle" of bone metastasis. Sagopilone, a novel, fully synthetic epothilone, inhibits the growth of breast cancer cells in vitro and in vivo, and here we report its activity in the MDA-MB-231(SA) breast cancer bone metastasis mouse model.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The potency of sagopilone was determined in treatment models simulating the adjuvant (preventive) and metastatic (therapeutic) settings in the clinic.

RESULTS

We showed that sagopilone inhibited tumor burden and bone destruction, in addition to reducing tumor-induced cachexia and paraplegia. The reduction in osteolytic lesions, tumor growth in bone, and weight loss was statistically significant in the preventive model compared with the vehicle group. In the therapeutic model, sagopilone treatment significantly lowered the number of activated osteoclasts and significantly reduced the osteolytic lesion area, bone volume loss, and bone resorption compared with vehicle treatment while simultaneously inhibiting tumor burden. An in vitro assay confirmed that sagopilone inhibited osteoclast activation without cytotoxic effects, whereas paclitaxel resulted in lower inhibition and high levels of cytotoxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Sagopilone seems to inhibit the vicious cycle at both the tumor growth and bone resorption stages, suggesting the possibility for substantial benefit in the treatment of patients with breast cancer at risk from bone metastases or with bone lesions already present. Phase II clinical trials with sagopilone in patients with breast cancer are ongoing.

Pharmacotherapy of bone metastases in breast cancer patients

A diagnosis of bone metastases is often a devastating occurrence in breast cancer patients. Bone metastases are associated with increased morbidity as reflected through pain, reduced quality of life and skeletal-related events. This paper reviews the role of different pharmacotherapeutic agents in the treatment of bone metastases from breast cancer. Randomised controlled trials of osteoclast-inhibiting agents, that is the bisphosphonates, have shown significant patient benefit. The aims of bisphosphonates are to prevent and delay skeletal-related events, reduce bone pain and improve quality of life. However, there are some limitations with bisphosphonate treatment. Biochemical markers of bone turnover seem to be a promising tool in guiding bisphosphonate treatment and future research directions. Hopefully, patient management will be further improved as new agents become available such as denosumab, osteoprotegerin analogues and anti-angiogenic agents.

Loading doses for costly cancer biologicals: sound pharmacology or unnecessary extravagance?

The rising cost of new molecularly-targeted anticancer drugs has become a major issue in oncology. One small but significant factor contributing to this problem is the routine co-administration of loading doses, which may inflate the cost of the first treatment by as much as US$1000. Here, we question the cost-effectiveness of this practice in cancer patients on several grounds, including non-urgent pace of disease, lack of evidence for survival benefit, weak dose-dependency of biopharmaceutical efficacy in cancer and the unproven validity of the 'volume of distribution' concept applied to target-specific drugs.

Effects of the bisphosphonate ibandronate on hyperalgesia, substance P, and cytokine levels in a rat model of persistent inflammatory pain

The anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties of different bisphosphonates have been demonstrated in both animal and human studies. Ibandronate is a third-generation bisphosphonate effective in managing different types of bone pain. In this study we investigated its effects in a standard pre-clinical model of inflammatory pain. We evaluated the effects of a single injection of different doses (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg/kg i.p.) of ibandronate on inflammatory oedema and cutaneous hyperalgesia produced by the intraplantar injection of complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA) in the rat hind-paw. In addition, we measured the effects of this drug (1.0 mg/kg i.p.) on hind-paw levels of different pro-inflammatory mediators (PGE-2, SP, TNF-alpha, and IL-1beta). We also measured the levels of SP protein and of its mRNA in the ipsilateral dorsal root ganglia (DRG). Ibandronate proved able to reduce the inflammatory oedema, the hyperalgesia to mechanical stimulation, and the levels of SP in the inflamed tissue as measured 3 and 7 days following CFA-injection. This drug significantly reduced the levels of TNF-alpha and IL-1beta only on day 7. On the other hand, the levels of PGE-2 in the inflamed hind-paw were unaffected by the administration of this bisphosphonate. Finally, ibandronate blocked the overexpression of SP mRNA in DRG induced by CFA-injection in the hind-paw. These data help to complete the pharmacodynamic profile of ibandronate, while also suggesting an involvement of several inflammatory mediators, with special reference to substance P, in the analgesic action of this bisphosphonate.

Management of painful bone metastases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines recent data on the pathophysiology and mechanisms of bone pain; it highlights the use of multiple and interdisciplinary treatments rather than sole use of traditional analgesics.

RECENT FINDINGS

Bone pain has been shown to have a unique pathophysiology. Recent experimental (animal) models have revealed that, parallel to increased bone destruction, ipsilateral spinal cord segments that receive primary input from the cancerous femur exhibit several notable neurochemical changes. These mandate the use of opioid doses sufficient to inhibit the observed nociceptive behaviours; these doses are greater than those required to alleviate pain behaviours of comparable magnitude generated by inflammatory pain. Several substances have been tested in this animal model.

SUMMARY

According to new preclinical data, treatment of bone cancer pain requires multidisciplinary therapies such as radiotherapy applied to the painful area along with systemic treatment (hormone therapy or chemotherapy) and supportive care (analgesic therapy and bisphosphonates). In some selected cases use of radioisotopes and other noninvasive or minimally invasive techniques may be useful in the management of metastatic bone pain. The treatment should be individualized according to the patient's clinical condition, life expectancy, and quality of life.

Zoledronic acid in the management of metastatic bone disease

Bisphosphonate therapy has become a standard of therapy for patients with malignant bone disease. Moreover, in vivo preclinical and preliminary clinical data suggest that bisphosphonates may prevent cancer treatment-induced bone loss and the onset of malignant bone disease in patients with early-stage cancer. This comprehensive review critically reports the several preclinical evidences of action of bisphosphonates on osteoclasts, lymphocytes and tumour cells. In addition, all the clinical trials evaluating the effects of principal bisphosphonates on skeletal disease progression in patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, non-small cell lung cancer and other cancers have been reported. Of the available bisphosphonates, intravenous zoledronic acid has demonstrated the broadest clinical activity and is actually approved for the treatment of bone metastases from any solid tumour in many countries. Renal safety is an important consideration for oncologists who are treating patients with bisphosphonates. This issue and the other topics relating to the safety of bisphosphonates are discussed in this review.