Importance of antiresorptive therapies for patients with bone metastases from solid tumors

Molecular mechanisms and targeted therapy for the metastasis of prostate cancer to the bones (Review)

The incidence of prostate cancer (PCa) is increasing, making it one of the prevalent malignancies among men. Metastasis of PCa to the bones poses the greatest danger to patients, potentially resulting in treatment ineffectiveness and mortality. At present, the management of patients with bone metastasis focuses primarily on providing palliative care. Research has indicated that the spread of PCa to the bones occurs through the participation of numerous molecules and their respective pathways. Gaining knowledge regarding the molecular processes involved in bone metastasis may result in the development of innovative and well‑tolerated therapies, ultimately enhancing the quality of life and prognosis of patients. The present article provides the latest overview of the molecular mechanisms involved in the formation of bone metastatic tumors from PCa. Additionally, the clinical outcomes of targeted drug therapies for bone metastasis are thoroughly analyzed. Finally, the benefits and difficulties of targeted therapy for bone metastasis of PCa are discussed, aiming to offer fresh perspectives for treatment.

The low and disproportionate utilization of antiresorptive therapy in patients with osseous metastasis

Introduction

Antiresorptive therapies are commonly utilized to mitigate and prevent skeletal-related-events in patients with metastatic osseous disease. However, limited data exists on the incidence or factors associated with prescription of antiresorptives or their effects on the incidence of pathologic fractures in patients with osseous metastatic disease. The aims of this study were to determine 1) the proportion of patients with osseous metastasis who receive antiresorptive therapy and sustain a pathologic fracture within 2-years of a new diagnosis, 2) factors associated with sustaining a pathologic fracture, and 3) factors are associated with the likelihood of receiving antiresorptive therapy.

Methods

Between January 2010 and October 2021, 1,492,301 patients with a new diagnosis of osseous metastasis were captured in the Mariner dataset of the PearlDiver database. Patients were identified using International Classification of Disease (ICD) 10 codes for osseous metastasis. We excluded patients with a prior diagnosis of osseous metastasis and if they had less than two-years of follow-up. There were 696,459 patients (46.7 %) included for analysis. Of these patients, 63 % (N = 437,716) were over the age of 65, 46 % were women, and 5.6 % had Medicaid insurance. We identified patients who were prescribed antiresorptive therapy within 2-years of a new diagnosis of osseous metastasis. Cox proportional hazard ratio models were created to predict factors associated with 1) pathologic fracture and 2) receiving antiresorptive therapy within 2-years of a new diagnosis of osseous metastasis, respectively.

Results

The incidence of antiresorptive therapy prescription was 7.7 % in our cohort. The incidence of pathologic fracture within 2-years of a new diagnosis was 7.3 %. The risk of sustaining a pathologic fracture was higher for patients aged 35-44 (HR 1.27 [95 % CI 1.08-1.51]; p = 0.004), those with primary kidney cancer (HR 1.78 [95 % CI 1.71-1.85]; p < 0.001), p = 0.005), multiple myeloma (HR 2.49 [95 % CI 2.39-2.59]; p < 0.001), and Medicaid insurance (HR 1.17 [95 % CI 1.13-1.21]; p < 0.001). The risk of sustaining a pathologic fracture was lower for patients on antiresorptive therapy (HR 0.71 [95 % CI 0.66-0.83]; p < 0.001). Increasing age was an independent predictor for antiresorptive therapy prescription (HR 1.77-16.38, all p < 0.05). Male sex as well as diagnosis of primary prostate, lung, or kidney cancer and Medicaid insurance were negative predictors for antiresorptive prescription (HR 0.15-0.87, all p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The utilization of antiresorptive therapy in patients with osseous metastases remains unacceptably low, with only 7.7% patients being prescribed these therapies, despite shown efficacy in reduction of pathologic fractures incidences. This study identified younger patients, males, and those diagnosed with primary prostate, kidney, and lung cancers to be at increased risk of not being prescribed antiresorptive therapy, suggesting possible bias in prescription patterns. Greater efforts are needed by providers who care for this vulnerable population to increase the utilization and reduce disparities of prescribing antiresorptive therapy.

Biomarkers for Prostate Cancer Bone Metastasis Detection and Prediction

Prostate cancer (PCa) causes deaths worldwide, ranking second after lung cancer. Bone metastasis (BM) frequently results from advanced PCa, affecting approximately 90% of patients, and it also often results in severe skeletal-related events. Traditional diagnostic methods for bone metastases, such as tissue biopsies and imaging, have substantial drawbacks. This article summarizes the significance of biomarkers in PCa accompanied with BM, including (1) bone formation markers like osteopontin (OPN), pro-collagen type I C-terminal pro-peptide (PICP), osteoprotegerin (OPG), pro-collagen type I N-terminal pro-peptide (PINP), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and osteocalcin (OC); (2) bone resorption markers, including C-telopeptide of type I collagen (CTx), N-telopeptide of type I collagen (NTx), bone sialoprotein (BSP), tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRACP), deoxypyridinoline (D-PYD), pyridoxine (PYD), and C-terminal pyridinoline cross-linked telopeptide of type I collagen (ICTP); (3) prostate-specific antigen (PSA); (4) neuroendocrine markers, such as chromogranin A (CgA), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), and pro-gastrin releasing peptide (ProGRP); (5) liquid biopsy markers, such as circulating tumor cells (CTCs), microRNA (miRNA), circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and exosomes. In summary, some of these markers are already in widespread clinical use, while others still require further laboratory or clinical studies to validate their value for clinical application.

Synergistic combination treatment to break cross talk between cancer cells and bone cells to inhibit progression of bone metastasis

Advanced-stage cancers often metastasize to bone, and is the major cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Due to poor biodistribution of intravenously administered anticancer drugs within the bone, chemotherapy is not optimally effective in treating bone metastasis. Additionally, overexpression of receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand (RANKL) in the bone microenvironment drives the vicious, destructive cycle of progression of bone metastasis and bone resorption. We hypothesized that the combination treatment - with docetaxel (TXT), an anticancer drug encapsulated in sustained release biodegradable nanoparticles (TXT-NPs) that are designed to localize in bone marrow, and denosumab monoclonal antibody (DNmb), which binds to RANKL - could be more effective than either treatment alone. We tested our hypothesis in intraosseous prostate cancer (PC-3) cell-induced osteolytic mouse model of bone metastasis with treatments given intravenously. The results demonstrated better efficacy with TXT-NPs than with TXT-CrEL or saline control in inhibiting progression of metastasis and improving survival. TXT-NPs showed ~3-fold higher drug levels in metastasized bone tissue at 1 wk post-administration than TXT-CrEL, thus explaining their efficacy. However, the combination treatment (TXT-NPs + DNmb) given simultaneously was significantly more effective in inhibiting metastatic progression; it caused early tumor regression and improved survival, and caused no body weight loss or tumor relapse, even when the treatment was discontinued, whereas TXT-NPs or DNmb alone treatments showed tumor relapse after an initial regression. Micro-CT analysis of the bone from the combination treatment showed no bone loss and normal bone mineral content, bone density, and bone volume fraction, whereas TXT-NPs or DNmb alone treatments showed bone loss. Confirming the above results, histochemical analysis of the bone from the combination treatment demonstrated normal bone morphology, and osteoblast and osteoclast cell activities. In conclusion, TXT-NPs and DNmb in combination, because of their complementary roles in breaking the cross talk between cancer cells and bone cells, was significantly effective in treating bone metastasis.

Loss of Myeloid-Specific TGF-β Signaling Decreases CTHRC1 to Downregulate bFGF and the Development of H1993-Induced Osteolytic Bone Lesions

The role of myeloid cell-specific TGF-β signaling in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)-induced osteolytic bone lesion development is unknown. We used a genetically engineered mouse model, Tgfbr2^LysMCre knockout (KO), which has a loss of TGF-β signaling specifically in myeloid lineage cells, and we found that the area of H1993 cell-induced osteolytic bone lesions was decreased in Tgfbr2^LysMCre KO mice, relative to the area in control littermates. The bone lesion areas were correlated with tumor cell proliferation, angiogenesis, and osteoclastogenesis in the microenvironment. The smaller bone lesion area was partially rescued by bFGF, which was expressed by osteoblasts. Interestingly, bFGF was able to rescue the osteoclastogenesis, but not the tumor cell proliferation or angiogenesis. We then focused on identifying osteoclast factors that regulate bFGF expression in osteoblasts. We found that the expression and secretion of CTHRC1 was downregulated in osteoclasts from Tgfbr2^LysMCre KO mice; CTHRC1 was able to promote bFGF expression in osteoblasts, possibly through the Wnt/β-catenin pathway. Functionally, bFGF stimulated osteoclastogenesis and inhibited osteoblastogenesis, but had no effect on H1993 cell proliferation. On the other hand, CTHRC1 promoted osteoblastogenesis and H1993 cell proliferation. Together, our data show that myeloid-specific TGF-β signaling promoted osteolytic bone lesion development and bFGF expression in osteoblasts; that osteoclast-secreted CTHRC1 stimulated bFGF expression in osteoblasts in a paracrine manner; and that CTHRC1 and bFGF had different cell-specific functions that contributed to bone lesion development.

Inhibition of bone loss with surface-modulated, drug-loaded nanoparticles in an intraosseous model of prostate cancer

Advanced-stage prostate cancer usually metastasizes to bone and is untreatable due to poor biodistribution of intravenously administered anticancer drugs to bone. In this study, we modulated the surface charge/composition of biodegradable nanoparticles (NPs) to sustain their blood circulation time and made them small enough to extravasate through the openings of the bone's sinusoidal capillaries and thus localize into marrow. NPs with a neutral surface charge, achieved by modulating the NP surface-associated emulsifier composition, were more effective at localizing to bone marrow than NPs with a cationic or anionic surface charge. These small neutral NPs (~150nm vs. the more usual ~320nm) were also ~7-fold more effective in localizing in bone marrow than large NPs. We hypothesized that NPs that effectively localize to marrow could improve NP-mediated anticancer drug delivery to sites of bone metastasis, thereby inhibiting cancer progression and preventing bone loss. In a PC-3M-luc cell-induced osteolytic intraosseous model of prostate cancer, these small neutral NPs demonstrated greater accumulation in bone within metastatic sites than in normal contralateral bone as well as co-localization with the tumor mass in marrow. Significantly, a single-dose intravenous administration of these small neutral NPs loaded with paclitaxel (PTX-NPs), but not anionic PTX-NPs, slowed the progression of bone metastasis. In addition, neutral PTX-NPs prevented bone loss, whereas animals treated with the rapid-release drug formulation Cremophor EL (PTX-CrEL) or saline (control) showed >50% bone loss. Neutral PTX-NPs did not cause acute toxicity, whereas animals treated with PTX-CrEL experienced weight loss. These results indicate that NPs with appropriate physical and sustained drug-release characteristics could be explored to treat bone metastasis, a significant clinical issue in prostate and other cancers.

Prevention and treatment of bone fragility in cancer patient

It is well known that fractures increase the risk of morbidity and mortality. The various mechanisms responsible for bone loss in cancer patients may have a different impact depending on the characteristics of the clinical case and correlates with the therapies used, or caused by the therapies used against cancer. Some hormonal treatments cause hypogonadism, event which contributes to the progressive loss of bone mass. This is detectable in patients with breast cancer receiving determines that estrogen-deprivation and in men with prostate cancer with therapies that determine androgen deprivation. Chemotherapy treatments used in cancer patients have reduced bone mass. In addition, low bone mass is detectable in patients with lymphoma treated with corticosteroids or radiation or alkylating agents. In premenopausal patients suffering from breast cancer, treatment with cytotoxic therapy or ablation of ovarian function, can lead to an 8% reduction in bone mineral density at the spine and 4% in the femur. With a chemotherapy regimen in CMF, the reduction of BMD is 6.5%; this bone loss is not recovered after discontinuation of therapy. Tamoxifen given for five years reduces bone remodeling and cause a 32% increase in the risk of osteoporotic fractures when used in premenopausal. After menopause, tamoxifen has a protective effect on bone mass, with a reduced risk of new fractures. Aromatase inhibitors in post-menopausal women, depending on the formulation can cause different effects on the reduction of BMD and fracture risk. We have in fact steroids, exemestane and nonsteroidal, letrozole and anastrozole. Patients at increased risk of fragility fractures should undergo preventive therapies as soon as possible after tests performed for the study of bone health. They can be used DEXA and the FRAX algorithm, which can define a secondary osteoporosis. Prevention and treatment of the increased risk of osteoporotic fracture is to maintain adequate levels of calcium and vitamin D. Bisphosphonates and denosumab are used for the management of bone remodeling and bone loss induced by cancer treatments. Bisphosphonates also have anti-tumor effects per se, which are expressed in potentially prevent the development of bone metastases. In men with metastatic prostate cancer and which is induced androgen deprivation, it is usefully used denosumab 120 mg monthly or zoledronic acid 4 mg monthly.