A randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy of bisphosphonates in the management of painful bone metastasis

Management of bone metastasis with zoledronic acid: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

While considered the mainstay of treatment for specific bone metastases, ZA is used predominantly to treat osteolytic lesions. The purpose of this network meta-analysis is to compare ZA to other treatment options in its ability to improve specific clinical outcomes in patients with bone metastases secondary to any primary tumor.

Methods

PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to May 5th, 2022. Keywords used were solid tumor, lung neoplasm, kidney neoplasm, breast neoplasm, prostate neoplasm, ZA and bone metastasis. Every randomized controlled trial and non-randomized quasi-experimental study of systemic ZA administration for patients with bone metastases and any comparator were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was done on the primary outcomes including number of SREs, time to developing a first on-study SRE, overall survival, and disease progression-free survival. Secondary outcome was pain at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment.

Results

Our search yielded 3861 titles with 27 meeting inclusion criteria. For the number of SRE, ZA in combination with chemotherapy or hormone therapy was statistically superior to placebo (OR 0.079; 95 % CrI: 0.022-0.27). For the time to the first on study SRE, the relative effectiveness of ZA 4 mg was statistically superior to placebo (HR 0.58; 95 % CrI:0.48-0.77). At 3 and 6 months, ZA 4 mg was significantly superior to placebo for reducing pain with a SMD of -0.85 (95 % CrI:-1.6, -0.0025) and -2.6 (95 % CrI:-4.7, -0.52) respectively.

Conclusions

This systematic review shows the benefits of ZA in decreasing the incidence of SREs, increasing the time to the first on-study SRE, and reducing the pain level at 3 and 6 months.

Denosumab versus bisphosphonates for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Bone metastases are highly prevalent in breast, prostate, lung and colon cancers. Their symptoms negatively affect quality of life and functionality and optimal management can mitigate these problems. There are two different targeted agents to treat them: bisphosphonates (pamidronate and zoledronic acid) and the monoclonal antibody denosumab. Estimates of cost-effectiveness are still mixed.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of economic studies that compares these two options.

METHOD

Literature search comprised eight databases and keywords for bone metastases, bisphosphonates, denosumab, and economic studies were used. Data were extracted regarding their methodologic characteristics and cost-effectiveness analyses. All studies were evaluated regarding to its methodological quality.

RESULTS

A total of 263 unique studies were retrieved and six met inclusion criteria. All studies were based on clinical trials and other existing literature data, and they had high methodological quality. Most found unfavorable cost-effectiveness for denosumab compared with zoledronic acid, with adjusted ICERS that ranged from $4638-87,354 per SRE avoided and from US$57,274-4.81 M. per QALY gained, which varied widely according to type of tumor, time horizon, among others. Results were sensitive to drug costs, time to first skeletal-related event (SRE), time horizon, and utility.

CONCLUSIONS

Denosumab had unfavorable cost-effectiveness compared with zoledronic acid in most of the included studies. New economic studies based on real-world data and longer time horizons comparing these therapeutic options are needed.

Global cancer pain management: a systematic review comparing trials in Africa, Europe and North America

AIM

Despite the rise in cancer survivorship, few reviews have examined the quality of studies of cancer pain management and practices around the globe. With a void in trials spanning multiple geographical settings, this review evaluates the quality of cancer trials across three continents.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A literature review and search of established databases was conducted to identify eligible studies. The Cochrane method, the Jadad Score and a cancer pain-specific ad hoc tool were used to evaluate quality of studies.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies representing a total of 4693 individuals were included in the review. Study quality correlated positively with study sample size and palliative care index. Trials in all three continents were prone to use opioids for pain management, whereas trials in Europe and North America utilized other adjuvant therapies such as antidepressants and steroids.

CONCLUSION

This review underscores the need for better multidimensional quality assessment tools for cancer pain trials.

The role of radiotherapy in bone metastases: A critical review of current literature

Radiotherapy is considered the treatment of choice for painful bone metastases. However, novel modalities of radiotherapy have emerged in the concept of oligometastasic disease. In addition, the increase of overall survival of patients with bone metastatic disease in the last decades due to systemic treatments has issued the silent topic of re-irradiation. The aim of this manuscript was to present a current thorough search of relevant literature. Originally, 6,087 articles revealed from PubMed database related to radiotherapy and bone metastases. The first objective was to identify prospective randomised phase III studies dealing with bone metastases and which treated primary with radiotherapy. Abstracts and non-English citations were excluded. Twenty-three phase III clinical trials, 17 prospective studies and eight meta-analysis/systemic reviews matching with these criteria, were identified. Eleven randomised studies were comparing single dose fraction to multi-fraction schedules of radiotherapy. The overall response rates and complete response rates were not significant between the two arms. Re-irradiations rates were significantly higher for the single dose fraction arms. Stereotactic radiotherapy showed excellent tumour control rates more than 80%. All trials showed the equivalence of either single or multi-fractionated radiotherapy for metastatic bone lesions. Stereotactic irradiation is feasible and safe for oligometastatic disease. However, it seems that the single fraction of 8 Gy is superior to 4 Gy, in terms of efficacy.

Palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases: Update of an ASTRO Evidence-Based Guideline

PURPOSE

The purpose is to provide an update the Bone Metastases Guideline published in 2011 based on evidence complemented by expert opinion. The update will discuss new high-quality literature for the 8 key questions from the original guideline and implications for practice.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A systematic PubMed search from the last date included in the original Guideline yielded 414 relevant articles. Ultimately, 20 randomized controlled trials, 32 prospective nonrandomized studies, and 4 meta-analyses/pooled analyses were selected and abstracted into evidence tables. The authors synthesized the evidence and reached consensus on the included recommendations.

RESULTS

Available literature continues to support pain relief equivalency between single and multiple fraction regimens for bone metastases. High-quality data confirm single fraction radiation therapy may be delivered to spine lesions with acceptable late toxicity. One prospective, randomized trial confirms both peripheral and spine-based painful metastases can be successfully and safely palliated with retreatment for recurrence pain with adherence to published dosing constraints. Advanced radiation therapy techniques such as stereotactic body radiation therapy lack high-quality data, leading the panel to favor its use on a clinical trial or when results will be collected in a registry. The panel's conclusion remains that surgery, radionuclides, bisphosphonates, and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty do not obviate the need for external beam radiation therapy.

CONCLUSION

Updated data analysis confirms that radiation therapy provides excellent palliation for painful bone metastases and that retreatment is safe and effective. Although adherence to evidence-based medicine is critical, thorough expert radiation oncology physician judgment and discretion regarding number of fractions and advanced techniques are also essential to optimize outcomes when considering the patient's overall health, life expectancy, comorbidities, tumor biology, anatomy, previous treatment including prior radiation at or near current site of treatment, tumor and normal tissue response history to local and systemic therapies, and other factors related to the patient, tumor characteristics, or treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Zoledronic Acid and Pamidronate Disodium in the Treatment of Malignant Skeletal Metastasis: A Meta-Analysis

Solid tumors frequently metastasize to bone. Two bisphosphonates have been investigated for bone metastases including pamidronate disodium and zoledronic acid.By searching the PubMed, Embase, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in reducing pain in patients with bone metastases.Studies were pooled, and the relative risk (RR) and its corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Version 12.0 STATA software was used for statistical analysis. Twenty relevant articles were included for this meta-analysis study.The complete response rate in cancer patients treatment with zoledronic acid was significantly higher than that with pamidronate disodium (relative risk [RR] = 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.75]; P = 0.987, I = 0%). However, there was no significant difference in the rate of partial response rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.90-1.20; P = 0.942, I = 0%) and in the total effective rate (RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.00-1.12; P = 0.998, I = 0%). For adverse events (AE), the incidence of headache in cancer patients with zoledronic acid was significantly lower than that with pamidronate disodium (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.96; P = 0.793, I = 0%). There was no significant difference in nausea or vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.92-1.09; P = 0.494, I = 0%), fever (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.85-1.14; P =0.633, I = 0%), fatigue (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.91-1.11; P = 0.914, I = 0%) and anorexia (RR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.91-1.87; P = 0.024, I = 64.4%).In conclusion, this meta-analysis indicates that treatment with zoledronic acid was more effective than pamidronate disodium in the complete response assessments and the incidence of headache, an AE, was significantly lower in cancer patients with zoledronic acid.

Ibandronate to treat skeletal-related events and bone pain in metastatic bone disease or multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have given contradictory results about the efficacy and safety of ibandronate in treating metastatic bone disease (MBD) or multiple myeloma. This review meta-analysed the literature to gain a more comprehensive picture.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ibandronate compared with placebo or zoledronate.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify RCTs published up to March 2015 evaluating ibandronate to treat MBD or multiple myeloma.

REVIEW METHOD

10 RCTs involving 3474 patients were included. Six RCTs were placebo-controlled and four compared ibandronate with zoledronate. The studies included in this review were mainly from European countries.

RESULTS

Intravenous ibandronate (6 mg) or oral drug (50 mg) decreased the risk of skeletal-related events compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90, p=0.002). It also reduced the bone pain score below baseline significantly more than did placebo at 96 weeks (weighted mean difference -0.41, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.27, p<0.001). The incidence of diarrhoea, nausea and adverse renal events was similar between the ibandronate and placebo groups, but ibandronate was associated with greater risk of abdominal pain. Ibandronate was associated with similar risk of skeletal-related events as another bisphosphonate drug, zoledronate (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26, p=0.87). The incidence of nausea, jaw osteonecrosis and fatigue was similar for the two drugs, but the incidence of adverse renal events was significantly lower in the ibandronate group.

CONCLUSIONS

Ibandronate significantly reduces the incidence of skeletal-related events and bone pain in patients with MBD or multiple myeloma relative to placebo. It is associated with a similar incidence of skeletal-related events as zoledronate.

Bone metastases in well-to-moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumors: a single institutional review from the Ohio State University Medical Center

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we look at the clinical features associated with bone metastasis in patients with well-to-moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), specifically primary tumor characteristics, complications, elevated hormone levels, and survival.

METHODS

A retrospective study at the Ohio State University was performed on patients diagnosed with well-to-moderately differentiated NETs from 2000 to 2010 who were found to have bone metastases. A control group of patients with metastatic NETs without bone metastases was matched with regard to demographic and clinical data.

RESULTS

Of 341 patients with well-to-moderately differentiated NETs, 40 patients were found with bone metastases within the 10-year study period. Patients with bone metastases had shorter survival (median, 52 months) compared to the control group (median, 98 months; P = 0.024). Of 26 patients with bone metastases who died, 6 (23%) patients had a cause of death related to their bone metastatic disease. There were 8 patients with spinal cord compression, and 6 with pathologic fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that patients with well-to-moderately differentiated NETs metastatic to bone have larger tumors, more frequently elevated pancreastatin, and shorter survival than patients without bone metastases, with complications of bone metastases significantly contributing to mortality and morbidity.

An Exploratory Analysis of Levels of Evidence for Articles Published in Indian Journal of Palliative Care in the years 2010-2011

CONTEXT

Indian Journal of Palliative Care (IJPC) provides a comprehensive multidisciplinary evidence base for an evidence-informed clinical decision making.

AIMS

To analyze the levels of evidence of articles published in IJPC in the years 2010-2011.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Systematic review of palliative care journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic review of articles was done and was scored according to Center for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence into any of the five grades. The articles were categorized based upon article type, number of authors, study approach, age focus, population focus, disease focus, goals of care, domains of care, models of care, and year of publication.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

All descriptive analysis was done using frequencies and percentiles, and association between all categorical variables was done using Chi-square test at 95% confidence interval (CI) using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16 for Windows (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL).

RESULTS

There was a greater prevalence of low level evidence (level 4: n = 46, 51%; level 5: n = 35, 39%) among the 90 selected articles, and article type (original articles with higher level of evidence, P = 0.000), article approach (analytical studies with higher level of evidence, P = 0.000), domains of palliative care (practice-related studies with higher level of evidence, P = 0.000) and models of care (biological or psychosocial model with higher level of evidence, P = 0.044) had a significant association with the grade of levels of evidence. Association with other factors was not statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The levels of research evidence for palliative care provided by articles published in IJPC were predominantly level 4 and level 5, and there is scope for more high quality evidence to inform palliative care decisions in the developing countries.