Pamidronate disodium failed to demonstrate a significant overall treatment benefit compared with placebo in palliation of bone pain or reduction of SREs. Evaluation of more potent bisphosphonates in patients with prostate cancer is warranted.

Bisphosphonates are the treatment of choice for lytic bone lesions associated with breast cancer. In contrast, bone lesions associated with prostate cancer are predominately osteoblastic. Zoledonic acid (Zol) is a new-generation bisphosphonate that is approximately 2-3 orders of magnitude more potent than pamidronate (Pam) in preclinical models and has demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with both lytic and blastic lesions. Zoledonic acid (4 mg via 15 min infusion) every 3-4 weeks was directly compared to Pam (90 mg via 2 hr infusion) in 767 patients with breast cancer and bone metastases. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing a skeletal-related event (SRE) over 13 months. Zoledonic acid was as effective as Pam, and the proportion of Zol-treated patients with an SRE (42% in the hormonal therapy strata and 44% in the chemotherapy strata) was comparable to the original studies comparing Pam to placebo. Among 371 breast cancer patients receiving hormonal therapy, the proportion of patients with an SRE was 47% for Pam vs. 57% for placebo (P = 0.057), and among 380 patients treated with chemotherapy, the proportions with an SRE were 43% for Pam vs. 56% for placebo (P = 0.008) at 12 months. Zoledronic acid (4 mg) has been compared to placebo in a randomized Phase III trial involving 422 men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer metastatic to bone. Zoledonic acid demonstrated a significant advantage over placebo for median time to first SRE (median not reached for Zol vs. 321 days for placebo; P = 0.011), the proportion of patients with an SRE over 15 months (33 vs. 44% for placebo; P = 0.021), and mean skeletal morbidity rate (number of SREs/time, 0.08 vs. 1.49 for placebo; P = 0.006). In addition, the effects of Zol were apparent early. At 3 months, only 12% of Zol-treated patients had an SRE vs. 23% for placebo (P = 0.003), and at 6 months, the proportions were 21 vs. 31% for placebo (P = 0.025). In contrast, a previous study of Pam in 236 prostate cancer patients found that Pam was no more effective than placebo in reducing bone pain or SREs over 6 months. In these studies, Zol was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to other IV bisphosphonates. In conclusion, Zol is the first bisphosphonate to demonstrate efficacy in both lytic and blastic disease. The unique properties of this novel agent should be further explored in future clinical trials.

Pamidronate is a second-generation bisphosphonate that undergoes negligible biodegradation and is eliminated exclusively by renal excretions. Nineteen cancer patients were stratified according to baseline creatinine clearance (Clcr): group I, Clcr > 90 mL/min (n = 6); group II, Clcr 61 mL/min to 90 mL/min (n = 6); group III, Clcr 30 mL/min to 60 mL/min (n = 3); group IV, Clcr < 30 mL/min (n = 4). All patients received a single, 90-mg dose of pamidronate disodium administered in a 4-hour intravenous infusion. Plasma and urine samples were collected at intervals up to 36 and 120 hours, respectively, after the start of infusion and were assayed for pamidronate, using validated high-performance liquid chromatography. Pamidronate's pharmacokinetics were characterized by a short distribution phase (2-3 hours) followed by rapid elimination of the drug in urine. Elimination of pamidronate was slower in patients in group IV with a mean +/- standard deviation area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0-36) of 19.0 +/- 4.60 micrograms.hr/mL compared with 8.1 +/- 3.13 micrograms.hr/mL in patients in group I. A linear relationship in Clcr was observed for AUC0-36 (r = 0.67), urinary excretion (r = 0.69), and renal clearance (r = 0.81). Renal clearance was proportional to Clcr for patients in all four renal-function groups. In the treatment of bone metastases of malignancy, successive doses of pamidronate are generally separated by weeks; thus, plasma accumulation in patients with renal impairment is not expected to be clinically relevant. A reduction in dose of pamidronate disodium should not be necessary in cancer patients with renal impairment.