There are three distinct areas of cancer management that make bone health in cancer patients of increasing clinical importance. First, bone metastases are common in many solid tumours, notably those arising from the breast, prostate and lung, as well as multiple myeloma, and may cause major morbidity including fractures, severe pain, nerve compression and hypercalcaemia. Through optimum multidisciplinary management of patients with bone metastases, including the use of bone-targeted treatments such as potent bisphosphonates or denosumab, it has been possible to transform the course of advanced cancer for many patients resulting in a major reduction in skeletal complications, reduced bone pain and improved quality of life. Secondly, many of the treatments we use to treat cancer patients have effects on reproductive hormones, which are critical for the maintenance of normal bone remodelling. This endocrine disturbance results in accelerated bone loss and an increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures that can have a significant negative impact on the lives of the rapidly expanding number of long-term cancer survivors. Finally, the bone marrow micro-environment is also intimately involved in the metastatic processes required for cancer dissemination, and there are emerging data showing that, at least in some clinical situations, the use of bone-targeted treatments can reduce metastasis to bone and has potential impact on patient survival.

No abstract

Bisphosphonates (BP) prevent, reduce, and delay cancer-related skeletal complications in patients, and have substantially decreased the prevalence of such events since their introduction. Today, a broad range of BP with differences in potency, efficacy, dosing, and administration as well as approved indications is available. In addition, results of clinical trials investigating the efficacy of BP in cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) have been recently published. The purpose of this paper is to review the current evidence on the use of BP in solid tumours and provide clinical recommendations. An interdisciplinary expert panel of clinical oncologists and of specialists in metabolic bone diseases assessed the widespread evidence and information on the efficacy of BP in the metastatic and nonmetastatic setting, as well as ongoing research on the adjuvant use of BP. Based on available evidence, the panel recommends amino-bisphosphonates for patients with metastatic bone disease from breast cancer and zoledronic acid for patients with other solid tumours as primary disease. Dosing of BP should follow approved indications with adjustments if necessary. While i.v. administration is most often preferable, oral administration (clodronate, IBA) may be considered for breast cancer patients who cannot or do not need to attend regular hospital care. Early-stage cancer patients at risk of developing CTIBL should be considered for preventative BP treatment. The strongest evidence in this setting is now available for ZOL. Overall, BP are well-tolerated, and most common adverse events are influenza-like syndrome, arthralgia, and when used orally, gastrointestinal symptoms. The dose of BP may need to be adapted to renal function and initial creatinine clearance calculation is mandatory according to the panel for use of any BP. Subsequent monitoring is recommended for ZOL and PAM, as described by the regulatory authority guidelines. Patients scheduled to receive BP (mainly every 3-4 weeks i.v.) should have a dental examination and be advised on appropriate measures for reducing the risk of jaw osteonecrosis. BP are well established as supportive therapy to reduce the frequency and severity of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from different cancers.

No abstract

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits bone resorption by neutralizing RANKL, a key mediator of osteoclast formation, function, and survival. This phase 3, multicenter, doubleblind study compared the efficacy and safety of denosumab with alendronate in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. One thousand one hundred eighty-nine postmenopausal women with a T-score Յ −2.0 at the lumbar spine or total hip were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous denosumab injections (60 mg every 6 mo [Q6M]) plus oral placebo weekly (n ‫ס‬ 594) or oral alendronate weekly (70 mg) plus subcutaneous placebo injections Q6M (n ‫ס‬ 595). Changes in BMD were assessed at the total hip, femoral neck, trochanter, lumbar spine, and one-third radius at 6 and 12 mo and in bone turnover markers at months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse events and laboratory values. At the total hip, denosumab significantly increased BMD compared with alendronate at month 12 (3.5% versus 2.6%; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, significantly greater increases in BMD were observed with denosumab treatment at all measured skeletal sites (12-mo treatment difference: 0.6%, femoral neck; 1.0%, trochanter; 1.1%, lumbar spine; 0.6%, one-third radius; p Յ 0.0002 all sites). Denosumab treatment led to significantly greater reduction of bone turnover markers compared with alendronate therapy. Adverse events and laboratory values were similar for denosumab-and alendronate-treated subjects. Denosumab showed significantly larger gains in BMD and greater reduction in bone turnover markers compared with alendronate. The overall safety profile was similar for both treatments.

An important goal of any therapeutic intervention is to achieve comparable efficacy in routine clinical practice to that demonstrated in randomised clinical trials. However, a similar magnitude of adherence will be necessary in routine clinical practice to assure comparable clinical effects. Our results further support the data on suboptimal adherence of women with breast cancer on adjuvant TAM treatment. Here, we evaluated for the first time the patient reported and real-world adherence on adjuvant ANA and were able to show a similarly low adherence compared with TAM. More prospective studies are needed to increase our understanding of the underlying reasons for nonadherence in women with breast cancer.

BackgroundSeveral guidelines have been reported for bone-directed treatment in women with early breast cancer (EBC) for averting fractures, particularly during aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Recently, a number of studies on additional fracture related risk factors, new treatment options as well as real world studies demonstrating a much higher fracture rate than suggested by randomized clinical controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, this updated algorithm was developed to better assess fracture risk and direct treatment as a position statement of several interdisciplinary cancer and bone societies involved in the management of AI-associated bone loss (AIBL).Patients and methodsA systematic literature review identified recent advances in the management of AIBL. Results with individual agents were assessed based on trial design, size, follow-up, and safety.ResultsSeveral fracture related risk factors in patients with EBC were identified. Although, the FRAX algorithm includes fracture risk factors (RF) in addition to BMD, it does not seem to adequately address the effects of AIBL. Several antiresorptive agents can prevent and treat AIBL. However, concerns regarding compliance and long-term safety remain. Overall, the evidence for fracture prevention is strongest for denosumab 60 mg s.c. every 6 months. Additionally, recent studies as well as an individual patient data meta-analysis of all available randomized trial data support additional anticancer benefits from adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal women with a 34% relative risk reduction in bone metastasis and 17% relative risk decrease in breast cancer mortality that needs to be taken into account when advising on management of AIBL.ConclusionsIn all patients initiating AI treatment, fracture risk should be assessed and recommendation with regard to exercise and calcium/vitamin D supplementation given. Bone-directed therapy should be given to all patients with a T-score<−2.0 or with a T-score of <–1.5 SD with one additional RF, or with ≥2 risk factors (without BMD) for the duration of AI treatment. Patients with T-score>−1.5 SD and no risk factors should be managed based on BMD loss during the first year and the local guidelines for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Compliance should be regularly assessed as well as BMD on treatment after 12 - 24 months. Furthermore, because of the decreased incidence of bone recurrence and breast cancer specific mortality, adjuvant bisphosphonates are recommended for all postmenopausal women at significant risk of disease recurrence.

Previous antiresorptive (AR) treatment may influence the response to teriparatide. We examined BMD response and safety in a subgroup of 503 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who received teriparatide for 24 mo. Patients were divided into three groups based on their prior AR treatment: treatmentnaïve (n ‫ס‬ 84); pretreated with no evidence of inadequate treatment response (n ‫ס‬ 134); and pretreated showing an inadequate response to AR treatment (n ‫ס‬ 285), which was predefined based on the occurrence of fractures, persistent low BMD, and/or significant BMD loss while on therapy. Changes in BMD from baseline were analyzed using mixed model repeated measures. Lumbar spine BMD increased significantly from baseline at 6, 12, 18, and 24 mo in all three groups. The mean gain in spine BMD over 24 mo was greater in the treatment-naïve group (0.095 g/cm 2 ; 13.1%) than in the AR pretreated (0.074 g/cm 2 ; 10.2%; p < 0.005) and inadequate AR responder (0.071 g/cm 2 ; 9.8%; p < 0.001) groups. The corresponding increases in total hip BMD were 3.8%, 2.3%, and 2.3%, respectively. Early decreases in hip BMD in the inadequate AR responder group were reversed by 18 mo of treatment. Increases in BMD between 18 and 24 mo were highly significant. Nausea (13.3%) and arthralgia (11.7%) were the most commonly reported adverse events. Asymptomatic hypercalcemia was reported in 5.0% of patients. Teriparatide treatment for 24 mo is associated with a significant increase in BMD in patients with and without previous AR use. Prior AR treatment modestly blunted the BMD response to teriparatide. Safety was consistent with current prescribing label information.