Next Article in Journal
After Radiotherapy, Do Bone Metastases from Gastrointestinal Cancers Show Response Rates Similar to Those of Bone Metastases from Other Primary Cancers?
Previous Article in Journal
Going Beyond Efficacy: Strategies for Cancer Pain Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Current Oncology
Volume 15
Issue s1
10.3747/co.v15i0.205
curroncol-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Current Oncology is published by MDPI from Volume 28 Issue 1 (2021). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Multimed Inc..
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Primer of Bone Metastases Management in Breast Cancer Patients

by
B. Petrut
,
M. Trinkaus
,
C. Simmons
and
M. Clemons
*
Mark Clemons, Breast Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Curr. Oncol. 2008, 15(s1), 50-57; https://doi.org/10.3747/co.v15i0.205
Submission received: 1 January 2008 / Revised: 1 January 2008 / Accepted: 1 January 2008 / Published: 1 January 2008
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Bone is the most common site for distant spread of breast cancer. Following a diagnosis of metastatic bone disease, patients can suffer from significant morbidity because of pain and skeletal related events (SREs). Bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of osteoclastic function and the mainstay of bone-directed therapy for bone metastases. The aims of bisphosphonates are to prevent and delay SREs, to reduce bone pain, and to improve quality of life. Bisphosphonate therapy appears to have revolutionized treatment of bone metastases, but bisphosphonate use has several limitations. Those limitations include the high cost of the agents and the need for return trips to the clinic for intravenous treatment. Moreover, many uncertainties surround bisphosphonate use—for example, the timing of bisphosphonate initiation, the choice of bisphosphonate to use, the optimal duration of treatment, and the appropriate means to identify patients who will and will not benefit. In addition, potentially serious adverse effects have been associated with bisphosphonate use—for example, renal toxicity, gastrointestinal side effects, and osteonecrosis of the jaw. The present review is intended as a primer for oncology specialists who treat patients with bone metastases secondary to breast cancer. It focuses on bisphosphonate treatment guidelines, the evidence for those guidelines, and a discussion of new therapeutic agents. It also discusses the use of biochemical markers of bone metabolism, which show promise for predicting the risk of a patient’s developing a SRE and of benefiting from bisphosphonate treatment.

1. Introduction

Bone is the most common site of breast cancer recurrence [1,2]. Despite modern cancer therapy, up to two thirds of patients with bone metastasis will subsequently develop an skeletal-related event (SRE), defined as any of pathologic fracture, a requirement for surgical intervention and palliative radiotherapy to bone lesions, hypercalcemia of malignancy, and spinal cord compression. Not only are SREs associated with significant morbidity, they also negatively affect survival. Moreover, SREs are associated with loss of mobility and social functioning, and reduction in quality of life (QOL) [2].
Treatment of bone metastases ideally involves a multidisciplinary team, including medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, palliative care specialists, and orthopedic surgeons. Systemic treatment aimed at delaying the progression of bone metastases may include endocrine therapy, biologic agents, chemotherapy, and oral or intravenous bisphosphonate therapy. New osteoclast inhibitors are currently under investigation and may offer alternative treatment options for these patients in the future.

2. Bisphosphonates

Bisphosphonates are an established standard of care for patients with bone metastases. Table 1 reviews the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Cancer Care Ontario guidelines regarding bisphosphonate use in breast cancer patients with bone metastases [3,4]. Bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of osteoclast-mediated bone resorption through several mechanisms, including induction of osteoclast apoptosis, inhibition of osteoclast maturation and differentiation, and reduced osteoclast activity [5]. In addition, bisphosphonates may act directly on tumour cells by inducing apoptosis, inhibiting matrix metalloproteinase 1, inhibiting angiogenesis, decreasing adhesion of tumour cells within bone, and reducing levels of vascular endothelial growth factor [6].

2.1. Bisphosphonate Trials and Meta-Analyses

The clinical benefits of bisphosphonate therapy in secondary prophylaxis (that is, their use in patients with breast cancer and established bone metastases) have been demonstrated in a large number of placebo-controlled trials and meta-analyses [7,8,9,10,11,12]. As compared with placebo, zoledronic acid, pamidronate, clodronate, and ibandronate have all been shown to reduce the risk of SREs and to increase time to first SRE [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19] (Table 2).
A large meta-analysis encompassing eighteen studies (five of which were conducted in breast cancer patients) indicated that, as compared with placebo, bisphosphonates significantly reduced the odds ratios (ORs) for non-vertebral fractures [OR: 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64 to 0.99], combined fractures (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.93), need for radio-therapy (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.79), need for orthopedic surgery (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.83), and hypercalcemia (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.63), but not for spinal cord compression [20]. Similarly, in a Cochrane systemic review that included twenty-one randomised studies involving bisphosphonate use among breast cancer patients [21], nine of those studies demonstrated a risk reduction (RR) of 17% (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.78 to 0.89; p < 0.00001) for developing a SRE with bisphosphonate use. Intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg was most effective in reducing the risk of developing a SRE by 41% (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.82). In seven of the studies, bisphosphonates, when compared with placebo, significantly improved bone pain [21].
The benefits of bisphosphonate therapy for various SREs seem to be time-dependent; that is, the bisphosphonate must be given for at least 6 months before an effect is seen on skeletal morbidity outcomes and for at least 12 months before a reduction in the need for orthopedic surgery becomes significant [20]. To date, treatment with bisphosphonate does not appear to improve overall survival [21].
Results from clinical trials evaluating the analgesic properties of bisphosphonates vary considerably, mostly because of differences in the patient populations and pain assessment scales [22,23]. Placebo-controlled trials of intravenous pamidronate, ibandronate, and zoledronate have demonstrated improvement in pain scores [7,12,22]. Two published comparative trials have reported an advantage for intravenous pamidronate over oral clodronate in reducing metastatic bone pain [24]. A systemic review by Wong and Wiffen concluded that although evidence supported bisphosphonate effectiveness in providing some pain relief for bone metastasis, the data were insufficient to recommend bisphosphonates as first-line therapy for metastasis-related bone pain [25]. New strategies of bisphosphonate administration for bone pain are currently being explored [26].
Bisphosphonates are remarkably variable in structure and potency. The newer, nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates such as ibandronate, pamidronate, and zoledronic acid are several orders of magnitude more potent than earlier-generation bisphosphonates such as clodronate [27]. Comparative bisphosphonate trials have attempted to ascertain the superiority of one bisphosphonate regimen over another, with endpoints being reduction in the incidence of SREs and improvement of pain and QOL (Table 3). One study showed that pamidronate was superior to clodronate with regard to pain (p < 0.01) and improvement in biochemical markers of bone turnover [24]. Another trial demonstrated the superiority of zoledronic acid (4 mg intravenously over 15 minutes) over pamidronate (90 mg intravenously over 2 hours); patients treated with zoledronic acid had an increased time to first SRE (p = 0.013) and fewer SREs (p = 0.58) [29]. In that study, the proportion of patients with at least 1 SRE was similar for zoledronic acid and pamidronate, but zoledronic acid reduced by 20% the overall risk of any skeletal complications developing (RR: 0.799; p = 0.025) [29]. When phase III trial data are compared, ibandronate and zoledronic acid seem to have similar efficacy [30]. That hypothesis is currently being tested in two large randomized phase III trials (Table 4) [31,32].

2.2. Uncertainties About Bisphosphonate Use in Clinical Practice

The evidence of clinical benefit from bisphosphonates in breast cancer is overwhelming. Attention is now concentrated on defining the optimal time to start treatment, duration of treatment, and importantly, predicting which patients are most likely to benefit from either repeat bisphosphonate administration or a switch to an alternative bisphosphonate [33] (Table 5).

2.3. Which Patients Benefit Most from Bisphosphonate Use?

Randomized controlled trials have shown that the beneficial effects of bisphosphonates are time-dependent; significant benefits were seen only after 6 months of treatment [20]. Therefore, looking at survival times for patients with breast cancer is important before starting them on bisphosphonate treatment.
A retrospective analysis involving 859 patients who developed bone metastases from breast cancer showed that, as compared with patients with bone and visceral metastases, patients with disease confined to the skeleton were most likely to develop a SRE [34]. The difference with regard to the development of a SRE was probably attributable to the survival difference between the groups (median survival for patients with bone-only disease was 2.2 years as compared with 5.5 months for patients with bone and liver metastases). Patients with bone-only disease may therefore benefit most from treatment with bisphosphonates, because they are most likely to live long enough to experience the time-dependent benefits of bisphosphonates [34]. Notably, Canadian treatment guidelines do not encourage the use of bisphosphonate treatment in patients with a life expectancy below 6 months and who are asymptomatic from their bone metastases [3].
Along the same lines, most bisphosphonate trials have enrolled a disproportionate number of patients with bone-only disease who, as a consequence of their prolonged survival, are at greater risk of developing SREs than are patients with (for example) visceral disease. Therefore, the magnitude of the benefit seen in bisphosphonate trials probably exceeds the benefit seen in clinical practice. Table 2 and Table 3 provide an overview of placebo-controlled trials and comparative trials of bisphosphonate use in patients with bone metastases.
Further prospective studies are needed to identify the subgroup of patients most likely to develop SREs and therefore to benefit most from bisphosphonate treatment. In an attempt to develop a prediction model, our group is currently analyzing baseline clinical characteristics in 100 patients on bisphosphonates at three cancer centers [35].

2.4. When Should Bisphosphonates Be Started in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Bone Metastases?

There is a paucity of data for optimal use of bisphosphonates, mainly in regard to initiation and treatment duration. According to ASCO guidelines, bisphosphonate therapy should be started in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have imaging evidence of lytic bone destruction. Furthermore, ASCO considers it “reasonable” to start intravenous bisphosphonates in breast cancer patients with an abnormal bone scan despite normal plain radiographs, provided that the patients are reporting concordant localized pain. Intravenous bisphosphonate treatment is not recommended for asymptomatic patients with abnormal bone scans whose plain radiographs are normal [4]. Canadian guidelines do not restrict the indications for bisphosphonate therapy to patients with lytic bone destruction on imaging [3]. Despite these recommendations, most trials suggest that, given the potential of bisphosphonates to delay time to first SRE, bisphosphonates should be started when bone metastases are diagnosed, even when patients are asymptomatic [21,27].

3. Choosing a Bisphosphonate

Current Cancer Care Ontario guidelines advocate starting patients with newly diagnosed bone metastases on intravenous pamidronate or oral clodronate as first-line treatment. In other North American centers and in Europe, most patients with breast cancer metastatic to bone are started on zoledronic acid as first-line treatment [36].
Oral clodronate is approved for patients with breast cancer, and it should be considered for patients who cannot attend frequent clinic appointments or who choose to decline intravenous therapy. The efficacy of clodronate in preventing skeletal morbidity has been shown in placebo–controlled clinical trials of women with lytic bone disease (Table 2) [8,9,10]. However, in clinical practice, the potential for adverse gastrointestinal effects and the very low absorption rates (<5%) of oral clodronate even under ideal conditions may contribute to poorer outcomes and poor patient compliance [27].
Comparative trials have shown the superiority of pamidronate over clodronate for pain control, and the superiority of zoledronic acid over pamidronate for delaying the first SRE and reducing the incidence of SREs (Table 3). Ongoing comparative studies are trying to clarify which bisphosphonate is best to use in clinical practice (Table 4). Interestingly, in one study, patients receiving oral ibandronate after prior intravenous pamidronate significantly preferred the oral regimen [30].

4. Optimal Duration of Bisphosphonate Treatment

The ASCO guidelines recommend that bisphosphonate treatment continue until there is evidence of a substantial decline in a patient’s general performance status (Table 1). A recent Canadian study confirmed that 90% of patients continue bisphosphonate treatment until death, despite repeated SREs and bone progression [37]. Criteria to guide response to bisphosphonate therapy and the optimal and appropriate duration of bisphosphonate administration are lacking. The decision to continue, stop, or switch to an alternative bisphosphonate remains empirical and based on personal experience. Studies have shown that patients with skeletal disease progression and pain despite the use of oral clodronate or intravenous pamidronate may achieve an improvement in pain control and a reduction in levels of bone turnover markers after switching from pamidronate to zoledronic acid or to ibandronate [30,38]. Our group is starting a phase III trial to define the role of, and best time to switch patients to, a more potent bisphosphonate treatment after either bone disease progression or development of a SRE while on first-line bisphosphonate treatment [39].
Unfortunately, despite treatment with even the most potent bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid), one third of patients will develop further SREs within 2 years of initiating therapy. In addition, bisphosphonate side effects such as renal toxicity, nausea, vomiting, flu-like symptoms, and osteonecrosis of the jaw are becoming increasingly prominent concerns as the use of these agents continues to increase [40,41]. Furthermore, bisphosphonates are expensive agents; they have a substantial impact on the oncology drug budget. In a post hoc economic assessment of two multinational trials, the cost of pamidronate was projected to greatly exceed the cost savings associated with preventing a SRE [40]. However, a cost–utility analysis performed in Canada of prophylactic pamidronate for prevention of SREs suggested that pamidronate offered breast cancer patients with bone metastases a substantial quality–adjusted benefit at a reasonable cost [42].
The existing cost-effectiveness data are difficult to apply across different health care systems [43]. Importantly, maintaining patients on bisphosphonate treatment indefinitely has major financial implications with unknown benefits. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations should be therefore combined with clinical trials to accurately predict the true cost of this supportive treatment and, ultimately, to assess the optimal use of these agents.

5. Markers of Bone Resorption

In recent years, advances in understanding the mechanism of bone metastases have led to the discovery of several potential markers for dysregulation of bone coupling. The most widely used markers are urinary N-terminal crosslinked type 1 collagen telopeptide (NTX) and C-terminal cross-linked type 1 telopeptide [44]. Urinary NTX levels have been shown [45,46,47] to predict
  • occurrence of SREs in breast cancer patients with bone metastases,
  • response to bisphosphonates,
  • pain scores, and
  • patient outcomes.
Several studies have shown a strong correlation between moderate (50–100 nmol/mmol creatinine) and high (≥ 100 nmol/mmol creatinine) levels of NTX and the number of SREs or deaths (or both) in patients with bone metastasis [44,48].
Furthermore, NTX seem to be valuable in assessing how pain responds to bisphosphonates. In the pooled analysis of phase III trials of zoledronic acid, significant reductions in NTX were accompanied by significant declines in bone-pain scores and lesser increases in analgesic use at 96 weeks [48]. Our own group conducted a study with breast cancer patients that showed a reduction in NTX levels after patients on a second-generation bisphosphonate were switched to a third-generation bisphosphonate after development of a SRE or progressive bone disease. The decline in NTX levels was an important predictor for palliative pain response to both ibandronate [30] and zoledronic acid [38].
Overall, the hope is that biochemical markers will serve as adequate surrogates for further assessment of bisphosphonate efficacy. However, given the lack of sufficient, rigorous phase III data, current ASCO guidelines advise against the use of biochemical markers to monitor bisphosphonate treatment routinely [4]. The role of bone markers in guiding bisphosphonate treatment is currently being tested in a large National Cancer Research Institute–supported phase III clinical trial in the United Kingdom (BISMARK, n = 1400). In that trial, patients with breast cancer– associated bone metastases are being treated with zoledronic acid, either on a regular schedule of 4 mg intravenously every 3–4 weeks, or as indicated by NTX levels. The primary endpoint is development of a SRE. Secondary endpoints include QOL, pain, analgesic use, health economics, change in systemic therapy, and survival.

6. New Agents Targeting the Mechanism of Bone Metastases

In metastatic bone disease, an imbalance occurs between the action of osteoblasts and that of osteoclasts, with net bone loss resulting. A triad of molecules has been shown to regulate the maturation, differentiation, and survival of osteoclasts:
  • receptor activator of nuclear factor κB (RANK),
  • RANK ligand (RANKL), and
  • osteoprotegerin (OPG) [49].
The RANKL/OPG ratio is significantly increased in patients with severe osteolytic bone metastases. Therefore, targeting the RANK–RANKL–OPG pathway is a promising intervention for treating metastatic bone disease, particularly among patients who are refractory to potent bisphosphonates [49].
Denosumab (AMG 162) is a human monoclonal antibody that binds to and inhibits RANKL with high affinity and specificity, mimicking the effect of endogenous OPG. A recent phase II study of patients with bone metastases showed that, as compared with pamidronate, denosumab is significantly more likely to suppress urinary NTX. That study concluded that the dose of 120 mg every 4 weeks is optimal for future trials [50,51]. Another randomized study of 255 bisphosphonate-naïve breast cancer patients with bone metastasis found denosumab to be at least as effective as intravenous bisphosphonates in reducing the risk of SREs. A phase III trial comparing denosumab with zoledronic acid is ongoing in patients with bone metastases [51,52].

7. Summary

Many systemic therapeutic options are available for patients with bone metastases, with none being completely satisfactory. Bisphosphonates have become the mainstay of practice, and their use in breast cancer patients with bone metastases is associated with a significant reduction and delay in SREs and a reduction in bone pain. Despite the rapid integration of bisphosphonates into standard clinical practice, many uncertainties remain regarding their use: for example, the optimal bisphosphonate agent and duration of therapy, the most beneficial scheduling regimen, and identification of the patients most likely to benefit from bisphosphonate treatment.
Currently, Cancer Care Ontario guidelines advocate for the use of intravenous pamidronate or oral clodronate for patients with metastatic bone disease secondary to breast cancer. Zoledronic acid is largely reserved for clinical trials or for patients who are intolerant to intravenous pamidronate. Meanwhile, elsewhere in North America and Europe, zoledronic acid is first-line therapy for metastatic bone disease among breast cancer patients.
Further research is merited to identify factors that accurately predict the subgroups of patients at highest risk for developing bone metastases and subsequent complications and the patients that will benefit most from bisphosphonate treatment. Markers of bone turnover seem to hold the most promise for identifying patients likely to benefit from bisphosphonate treatment and for guiding the decision to discontinue bisphosphonate therapy or to switch to an alternative bisphosphonate. Finally, new osteoclast inhibitors are currently under investigation, and these agents may offer effective treatment options with reduced toxicity for patients with bone metastases.

References

  1. Coleman, R.E. Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity. Clin Cancer Res 2006, 12, 6243s–6249s. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Coleman, R.E.; Rubens, R.D. The clinical course of bone metastases from breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1987, 55, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Warr, D.; Johnston, M. Use of bisphosphonates in women with breast cancer. Practice guideline report no. 1-11. Hamilton, ON: Cancer Care Ontario, Program in Evidence-Based Care; 2004. [Available online at: www.cancercare.on.ca/pdf/pebc1-11f.pdf; cited December 10, 2007].
  4. Hillner, B.E.; Ingle, J.N.; Chlebowski, R.T.; et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2003 update on the role of bisphosphonates and bone health issues in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003, 21, 4042–4057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Dunstan, C.R.; Felsenberg, D.; Seibel, M.J. Therapy insight: The risks and benefits of bisphosphonates for the treatment of tumor-induced bone disease. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2007, 4, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Coleman, R.E. Bisphosphonates in breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2005, 16, 687–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Body, J.J.; Lichinitser, M.; Tjulandin, S.; Garnero, P.; Bergström, B. Oral ibandronate is as active as intravenous zoledronic acid for reducing bone turnover markers in women with breast cancer and bone metastases. Ann Oncol 2007, 18, 1165–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kristensen, B.; Ejlertsen, B.; Groenvold, M.; Hein, S.; Loft, H.; Mouridsen, H.T. Oral clodronate in breast cancer patients with bone metastases: A randomized study. J Intern Med 1999, 246, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Paterson, A.H.; Powles, T.J.; Kanis, J.A.; McCloskey, E.; Hanson, J.; Ashley, S. Double-blind controlled trial of oral clodronate in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1993, 11, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tubiana-Hulin, M.; Beuzeboc, P.; Mauriac, L.; et al. Doubleblinded controlled study comparing clodronate versus placebo in patients with breast cancer bone metastases [French]. Bull Cancer 2001, 88, 701–707. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hortobagyi, G.N.; Theriault, R.L.; Lipton, A.; et al. Long-term prevention of skeletal complications of metastatic breast cancer with pamidronate. Protocol 19 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1998, 16, 2038–2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kohno, N.; Aogi, K.; Minami, H.; et al. Zoledronic acid significantly reduces skeletal complications compared with placebo in Japanese women with bone metastases from breast cancer: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23, 3314–3321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Theriault, R.L.; Lipton, A.; Hortobagyi, G.N.; et al. Pamidronate reduces skeletal morbidity in women with advanced breast cancer and lytic bone lesions: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Protocol 18 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1999, 17, 846–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lipton, A.; Theriault, R.L.; Hortobagyi, G.N.; et al. Pamidronate prevents skeletal complications and is effective palliative treatment in women with breast carcinoma and osteolytic bone metastases: Long term follow-up of two randomized, placebocontrolled trials. Cancer 2000, 88, 1082–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hultborn, R.; Gundersen, S.; Ryden, S.; et al. Efficacy of pamidronate in breast cancer with bone metastases: A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter study. Anticancer Res 1999, 19, 3383–3392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Conte, P.F.; Latreille, J.; Mauriac, L.; et al. Delay in progression of bone metastases in breast cancer patients treated with intravenous pamidronate: Results from a multinational randomized controlled trial. The Aredia Multinational Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol 1996, 14, 2552–2559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Body, J.J.; Diel, I.J.; Lichinitser, M.R.; et al. Intravenous ibandronate reduces the incidence of skeletal complications in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases. Ann Oncol 2003, 14, 1399–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Body, J.J.; Diel, I.J.; Lichinitzer, M.; et al. Oral ibandronate reduces the risk of skeletal complications in breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease: Results from two randomised, placebo-controlled phase III studies. Br J Cancer 2004, 90, 1133–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tripathy, D.; Lichinitzer, M.; Lazarev, A.; et al. on behalf of the MF 4434 Study Group. Oral ibandronate for the treatment of metastatic bone disease in breast cancer: Efficacy and safety results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Oncol 2004, 15, 743–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ross, J.R.; Saunders, Y.; Edmonds, P.M.; Patel, S.; Broadley, K.E.; Johnston, S.R. Systematic review of role of bisphosphonates on skeletal morbidity in metastatic cancer. BMJ 2003, 327, 469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pavlakis, N.; Schmidt, R.; Stockler, M. Bisphosphonates for breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;:CD003474. [CrossRef]
  22. Body, J.J. Bisphosphonates for malignancy-related bone disease: Current status, future developments. Support Care Cancer 2006, 14, 408–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gralow, J.; Tripathy, D. Managing metastatic bone pain: The role of bisphosphonates. J Pain Symptom Manage 2007, 33, 462–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Jagdev, S.P.; Purohit, P.; Heatley, S.; Herling, C.; Coleman, R.E. Comparison of the effects of intravenous pamidronate and oral clodronate on symptoms and bone resorption in patients with metastatic bone disease. Ann Oncol 2001, 12, 1433–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wong, R.; Wiffen, P.J. Bisphosphonates for the relief of pain secondary to bone metastases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;CD002068. [CrossRef]
  26. Mancini, I.; Dumon, J.C.; Body, J.J. Efficacy and safety of ibandronate in the treatment of opioid-resistant bone pain associated with metastatic bone disease: A pilot study. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22, 3587–3592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Aapro, M.; Abrahamsson, P.A.; Body, J.J.; et al. Guidance on the use of bisphosphonates in solid tumours: Recommendations of an international expert panel. Ann Oncol 2008;[in press]. [2007;(Epub ahead of print)]. [CrossRef]
  28. Rosen, L.S.; Gordon, D.; Kaminski, M.; et al. Zoledronic acid versus pamidronate in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with breast cancer or osteolytic lesions of multiple myeloma: A phase III, double-blind, comparative trial. Cancer J 2001, 7, 377–387. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rosen, L.S.; Gordon, D.; Kaminski, M.; et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial. Cancer 2003, 98, 1735–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Clemons, M.; Dranitsaris, G.; Ooi, W.; Cole, D.E. A phase II trial evaluating the palliative benefit of second-line oral ibandronate in breast cancer patients with either a skeletal related event (SRE) or progressive bone metastases (BM) despite standard bisphosphonate (BP) therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;[in press]. [2007;(Epub ahead of print)]. [CrossRef]
  31. Rivkin, S. Oral ibandronate versus intravenous zoledronic acid for breast cancer patients with skeletal complications: The SWOG 0308 trial [abstract]. Bone 2006, 38 (suppl 1), S82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Barrett–Lee, P.; Murray, N. Zoledronic acid versus ibandronate comparative evaluation in breast cancer patients with bone metastases: The NCRI ZICE trial [abstract]. Bone 2006, 38 (suppl 1), S57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Clemons, M.; Dranitsaris, G.; Cole, D.; Gainford, M.C. Too much, too little, too late to start again? Assessing the efficacy of bisphosphonates in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. Oncologist 2006, 11, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Plunkett, T.A.; Smith, P.; Rubens, R.D. Risk of complications from bone metastases in breast cancer. implications for management. Eur J Cancer 2000, 36, 476–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Clemons, M.; Cole, D.E.; Gainford, M.C. Can bone markers guide more effective treatment of bone metastases from breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006, 97, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Coleman, R.E. Bisphosphonates: Clinical experience. Oncologist 2004, 9 (suppl 4), 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Verma, S.; Kerr–Cresswell, D.; Dranitsaris, G.; et al. Bisphosphonate use for the management of breast cancer patients with bone metastases: A survey of Canadian Medical Oncologists. Support Care Cancer 2004, 12, 852–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Clemons, M.J.; Dranitsaris, G.; Ooi, W.S.; et al. Phase II trial evaluating the palliative benefit of second-line zoledronic acid in breast cancer patients with either a skeletal-related event or progressive bone metastases despite first-line bisphosphonate therapy. J Clin Oncol 2006, 24, 4895–4900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Gainford, M.C.; Dranitsaris, G.; Clemons, M. Recent developments in bisphosphonates for patients with metastatic breast cancer. BMJ 2005, 330, 769–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hillner, B.E.; Weeks, J.C.; Desch, C.E.; Smith, T.J. Pamidronate in prevention of bone complications in metastatic breast cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol 2000, 18, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bamias, A.; Kastritis, E.; Bamia, C.; et al. Osteonecrosis of the jaw in cancer after treatment with bisphosphonates: Incidence and risk factors. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23, 8580–8587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dranitsaris, G.; Hsu, T. Cost utility analysis of prophylactic pamidronate for the prevention of skeletal related events in patients with advanced breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 1999, 7, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Botteman, M.; Barghout, V.; Stephens, J.; Hay, J.; Brandman, J.; Aapro, M. Cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in the management of breast cancer patients with bone metastases. Ann Oncol 2006, 17, 1072–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Brown, J.E.; Thomson, C.S.; Ellis, S.P.; Gutcher, S.A.; Purohit, O.P.; Coleman, R.E. Bone resorption predicts for skeletal complications in metastatic bone disease. Br J Cancer 2003, 89, 2031–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Vinholes, J.J.; Purohit, O.P.; Abbey, M.E.; Eastell, R.; Coleman, R.E. Relationships between biochemical and symptomatic response in a double-blind randomised trial of pamidronate for metastatic bone disease. Ann Oncol 1997, 8, 1243–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Coleman, R.E. The clinical use of bone resorption markers in patients with malignant bone disease. Cancer 2002, 94, 2521–2533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Coleman, R.E.; Major, P.; Lipton, A.; et al. Predictive value of bone resorption and formation markers in cancer patients with bone metastases receiving the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23, 4925–4935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lipton, A.; Cook, R.; Coleman, R.E.; et al. Normalization of bone markers and improved survival during zoledronic acid therapy [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2007, 25, 9013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Guise, T.A. Molecular mechanisms of osteolytic bone metastases. Cancer 2000, 88 (suppl), 2892–2898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lipton, A.; Alvarado, A.; De Boer, R.; et al. Randomized, activecontrolled study of denosumab (AMG 162) in breast cancer patients with bone metastases not previously treated with intravenous (IV) bisphosphonates (BP) [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2006, 24, 512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Body, J.J.; Facon, T.; Coleman, R.E.; et al. A study of the biological receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand inhibitor, denosumab, in patients with multiple myeloma or bone metastases from breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2006, 12, 1221–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lipton, A. Future treatment of bone metastases. Clin Cancer Res 2006, 12, 6305s–6308s. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) guidelines for bisphosphonate (BP) use in bonemetastatic disease in breast cancer patients [3,4].
Table 1. American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) guidelines for bisphosphonate (BP) use in bonemetastatic disease in breast cancer patients [3,4].
Curroncol 15 00050 i001
Table 2. Overview of placebo-controlled trials of bisphosphonates in advanced breast cancer.
Table 2. Overview of placebo-controlled trials of bisphosphonates in advanced breast cancer.
Curroncol 15 00050 i002
SRE = skeletal-related event; SMPR = skeletal morbidity period rate.
Table 3. Overview of completed comparative trials of bisphosphonates in bone metastases.
Table 3. Overview of completed comparative trials of bisphosphonates in bone metastases.
Curroncol 15 00050 i003
NTX = N-terminal crosslinked type 1 collagen telopeptide.
Table 4. Overview of ongoing comparative trials of bisphosphonates in metastatic breast cancer.
Table 4. Overview of ongoing comparative trials of bisphosphonates in metastatic breast cancer.
Curroncol 15 00050 i004
Table 5. Summary of bisphosphonate use for metastatic bone disease in breast cancer patients.
Table 5. Summary of bisphosphonate use for metastatic bone disease in breast cancer patients.
Curroncol 15 00050 i005

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Petrut, B.; Trinkaus, M.; Simmons, C.; Clemons, M. A Primer of Bone Metastases Management in Breast Cancer Patients. Curr. Oncol. 2008, 15, 50-57. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.v15i0.205

AMA Style

Petrut B, Trinkaus M, Simmons C, Clemons M. A Primer of Bone Metastases Management in Breast Cancer Patients. Current Oncology. 2008; 15(s1):50-57. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.v15i0.205

Chicago/Turabian Style

Petrut, B., M. Trinkaus, C. Simmons, and M. Clemons. 2008. "A Primer of Bone Metastases Management in Breast Cancer Patients" Current Oncology 15, no. s1: 50-57. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.v15i0.205

APA Style

Petrut, B., Trinkaus, M., Simmons, C., & Clemons, M. (2008). A Primer of Bone Metastases Management in Breast Cancer Patients. Current Oncology, 15(s1), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.v15i0.205

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop