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.