“…Real-world medical treatment of bone metastases radically changed in the last decade for the following reasons: - introduction of denosumab : 120 mg monthly subcutaneous injection, with several patients already receiving zoledronic acid (or other bisphosphonates), shifted to denosumab, and many others started on denosumab from the beginning [ 1 , 4 , 7 ];
- introduction of zoledronic acid every 3 months : (upfront or after a period of monthly treatment) as a possible competitor [ 9 ];
- fear of the rebound effect described following denosumab discontinuation and its management [ 10 ];
- difference among competing drugs and schedules in term of costs, ease of administration, staff engagement, etc . [ 8 , 9 ], with the COVID-19 pandemic likely to interfere with the routine preferences;
- increased awareness that skeletal-related events (SREs) — the most used study endpoint in earlier antiresorptive drug trials — are not fully reliable , and the introduction of new endpoints, so called symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) [ 11 ];
- increase of expected survival for a large proportion of bone metastatic cancer patients due to the recent advances of medical treatment (endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, targeted treatments, immunotherapy);
- influence of MRONJ risk evaluation , given the possible MRONJ-related worsening of patient quality of life, on antiresorptive treatment planning and management , despite several controversies still exist about MRONJ definition, diagnosis, and therapy [ 12 – 14 ].
…”