2014
DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70539-4
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Oral ibandronic acid versus intravenous zoledronic acid in treatment of bone metastases from breast cancer: a randomised, open label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
81
1
9

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 114 publications
(96 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
5
81
1
9
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, ZA has been shown to effectively reduce the risk of skeletal-related events in patients with metastatic PCa [20], multiple myeloma [21] and breast cancer [20,22,23]. ZA has also recently been tested as an additive therapeutic for earlystage breast cancer [24][25][26].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, ZA has been shown to effectively reduce the risk of skeletal-related events in patients with metastatic PCa [20], multiple myeloma [21] and breast cancer [20,22,23]. ZA has also recently been tested as an additive therapeutic for earlystage breast cancer [24][25][26].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a recent phase III trial (ZICE trial), oral ibandronate was inferior to infusional zoledronic acid in reducing SRE frequency. Both drugs had similar, acceptable side effect profile (Barrett-Lee et al, 2014). However oral administration of ibandronate can be advantageous for patients who do not want parenteral drugs.…”
Section: Efficacy Of Bisphosphonatesmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Hortobagyi et al [3,27], Hultborn et al [29], and Kohno et al [34] did not sufficiently address incomplete outcome data. In the study by Conte et al [26], placebo infusions were not administered to control because ofethical objections in several countries, and the study by Barrett-Lee et al [35] had an openlabel design. Our searches were appropriate, but the possibility of publication bias cannot be excluded; however, it is unclear whether reporting biases would tend to favor any particular treatment.…”
Section: Study Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%