Medication adherence with denosumab in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors treated in routine clinical settings: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: To describe (non)adherence with denosumab among patients with solid tumors and bone metastases. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study pooled data from two completed prospective, multicenter cohort studies (X-TREME; Study 240) in adult patients with bone metastases from primary breast, prostate, lung, kidney, or other solid cancer types and administered denosumab 120 mg in routine clinical practice in Germany and Central and Eastern Europe. The studies were conducted between May 2012 and May 2017; pooled analysis was completed in August 2021. Medication adherence was described according to a three-component consensus taxonomy: initiation (first-ever administration ≤ 90 days from bone metastasis diagnosis), implementation (actual vs prescribed dosing; optimal implementation = regular/consistent dosing), and persistence (≤ 60-day gap between administrations at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Descriptive analyses were conducted for each cancer type. RESULTS: The analysis included 1748 patients with solid tumors and bone metastases. Adherence with denosumab was generally high across the initiation, implementation, and persistence phases. Most patients experienced timely initiation (from 64.4% [kidney cancer] to 81.2% [breast cancer]) and optimal implementation (from 62.4% [lung cancer] to 72.5% [breast cancer]). The proportion of patients who were persistent with treatment at 6 months ranged from 41.4% (lung cancer) to 77.8% (prostate cancer). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed variations by cancer type in the initiation, implementation, and persistence of denosumab in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases in routine clinical practice. Further cancer-specific studies are warranted to examine the determinants of (non)adherence with denosumab, and potential ways to improve medication adherence.

Real-world safety experience of tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim and tbo-filgrastim, short-acting recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factors.

PURPOSE: Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (rG-CSFs), such as filgrastim, are administered to prevent complications in patients receiving chemotherapy. In Europe, a biosimilar to filgrastim, tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim, was approved in 2008. In the USA, the same product was approved as tbo-filgrastim under a 351(a) biologic license application in 2012 with the brand name Granix®. Postmarket surveillance remains a priority for monitoring the safety of biologics and biosimilars to identify rare and immunogenicity-related events. We report the global and US pharmacovigilance data for tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim and tbo-filgrastim, respectively. METHODS: Cumulative exposure and adverse event data from initial approval in Europe to December 31, 2016, were collected globally from spontaneous reports submitted by healthcare professionals and consumers, scientific literature, competent authorities, and solicited case reports from non-interventional studies. A separate search was conducted on the global data set to identify reports originating from the USA and Puerto Rico to describe the US experience. RESULTS: Overall, the global safety profile of tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim in the postmarket, real-world setting was comparable to clinical trial experience. Postmarket safety experience of tbo-filgrastim in the USA was consistent with global data. The most common SAEs were febrile neutropenia and decreased white blood cell count. The most common non-serious event was bone pain. There was no evidence of immunogenicity. CONCLUSIONS: This pharmacovigilance analysis indicates that postmarket experience of tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim and tbo-filgrastim is consistent with clinical trials. Adverse reactions associated with the originator rG-CSF (capillary leak syndrome and glomerulonephritis) have not been observed with tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim or tbo-filgrastim during the postmarket period.

Management of Metastatic Bone Disease Algorithms for Diagnostics and Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Bone is a frequent site of metastases in advanced cancer and is associated with significant skeletal morbidity. Current treatment options are aimed at preserving and improving functional independence and quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of current literature focusing on diagnostic tools and treatment approaches of bone metastasis in advanced cancer was performed and conclusions were incorporated into diagnostic and treatment algorithms. RESULTS: Radiologic imaging has added valuable tools for screening and diagnostics of bone metastasis. Clinical management of skeletal metastasis includes improved pain management, introduction of bone modifying agents and advancements in surgical and radiation therapy. We propose three algorithms enhancing the sensitivity of diagnostics and improving multidisciplinary management of vertebral and non-vertebral bone metastasis. CONCLUSION: Bone metastases are an expression of a systemic disease. Treatment options include highly specialized modalities yet need to be tailored to individual needs. Algorithms help standardize treatment procedures and can improve treatment outcome in a multidisciplinary setting.

The role of denosumab in the prevention of hypercalcaemia of malignancy in cancer patients with metastatic bone disease.

BACKGROUND: We compared the activity of denosumab with zoledronic acid for delaying or preventing hypercalcaemia of malignancy (HCM) in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases or with multiple myeloma. METHODS: Patient-level data were combined from two identically designed, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase III trials of advanced cancer patients with breast cancer and other solid tumours (excluding breast or prostate cancer) or multiple myeloma. End-points included time to first on-study HCM, time to first and subsequent on-study HCM, proportion of patients experiencing HCM and proportion of patients experiencing recurrent HCM. RESULTS: Denosumab significantly delayed the time to first on-study HCM, representing a 37% reduction in the hazard ratio (HR) compared with zoledronic acid (HR, 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41-0.98; P = 0.042) and reduced the risk of developing recurrent HCM (time to first and subsequent on-study HCM) by 52% (rate ratio, 0.48; 95% CI: 0.29-0.81; P = 0.006). The median time on study was 12.9 months. Fewer patients receiving denosumab compared with zoledronic acid experienced an HCM event (1.7% versus 2.7%; P = 0.028). Of the 84 patients experiencing an HCM event, 40% of those receiving zoledronic acid experienced >1 event of HCM compared with 31% of those receiving denosumab. CONCLUSION: Denosumab treatment was more efficacious than treatment with zoledronic acid in delaying or preventing HCM in advanced cancer patients with breast cancer, other solid tumours or multiple myeloma.

NADIR: A Non-Interventional Study on the Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia Using Lipegfilgrastim - First Interim Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The non-interventional study (NIS) NADIR was designed to assess the effectiveness and safety of lipegfilgrastim, a novel glycopegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, in reducing the risk of both febrile and severe neutropenia. METHODS: Here, the interim analysis of NIS Nadir performed under real-world conditions at 80 oncology practices across Germany is reported. For a patient to be included, lipegfilgrastim at a subcutaneous single dose of 6 mg had to be administered during at least 1 cycle of the chemotherapy under consideration. RESULTS: The interim analysis included 224 patients. Median patient age was 61.1 years (interquartile range 51.2-70.2 years). Main tumor type was breast cancer followed by lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (46.0, 13.4, and 10.7%, respectively). When lipegfilgrastim was given as primary prophylaxis, no patient developed febrile neutropenia (FN). 1.3% of patients developed FN when primary prophylaxis was withheld. Only 68.6% of patients undergoing chemotherapy and at high risk (> 20%) of developing FN were treated with lipegfilgrastim during the first cycle, exposing disparity between real-world practices and current treatment guidelines. Lipegfilgrastim was well tolerated. The only grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse event was anemia in 1 patient. CONCLUSION: Lipegfilgrastim was effective and safe when administered for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia under real-world conditions.

German adjuvant intergroup node-positive study: a phase III trial to compare oral ibandronate versus observation in patients with high-risk early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Bisphosphonates prevent skeletal-related events in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Their effect in early breast cancer is controversial. Ibandronate is an orally and intravenously available amino-bisphosphonate with a favorable toxicity profile. It therefore qualifies as potential agent for adjuvant use. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The GAIN (German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-Positive) study was an open-label, randomized, controlled phase III trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Patients with node-positive early breast cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to two different dose-dense chemotherapy regimens and 2:1 to ibandronate 50 mg per day orally for 2 years or observation. In all, 2,640 patients and 728 events were estimated to be required to demonstrate an increase in disease-free survival (DFS) by ibandronate from 75% to 79.5% by using a two-sided α = .05 and 1-ß of 80%. We report here the efficacy analysis for ibandronate, which was released by the independent data monitoring committee because the futility boundary was not crossed after 50% of the required DFS events were observed. RESULTS: Between June 2004 and August 2008, 2,015 patients were randomly assigned to ibandronate and 1,008 to observation. Patients randomly assigned to ibandronate showed no superior DFS or overall survival (OS) compared with patients randomly assigned to observation (DFS: hazard ratio, 0.945; 95% CI, 0.768 to 1.161; P = .589; OS: HR, 1.040; 95% CI, 0.763 to 1.419; P = .803). DFS was numerically longer if ibandronate was used in patients younger than 40 years or older than 60 years compared with patients age 40 to 59 years (test for interaction P = .093). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant treatment with oral ibandronate did not improve outcome of patients with high-risk early breast cancer who received dose-dense chemotherapy.

Prognostic value of disseminated tumor cells in the bone marrow of patients with operable primary breast cancer: a long-term follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Detection of disseminated tumor cells (DTC) in primary breast cancer (BC) patients' bone marrow (BM) seems to be a surrogate marker of tumor spread and an independent prognostic factor for disease-free and overall survival. METHODS: Here we present the largest single-center cohort of patients (n = 1378) with the longest observation time (median 82.0 months). Immunocytochemical staining was performed using murine monoclonal antibody 2E11 with the avidin-biotin complex technique. RESULTS: At primary surgery, 49 % of patients showed MUC-1 positive cells inside their BM. Patients without BM DTC had significantly more often T1-tumors (P = 0.007) with less often affected axillary lymph nodes (P < 0.001). We observed a significantly higher incidence of distant metastases in DTC positive patients (P < 0.001). This leads to a reduced disease-free survival (P < 0.0001). Furthermore, in DTC positive patients there was a higher mortality rate and, accordingly, a reduced overall survival (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Due to the presence of BM DTC, patients with a clinically poorer outcome can be identified at primary surgery. We therefore suggest that DTC analysis can be used as a prognostic factor and monitoring tool in clinical trials. Future study concepts relating to DTC should aim at identification of BC patients who may profit from adjuvant systemic therapy.

Bone pain reduction in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with ibandronate-results from a post-marketing surveillance study.

BACKGROUND: Pain relief is an important treatment goal for breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease and treatment should be associated with a low rate of side effects. This interim analysis of a prospective non-interventional study documents the efficacy and safety of the amino-bisphosphonate ibandronate in the treatment of metastatic bone disease under real-life conditions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For up to 24 weeks 913 breast cancer patients received IV infusions of 6 mg ibandronate every 3-4 weeks or 50 mg of oral ibandronate once daily. Efficacy variables included pain severity, analgesic use, and skeletal-related events; the major safety parameter was renal function, assessed by serum creatinine levels. Subgroup analyses were performed according to pretreatment with bisphosphonates (none, ibandronate, or other bisphosphonates). RESULTS: At baseline, patients with ibandronate pretreatment tended to have lower mean pain scores and lower serum creatinine levels than those pre-treated with other bisphosphonates. Over the observation period, analgesic use did not increase. Among the 712 patients reporting pain at baseline, 70% achieved an improvement in pain severity during treatment with ibandronate, and there was no evidence to suggest relevant differences in mean pain reductions with IV or oral administration of ibandronate or according to prior bisphosphonate treatment. Skeletal-related events were rare (7%). Changes in serum creatinine levels during ibandronate treatment were small and both formulations of ibandronate were rated as well tolerated by physicians and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this non-interventional study confirm the analgesic efficacy and safety profile of IV and oral ibandronate under real-life conditions.

Bisphosphonates in Breast Cancer Patients with Bone Metastases.

Morbidity and mortality in breast cancer patients are mainly caused by organ failure as a result of distant metastasis. The main target of metastatic disease is the skeleton (next to lungs and liver). Osseous metastases are diagnosed in 75-80% of all women who die due to breast cancer; and the skeleton is the primary metastatic target organ in more than half of these cases. In Germany, the incidence of breast cancer patients with newly diagnosed bone metastases is approximately 11-12,000 cases. Prevalence might amount to 40,000 cases of women with breast cancer and osseous metastases at a median survival time of 3-4 years. The treatment goal at this stage of the disease comprises improvement of quality of life, and reduction of bone pain and typical complications like fractures and hypercalcemia. By consistent use of bisphosphonates these goals can be accomplished. Bisphosphonates improve bone pain significantly and reduce the number of skeletal-related events in women with bone metastases. Bisphosphonates can be administered intravenously or orally, and are well tolerated. Nevertheless, there are side effects and complications including acute phase reaction, nephrotoxicity, osteonecrosis of the jaw, and gastrointestinal disturbances.

Risk of renal impairment after treatment with ibandronate versus zoledronic acid: a retrospective medical records review.

PURPOSE: This retrospective study compared renal impairment rates in breast cancer, multiple myeloma, prostate cancer and non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with ibandronate or zoledronic acid. STUDY DESIGN: Medical records in two German oncology clinics from May 2001 to March 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. Creatinine measurements were analyzed from baseline (before bisphosphonate treatment) to last available measurement for each patient. The Cox proportional hazards model and the Andersen-Gill extension of the Cox model for multiple events analysis were used for multivariate analysis, which controlled for age, clinic site, primary cancer type, baseline SCr or GFR value, prior bisphosphonate use, concomitant use of drugs associated with acute renal failure, and renal-related comorbidities. RESULTS: Of 333 patients, 109 received ibandronate and 256 received zoledronic acid (32 patients had both drugs). Compared with ibandronate, the zoledronic acid group had a significantly better baseline renal function and fewer patients had a history of renal disease. Zoledronic acid treatment increased the relative risk (RR) and the incidence rate (IR) of renal impairment by approximately 1.5-fold in all assessed patients (all tumors) compared with ibandronate. Multivariate analysis found significantly higher hazards ratios for zoledronic acid over ibandronate (two to sixfold), after adjusting for differences in characteristics between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective review, patients were significantly more likely to experience renal impairment with zoledronic acid than with ibandronate.

Pathophysiology, risk factors and management of bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw: Is there a diverse relationship of amino- and non-aminobisphosphonates?

Reports of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in patients receiving long-term bisphosphonate therapy have appeared in the literature since 2003. This condition involves avascular necrotic bone in the area of maxilla or mandibula and there may be a secondary infection. Most cases of ONJ have been reported in cancer patients receiving the intravenous aminobisphosphonates zoledronic acid and pamidronate monthly or q 3 week; of note these are also the two most commonly used agents of this class. Risk factors for ONJ include a history of trauma, dental surgery or dental infection and intravenous bisphosphonate administration; in addition, the extent and duration of exposure to bisphosphonates also seem to correlate with the risk. Although a direct causal relationship with bisphosphonates cannot be assumed, these agents may possibly contribute to the development of ONJ by suppression of bone remodeling in the jaw which leads to increased rates of bone mineralisation and accumulation of microfractures. Clodronate, a non-aminobisphosphonate, appears to have a different mechanism of suppressing bone remodeling compared with aminobisphosphonates, and this may explain why few cases of ONJ have been reported with clodronate despite extensive use over the past 20 years; however, the potential of clodronate to reduce the risk of ONJ while providing equivalent clinical benefit to the aminobisphosphonates needs to be substantiated in controlled clinical trials. Use of bisphosphonate therapy should be carefully planned in patients with metastatic bone disease who have risk factors for ONJ, and appropriate preventive measures taken to avoid the development of this condition.

Reduced incidence of distant metastases and lower mortality in 1072 patients with breast cancer with a history of hormone replacement therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Substitution of estrogens (hormone replacement therapy [HRT]) is the most common therapy and prophylaxis of postmenopausal complaints. However, in most studies, long-term HRT has been associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, but the influence on a prognosis of breast cancer has been examined rarely. STUDY DESIGN: For further investigation, we analyzed 1072 patients aged 45-70 years at the time of first diagnosis of breast cancer with and without preoperative HRT with regard to the incidence of distant metastases and overall survival. Of these, 279 women were premenopausal (mean, 47.8 +/- 3.2 years); 793 women were postmenopausal (mean, 54.5 +/- 3.5 years); 320 women had received HRT over a minimum of 1 year (mean, 5.5 +/- 4.0 years; group HRT+); and 473 women had not received HRT (group HRT-). The median follow-up time was 73.2 months. RESULTS: Although body mass index, tumor size, and grading of group HRT- were significantly higher than in group HRT+, nodal status, S-phase fraction, hormone-receptor status, and local recurrence showed no significant differences. In regard to the incidence of distant metastases, women without HRT have significantly (P < .001) more metastases to bone (68 vs 20 women), lung (47:13 women), and liver (47:13 women). Overall survival was significantly lower in the HRT- group. CONCLUSION: We were able to show that the use of HRT before the diagnosis of breast cancer results in more favorable primary tumors, with a lower incidence of recurrences and a better overall survival rate. This might be due to normalized bone metabolism by the use of HRT, which may lower the conditions of tumor cell seeding.

Effectiveness of bisphosphonates on bone pain and quality of life in breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease: a review.

INTRODUCTION: Almost all patients with breast cancer and bone metastases suffer bone pain. Many receive bisphosphonate therapy only when the pain becomes unbearable or there is a direct threat of skeletal complications. DISCUSSION: However, clinical trial data demonstrate that bisphosphonates offer significant and sustained relief from bone pain and can also improve quality of life in patients with metastatic breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Moreover, new treatment schedules using high dose bisphosphonates can offer rapid relief of acute, severe bone pain.

Adverse effects of bisphosphonates: current issues.

Four bisphosphonates are used for the treatment of metastatic bone disease: clodronate, which is available outside the United States in both intravenous and oral formulations; intravenous pamidronate; intravenous zoledronic acid; and ibandronate, which is also available in intravenous and oral forms. Since the use of bisphosphonates in patients with cancer is palliative, their impact on patients' quality of life and their adverse-effect profiles are essential considerations for effective patient management. The most common adverse effects associated with bisphosphonates are renal toxicity, acute-phase reactions, gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). The incidence of these adverse events varies significantly between bisphosphonates. Renal toxicity is a potentially life-threatening event reported in studies of zoledronic acid and, to a lesser extent, pamidronate. In contrast, the renal safety profile of intravenous ibandronate and oral bisphosphonates is similar to that of placebo. Acute-phase reactions occur only with intravenous aminobisphosphonates and may be more common with zoledronic acid. Gastrointestinal effects occur only with oral agents (clodronate and ibandronate) and may be avoided by adhering to dosing instructions. More recently, ONJ has recently emerged as a complication of bisphosphonate use. However, its true incidence is not yet known. The potential adverse effects of bisphosphonates should be considered in the context of the individual patient's characteristics and preferences when selecting a bisphosphonate for metastatic bone disease.

Differences in nephrotoxicity of intravenous bisphosphonates for the treatment of malignancy-related bone disease.

Renal dysfunction is a particularly problematic adverse event that requires additional management and can prohibit the use of certain medications. Due to their renal uptake and elimination, some bisphosphonates can cause nephrotoxicity when used for the treatment of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases. However, clinical studies and post-marketing experience indicate that renal effects do not appear to be the same for all bisphosphonates. Zoledronic acid and pamidronate appear to be associated with a greater risk of renal toxicity, especially when given in high doses or over short infusion times. In contrast, high loading doses of intravenous ibandronate (3 x 6 mg given on days 1-3) have shown no additional renal safety concerns, and intravenous ibandronate 6 mg appears to have a renal safety profile comparable to placebo. This paper reviews the renal safety of intravenously administered bisphosphonates and makes some suggestions, based on preclinical and clinical data, as to why renal safety profiles may differ.

A pooled analysis of bone marrow micrometastasis in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the prognostic significance of the presence of micrometastasis in the bone marrow at the time of diagnosis of breast cancer by means of a pooled analysis. METHODS: We combined individual patient data from nine studies involving 4703 patients with stage I, II, or III breast cancer. We evaluated patient outcomes over a 10-year follow-up period (median, 5.2 years), using a multivariable piecewise Cox regression model. RESULTS: Micrometastasis was detected in 30.6 percent of the patients. As compared with women without bone marrow micrometastasis, patients with bone marrow micrometastasis had larger tumors and tumors with a higher histologic grade and more often had lymph-node metastases and hormone receptor-negative tumors (P<0.001 for all variables). The presence of micrometastasis was a significant prognostic factor with respect to poor overall survival and breast-cancer-specific survival (univariate mortality ratios, 2.15 and 2.44, respectively; P<0.001 for both outcomes) and poor disease-free survival and distant-disease-free survival during the 10-year observation period (incidence-rate ratios, 2.13 and 2.33, respectively; P<0.001 for both outcomes). In the multivariable analysis, micrometastasis was an independent predictor of a poor outcome. In the univariate subgroup analysis, breast-cancer-specific survival among patients with micrometastasis was significantly shortened (P<0.001 for all comparisons) among those receiving adjuvant endocrine treatment (mortality ratio, 3.22) or cytotoxic therapy (mortality ratio, 2.32) and among patients who had tumors no larger than 2 cm in diameter without lymph-node metastasis and who did not receive systemic adjuvant therapy (mortality ratio, 3.65). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of micrometastasis in the bone marrow at the time of diagnosis of breast cancer is associated with a poor prognosis.

Ibandronate: efficacy in the treatment of metastatic bone disease.

Ibandronate is a bisphosphonate treatment for metastatic bone disease. In Phase III trials in breast cancer patients, intravenous and oral formulations of ibandronate lowered the incidence of skeletal-related events, reduced metastatic bone pain scores throughout 2 years of treatment, and had significant positive effects on patient quality of life, demonstrating its efficacy in this condition. Recent pilot studies in other primary cancers suggest that a loading dose of ibandronate may relieve severe or opioid-resistant metastatic bone pain. In safety analyses, ibandronate was well tolerated with a safety profile comparable to placebo. Ibandronate therefore represents a treatment choice with documented efficacy and safety in metastatic bone disease from breast cancer.

Oral ibandronate improves bone pain and preserves quality of life in patients with skeletal metastases due to breast cancer.

The objective of this study is to assess the effect of oral ibandronate on bone pain and quality of life in women with metastatic bone disease from breast cancer. In two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, 564 patients were randomised to receive oral ibandronate, 50mg once daily, or placebo for up to 96 weeks. Throughout the studies, we assessed bone pain (on a 5-point scale from 0=none to 4=intolerable), analgesic use (7-point scale) and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 [EORTC QLQ-C30], 100-point scale). Oral ibandronate significantly reduced and maintained bone-pain scores below baseline throughout the 96-week study period (at endpoint, -0.1 vs +0.2, P=0.001 vs placebo). Analgesic use increased in both groups; however, the increase was significantly less in the ibandronate group (0.60 vs 0.85, P=0.019). Although quality of life deteriorated during the study, the decrease in quality of life was significantly lower with ibandronate therapy (-8.3 vs -26.8, P=0.032). Drug-related adverse events were generally minor and as expected with oral bisphosphonates. Oral ibandronate had beneficial effects on bone pain and quality of life and was well tolerated. These results suggest that this treatment is of considerable clinical value as a co-analgesic to patients with painful bone metastases.