Bone metastases—current status of bone-targeted treatments


Multidisciplinary management of bone metastases

In general, the treatment of bone metastases is aimed at palliating symptoms, with cure only rarely a realistic aim in a few rare malignancies such as lymphoma or germ cell tumors affecting bone. Treatments vary depending on the underlying primary site and biological subtype. External beam radiotherapy, endocrine treatments, chemotherapy, and targeted and immunological therapies are all important. In addition, orthopedic intervention may be necessary for the structural complications of bone destruction or to relieve spinal cord and/or nerve root compression. Complementing these treatments is the role of bone-targeted agents that include bisphosphonates, denosumab, and the bone-targeted radiopharmaceuticals.

Bone-targeted agents in oncology

Bone-targeted agents have been used in cancer patients for nearly 30 years, initially to treat hypercalcemia of malignancy, then for the prevention of skeletal morbidity from bone metastases and more recently in early cancer patients to prevent treatment-induced bone loss and, in some clinical situations, to prevent disease recurrence in bone and improve survival.

The bisphosphonates are the most established type of bone-targeted agents with two molecular subgroups, nonnitrogen-containing and nitrogen-containing compounds, with somewhat different molecular effects on osteoclasts. In oncology, clodronate is the only nonnitrogen-containing bisphosphonate approved for use. The nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates are more potent osteoclast inhibitors and, for oncology use specifically, include pamidronate, ibandronate, and zoledronate. Bisphosphonates decrease bone resorption and increase mineralization by specifically inhibiting osteoclast activity with little direct effect on bone formation. After uptake in the skeleton, primarily at active remodeling sites, bisphosphonates are released into the acidic environment of the resorption lacunae and then taken up by endocytosis by the adjacent osteoclasts. Once within the osteoclast, bisphosphonates induce cellular disruption and ultimately apoptosis of the resorbing osteoclast [ ].

In preclinical models, the nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates have also been shown to influence macrophages, gamma delta T lymphocytes, and osteoblasts. In addition to their effects on host cells, bisphosphonates may also have antitumor and/or antiangiogenic effects, but the clinical relevance of these observations remains controversial. Investigations are ongoing to better define the clinically relevant antitumor effects of bisphosphonates in patients with cancer [ ].

Denosumab is a fully human, monoclonal, synthetic antibody that binds with high affinity to receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand (RANKL), preventing interaction with its receptor RANK in a way that is similar to the natural endogenous inhibitor, osteoprotegerin (OPG) [ ]. In early clinical development, a single subcutaneous dose of denosumab was shown to cause rapid suppression of bone turnover in multiple myeloma and breast cancer patients [ ] and these findings encouraged the clinical development of this targeted treatment. As a circulating antibody, denosumab probably affects all sites within bone equally whereas the strong affinity of bisphosphonates for hydroxyapatite within active remodeling sites may prevent their even distribution throughout the skeleton, with preferential uptake and sites of increased bone turnover and relatively low uptake at more quiescent sites within the skeleton.

The bone-seeking radiopharmaceuticals, strontium-89 ( 89 Sr) and radium-223 ( 223 Ra), are calcium mimetics that are preferentially taken up at sites of bone formation where calcium is being incorporated most rapidly into the skeleton. 223 Ra is of greater clinical interest as, in addition to preferential targeting of osteoblastic bone metastases, it emits high-energy alpha particles from endosteal surfaces that cause double-strand DNA breaks and highly localized cytotoxic effects within closely adjacent cells (<100 μm penetration within the bone marrow) and thus causes only mild myelosuppression as the majority of the bone marrow is beyond the range of the emitted radiation [ ]. Potent antitumor effects of radium-223 in animal models led to the evaluation of its efficacy and safety in clinical trials in patients with bone metastases from prostate cancer [ ].

Prevention of skeletal morbidity in metastatic bone disease

Although radiotherapy is the treatment of choice for localized bone pain, many patients have widespread pain that is difficult to localize, while others experience recurrence of bone pain after radiotherapy. The bisphosphonates provide an additional treatment approach for the relief of bone pain that is useful across the range of tumor types [ ]. However, it is their success in reducing skeletal morbidity that has led to their introduction into routine treatment of advanced cancer patients with bone metastases. In the last 25 years the bisphosphonates and denosumab have become firmly established as a valuable additional treatment component to minimize skeletal morbidity that is given alongside the evolving and increasingly effective range of current therapies to treat the underlying malignancy ( Table 64.1 ).

Table 64.1
Summary of results from studies with bone-targeted treatments to prevent skeletal-related events in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases or multiple myeloma.
Cancer type Drug (comparator) % SRE Median time to first SRE (drug vs. Comparator) Other endpoints Refs.
Breast Clodronate b (placebo)
Pamidronate (placebo)
Pamidronate (placebo)
Zoledronate (placebo)
Zoledronate (pamidronate)
Ibandronate oral b (placebo)
Ibandronate IV b (placebo)
Denosumab (zoledronate)
NE
43% versus 56%
56% versus 67%
30% versus 50%
43% versus 45%
NE
51% versus 62%
NE
NE
399 versus 213 days
317 versus 210 days
NR versus 364 days
310 versus 174 days
632 versus 454 days
354 versus 232 days
NR versus 804 days
SMR—219 versus 305
Improved QOL and pain
Improved QOL and pain
Improved pain
20% risk reduction for SRE
SMPR—0.99 versus 1.15
SMPR—1.19 versus 1.48
23% risk reduction for SRE
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Prostate (CRPC) Zoledronate (placebo)
Denosumab (zoledronate)
Radium-223 (placebo)
33% versus 44%
36% versus 41%
33% versus 38%
NR versus 321 days
630 versus 520 days
15.6 versus 9.8 months
Significant pain relief
Similar PFS and OS
OS—14.9 versus 11.3 months
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Solid tumors a Zoledronate (placebo)
Denosumab c (zoledronate)
39% versus 46%
NE
236 versus 155 days
627 versus 496 days
31% overall SRE reduction
Similar PFS and OS
[ ]
[ ]
Multiple myeloma Zoledronate (clodronate)
Zoledronate (pamidronate)
Clodronate b (placebo)
Pamidronate (placebo)
Denosumab (zoledronate)
27% versus 35%
47% versus 49%
NE
24% versus 41%
44% versus 45%
NR versus NR
NE
NE
Improved
693 versus 730 days
Zol improved OS by 4m
Similar efficacy
Progression 12% versus 24%
SMR—1.3 versus 2.4
Dmab improved PFS by 3m
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
CRPC , castration-resistant prostate cancer; m , months; NE , not evaluable; NR , not reached; PFS , progression-free survival; QOL , quality of life; SRE , skeletal-related event; SMR , skeletal morbidity rate; SMPR , skeletal morbidity period rate; Zol , zoledronate.

a Excluding breast and prostate cancers.

b European approval only.

c Study included a cohort of patients with multiple myeloma.

Multiple, randomized controlled trials have clearly demonstrated that bisphosphonates and denosumab are effective in reducing skeletal morbidity from metastatic cancer [ ]. Assessments of treatment effects have often used the first-event analyses, such as the proportion of patients with at least one skeletal-related event (SRE) or the time to the first skeletal event. These are objective, albeit conservative, endpoints as they do not take into account all subsequent events. Thus, from a clinical perspective, an aggregate score of symptomatic SREs is more relevant. Multiple-event analyses have been increasingly used, as they are able to model all events and the time between events, allowing the calculation of a hazard ratio that indicates the relative risk of events between two different treatments [ ].

Breast cancer bone metastases

Randomized placebo-controlled trials of pamidronate infusions for up to 2 years in addition to chemotherapy or endocrine treatments in breast cancer patients with at least one lytic bone metastasis demonstrated that bisphosphonates can reduce skeletal morbidity rate by more than one-third, increase the median time to the occurrence of the first SRE by almost 50%, and significantly reduce the proportion of patients experiencing an SRE [ , ].

Subsequently, more convenient and effective amino-bisphosphonates emerged, including zoledronate [ ] and both intravenous and oral ibandronate [ , ]. A randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial compared the efficacy of zoledronate and pamidronate in 1648 patients with breast cancer or multiple myeloma [ ]. In this trial, the proportion of patients with at least one SRE (the primary efficacy endpoint) was similar in all treatment groups and the preestablished criterion for noninferiority of zoledronate to pamidronate was met. A multiple-event analysis in the breast cancer subgroup, however, showed that zoledronate 4 mg reduced the risk of developing a skeletal complication by an additional 20% over that achieved by pamidronate (p < .05) [ ]. The short infusion time also offers a more convenient therapy.

Oral ibandronate was compared to intravenous zoledronate in a randomized trial of 1404 patients [ ]. Despite its apparent convenience, oral ibandronate was inferior to zoledronate in reducing the overall risk of skeletal events in patients with bone metastases from metastatic breast cancer, although similar to zoledronate in delaying the time to the first event. In a per protocol Anderson-Gill multiple-event analysis of the composite outcome of all SREs, the rate ratio for SREs was 1.148, 95% CI 0.967–1.362 and thus noninferiority of ibandronate compared with zoledronate could not be established as the upper boundary of the 95% CI exceeded the predefined margin of 1.08 [ ].

Denosumab was evaluated in three identical double-blind, phase III, registration studies that included a total of 5723 bisphosphonate-naive patients with bone metastases [ ]. The patients were randomly assigned to receive four weekly subcutaneous injections of denosumab (120 mg) or intravenous zoledronate (4 mg), with supplements of calcium and vitamin D. The primary endpoint was the time to first SRE. In the 2046 patients with bone metastases secondary to breast cancer, denosumab was statistically superior to zoledronate in delaying the first SRE (HR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.71–0.95, p = .01). The median time to a first SRE was 26.4 months for zoledronate-treated patients, whereas the median time to first SRE was not reached during the study in those treated with denosumab [ ]. In patients who had no/mild pain at baseline, a 4-month delay in progression to moderate/severe pain was observed with denosumab compared with zoledronate, while fewer patients who received denosumab reported a clinically meaningful worsening of pain severity, findings that support the notion that denosumab, because it is a more potent agent, is able to improve skeletal structure more effectively than a bisphosphonate [ ]. Ten percent more patients had a clinically meaningful improvement in health-related quality of life with denosumab relative to zoledronate, regardless of baseline pain levels [ ].

For patients with bone metastases from breast cancer, it is recommended to start zoledronate or denosumab in all patients with metastatic breast cancer and bone metastases, whether they are symptomatic or not [ ].

You're Reading a Preview

Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles

Become membership

If you are a member. Log in here