Ingo Diel

Reduction in new metastases in breast cancer with adjuvant clodronate treatment

BACKGROUND Bisphosphonates are effective against the increased bone resorption caused by certain diseases because they inhibit the activity of osteoclasts. In patients who have breast cancer and metastatic bone disease, the bisphosphonate clodronate (clodronic acid) reduces the frequency of skeletal complications. Experiments in animals and preliminary clinical observations indicate that early clodronate therapy reduces the incidence of new bony metastases in breast cancer. We investigated the effects of clodronate on the incidence and extent of new metastases in patients with breast cancer. METHODS Between 1990 and 1995, 302 patients with primary breast cancer and tumor cells in the bone marrow (the presence of which is a risk factor for the development of distant metastases) were randomly assigned to receive clodronate at a dose of 1600 mg per day orally for two years (157 patients) or standard follow-up (145 patients). The median length of observation was 36 months. All patients in both groups received standard surgical treatment and customary hormonal therapy or chemotherapy. RESULTS Distant metastases were detected in 21 patients in the clodronate group and in 42 patients in the control group (P<0.001). The incidence of both osseous and visceral metastases was significantly lower in the clodronate group than in the control group (P=0.003 for both osseous and visceral metastases). Six patients in the clodronate group died, as did 22 in the control group (P=0.001). The mean number of bony metastases per patient in the clodronate group was roughly half that in the control group (3.1 vs. 6.3). CONCLUSIONS Clodronate can reduce the incidence and number of new bony and visceral metastases in women with breast cancer who are at high risk for distant metastases.

Current use of bisphosphonates in oncology. International Bone and Cancer Study Group.

PURPOSE The purpose of this article is to review the recent data on bisphosphonate use in oncology and to provide some guidelines on the indications for their use in cancer patients. DESIGN The group consensus reached by experts on the rationale for the use of bisphosphonates in cancer patients and their current indications for the treatment of tumor-induced hypercalcemia and metastatic bone pain in advanced disease and for the prevention of the complications of multiple myeloma and of metastatic bone disease are reviewed. RESULTS Bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of tumor-induced osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. They now constitute the standard treatment for cancer hypercalcemia, for which we recommend a dose of 1,500 mg of clodronate or 90 mg of pamidronate; the latter compound is more potent and has a longer lasting effect. Intravenous bisphosphonates exert clinically relevant analgesic effects in patients with metastatic bone pain. Regular pamidronate infusions can also achieve a partial objective response by conventional International Union Against Cancer criteria and enhance the objective response rate to chemotherapy. In breast cancer, the prolonged administration of oral clodronate 1,600 mg daily reduces the frequency of morbid skeletal events by more than one fourth, whereas monthly pamidronate infusions of 90 mg for only 1 year in addition to chemotherapy reduce by more than one third the frequency of all skeletal-related events. The use of bisphosphonates to prevent bone metastases remains experimental. Last, bisphosphonates in addition to chemotherapy are superior to chemotherapy alone in patients with stages II and III multiple myeloma and can reduce the skeletal morbidity rate by approximately one half. CONCLUSION Bisphosphonate use is a major therapeutic advance in the management of the skeletal morbidity caused by metastatic breast cancer or multiple myeloma, although many questions remain unanswered, notably regarding the optimal selection of patients and the duration of treatment.

Oral ibandronate reduces the risk of skeletal complications in breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease: Results from two randomised, placebo-controlled phase III studies

Although intravenous (i.v.) bisphosphonates are the standard of care for metastatic bone disease, they are less than ideal for many patients due to infusion-related adverse events (AEs), an increased risk of renal toxicity and the inconvenience of regular hospital visits. The use of oral bisphosphonate therapy is limited by concerns over efficacy and gastrointestinal (GI) side effects. There remains a clinical need for an oral bisphosphonate that offers equivalent efficacy to i.v. bisphosphonates, good tolerability and dosing convenience. Oral ibandronate, a highly potent, third-generation aminobisphosphonate, has been evaluated in phase III clinical trials of patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. In two pooled phase III studies, patients with breast cancer and bone metastases were randomised to receive oral ibandronate 50 mg (n=287) or placebo (n=277) once daily for up to 96 weeks. The primary end point was the skeletal morbidity period rate (SMPR), defined as the number of 12-week periods with new skeletal complications. Multivariate Poissons regression analysis was used to assess the relative risk of skeletal-related events in each treatment group during the study period. Oral ibandronate 50 mg significantly reduced the mean SMPR compared with placebo (0.95 vs 1.18, P=0.004). There was a significant reduction in the mean number of events requiring radiotherapy (0.73 vs 0.98, P<0.001) and events requiring surgery (0.47 vs 0.53, P=0.037). Poissons regression analysis confirmed that oral ibandronate significantly reduced the risk of a skeletal event compared with placebo (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI=0.48, 0.79; P=0.0001). The incidence of mild treatment-related upper GI AEs was slightly higher in the oral ibandronate 50 mg group compared with placebo, but very few serious drug-related AEs were reported. Oral ibandronate 50 mg is an effective, well-tolerated and convenient treatment for the prevention of skeletal complications of metastatic bone disease.

Detection of tumor cells in bone marrow of patients with primary breast cancer: a prognostic factor for distant metastasis.

PURPOSE At the time of primary surgery, approximately 90% of all patients with breast cancer are free of metastases, but in the next 5 years almost 50% of them will relapse. We evaluated the significance of the presence of tumor cells in bone marrow of patients with primary breast cancer to investigate their predictive value for relapse. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred sixty patients with primary breast cancer were examined for tumor cells in bone marrow aspirates taken from six sites of the skeleton. After density centrifugation, cells in interphase were smeared and stained. For the immunocytologic reaction, we used a new monoclonal antibody (2E11) that was reactive with the core protein of the tumor-associated glycoprotein TAG12. TAG12 is secreted by nearly all human breast carcinomas. RESULTS A significant correlation was found between tumor-cell detection and tumor stage (P < .0001), nodal status (P < .0001), and tumor grading (P = .002). A good relation to progesterone receptor (PR; P = .008) was found, but there was no correlation to estrogen receptor (ER) and menopausal status. Follow-up examinations showed distant metastases in 26 of 211 patients (15%). Twenty-two relapses occurred among the 81 patients with 2E11-positive cells in bone marrow, but only four occurred among the 130 patients without tumor-cell detection. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that tumor-cell detection in bone marrow of patients with primary breast carcinoma is a good predictor for all distant relapses (P < .0005, Cox multiple regression analysis) and provides additional information in regard to other prognostic factors. The highest predicting value for distant metastasis results from the combination of nodal status, negative PR, and tumor-cell presence in bone marrow.

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

Abstract 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, 50 mg 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.

Adjuvant bisphosphonates in early breast cancer: consensus guidance for clinical practice from a European Panel

Bisphosphonates have been studied in randomised trials in early breast cancer to investigate their ability to prevent cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) and reduce the risk of disease recurrence and metastasis. Treatment benefits have been reported but bisphosphonates do not currently have regulatory approval for either of these potential indications. This consensus paper provides a review of the evidence and offers guidance to breast cancer clinicians on the use of bisphosphonates in early breast cancer. Using the nominal group methodology for consensus, a systematic review of the literature was augmented by a workshop held in October 2014 for breast cancer and bone specialists to present and debate the available pre-clinical and clinical evidence for the use of adjuvant bisphosphonates. This was followed by a questionnaire to all members of the writing committee to identify areas of consensus. The panel recommended that bisphosphonates should be considered as part of routine clinical practice for the prevention of CTIBL in all patients with a T score of <-2.0 or ≥2 clinical risk factors for fracture. Compelling evidence from a meta-analysis of trial data of >18,000 patients supports clinically significant benefits of bisphosphonates on the development of bone metastases and breast cancer mortality in post-menopausal women or those receiving ovarian suppression therapy. Therefore, the panel recommends that bisphosphonates (either intravenous zoledronic acid or oral clodronate) are considered as part of the adjuvant breast cancer treatment in this population and the potential benefits and risks discussed with relevant patients.

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-β 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 relevance of urokinase plasminogen activator detection in micrometastatic cells in the bone marrow of patients with primary breast cancer.

Patients with an elevated level of urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) in breast cancer tissue have an adverse prognosis. This study evaluated the prognostic relevance of uPA detection in disseminated tumour cells in bone marrow. Bone marrow was sampled intraoperatively from both iliac crests in 280 patients with primary breast cancer. Interphase cells were enhanced and stained immunocytologically with two antibodies: 2E11, which detects TAG 12--a tumour-associated glycoprotein typically expressed by almost all breast cancer cells--and the anti-uPA antibody HD-UK9. Thirty-five of the 2E11-positive women (n = 132, 47%) developed metastatic disease (median follow-up time 44 months). Of these, most were uPA positive (n = 23, 65%) and only 12 were uPA negative. Patients with uPA-positive cells in bone marrow (n = 98, 35%) had a significantly shorter metastasis-free interval (36 months) than women who were uPA negative (44.5 months). The worst prognosis was seen in patients positive for both markers (29.5 months), followed by those who were uPA negative and 2E11 positive (37 months). The detection of uPA on disseminated tumour cells characterizes a subgroup of patients with an even worse prognosis, who should undergo more aggressive adjuvant systemic therapy. For the first time, it was possible to evaluate an important qualitative parameter involved in the process of breast cancer metastases.

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 × 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.

13th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 2013: Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer Evidence, Controversies, Consensus - Opinion of a German Team of Experts (Zurich 2013)

The International Consensus Conference on the treatment of primary breast cancer takes place every two years in St. Gallen, Switzerland. The panel in St. Gallen is composed of international experts from different countries. From a German perspective, it seems reasonable to interpret the voting results in the light of AGO-recommendations and S3-guidelines for everyday practice in Germany. Consequently, a team of eight breast cancer experts, of whom two are members of the international St. Gallen panel, commented on the voting results of the St. Gallen Consensus Conference (2013). The main topics at this years St. Gallen conference were surgical issues of the breast and axilla, radio-therapeutic and systemic treatment options, and the clinical relevance of tumour biology. The clinical utility of multigene assays for supporting individual treatment decisions was also intensively discussed.