The tumor-stroma ratio in giant cell tumor of bone: associations with the immune microenvironment and responsiveness to denosumab treatment.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is limited understanding regarding the clinical significance of the tumor-stroma ratio (TSR) in giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB). Hence, we aimed to investigate the distribution of TSR in GCTB and explore its correlation with various clinicopathologic factors, immune microenvironment, survival prognosis, and denosumab treatment responsiveness. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter cohort study comprising 426 GCTB patients treated at four centers. TSR was evaluated on hematoxylin and eosin-stained and immunofluorescent sections of tumor specimens. Immunohistochemistry was performed to assess CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, CD20+, PD-1+, PD-L1+, and FoxP3+ TIL subtypes as well as Ki-67 expression levels in 426 tissue specimens. These parameters were then analyzed for their correlations with patient outcomes [local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and overall survival (OS)], clinicopathological features, and denosumab treatment responsiveness. RESULTS: Low TSR was significantly associated with poor LRFS and OS in both cohorts. Furthermore, TSR was also correlated with multiple clinicopathological features, TIL subtype expression, and denosumab treatment responsiveness. TSR demonstrated similar predictive capabilities as the conventional Campanacci staging system for predicting patients' LRFS and OS. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide evidence supporting the use of TSR as a reliable prognostic tool in GCTB and as a predictor of denosumab treatment responsiveness. These findings may aid in developing individualized treatment strategies for GCTB patients in the future.

Giant cell tumor of femur with single pulmonary metastasis - yet another curative oligometastasis.

ABSTRACT: Giant cell tumor of bone (GCT) is a benign tumor of bone that is known to be locally aggressive rarely metastasizing to distant sites, most commonly to the lungs. The reported pulmonary metastasis incidence is 1 - 9%. We report a case of GCT with solitary pulmonary metastasis who had significant clinical benefit and disease control with sequential application of surgical resection of pulmonary metastasis, local external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and systemic Denosumab. We wish to highlight that even in metastatic GCT, there is significant clinical benefit in aggressive treatment.

External Validation and Update of the Risk Prediction Model for Denosumab-Induced Hypocalcemia Developed From a Hospital-Based Administrative Database.

PURPOSE: Denosumab is used to treat patients with bone metastasis from solid tumors, but sometimes causes severe hypocalcemia, so careful clinical management is important. This study aims to externally validate our previously developed risk prediction model for denosumab-induced hypocalcemia by using data from two facilities with different characteristics in Japan and to develop an updated model with improved performance and generalizability. METHODS: In the external validation, retrospective data of Kameda General Hospital (KGH) and Miyagi Cancer Center (MCC) between June 2013 and June 2022 were used and receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-AUC was mainly evaluated. A scoring-based updated model was developed using the same data set from a hospital-based administrative database as previously employed. Selection of variables related to prediction of hypocalcemia was based on the results of external validation. RESULTS: For the external validation, data from 235 KGH patients and 224 MCC patients were collected. ROC-AUC values in the original model were 0.879 and 0.774, respectively. The updated model consisting of clinical laboratory tests (calcium, albumin, and alkaline phosphatase) afforded similar ROC-AUC values in the two facilities (KGH, 0.837; MCC, 0.856). CONCLUSION: We developed an updated risk prediction model for denosumab-induced hypocalcemia with small interfacility differences. Our results indicate the importance of using data from plural facilities with different characteristics in the external validation of generalized prediction models and may be generally relevant to the clinical application of risk prediction models. Our findings are expected to contribute to improved management of bone metastasis treatment.

Utility of a bone health clinic in bridging the osteoporosis care gap: Prescribing habit review at an academic institution.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze osteoporosis medication prescribing trends across specialties in the context of a Bone Health Clinic. INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis affects over 10 million adults in the US, taking a significant toll on patients and the healthcare system. Although screening methods and treatments are improving, the disease remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. This study aims to evaluate the prescribing trends of osteoporosis medication among department specialties to delineate the benefits of a bone health clinic. METHODS: Retrospective data collection identified and analyzed patients within the Penn State Health system prescribed one of the following osteoporosis medications: Bisphosphonate, denosumab, romosozumab, teriparatide, abaloparatide, or raloxifene. Date range: 4/18/2016 to 4/14/2021. Data collection identified the specialty origin of prescriptions for osteoporosis medications across various medical specialties (e.g., orthopaedics, family medicine, and internal medicine). RESULTS: 10,736 prescription orders were issued to patients with an average age of 68 years. Non-Hispanic Caucasian patients received 88.6% of prescriptions, followed by Asian (3.4%) and African American (2.2%). Female patients accounted for 87.8% of all prescriptions. The Bone Health Clinic under two orthopaedic providers wrote 3,619 prescriptions, averaging 361.9 prescriptions per provider per year-marking the highest rate among specialties. The clinic prescriptions constituted 33.7% of all prescriptions across specialties. Orthopaedic surgery prescribed the most denosumab, romosozumab, teriparatide, and abaloparatide prescriptions, and had the highest number of male osteoporosis patients compared to other specialties (15.6%), consequently prescribing the most male prescriptions (578). CONCLUSION: Establishing a bone health clinic dedicated to osteoporosis management leads to significantly higher prescription rates per provider, increased utilization of anabolic therapies compared to other specialties, and more male patients being treated-an often-neglected population in osteoporosis.

Bone-modifying agents for reducing bone loss in women with early and locally advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are amongst the bone-modifying agents used as supportive treatment in women with breast cancer who do not have bone metastases. These agents aim to reduce bone loss and the risk of fractures. Bisphosphonates have demonstrated survival benefits, particularly in postmenopausal women. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effects of different bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment to reduce bone mineral density loss and osteoporotic fractures in women with breast cancer without bone metastases and generate a ranking of treatment options using network meta-analyses (NMAs). SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by electronically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase until January 2023. We searched various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for women with breast cancer without bone metastases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes were bone mineral density, quality of life, overall fractures, overall survival and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-seven trials (35,163 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 34 trials (33,793 participants) could be considered in the NMA (8 different treatment options). Bone mineral density We estimated that the bone mineral density of participants with no treatment/placebo measured as total T-score was -1.34. Evidence from the NMA (9 trials; 1166 participants) suggests that treatment with ibandronate (T-score -0.77; MD 0.57, 95% CI -0.05 to 1.19) may slightly increase bone mineral density (low certainty) and treatment with zoledronic acid (T-score -0.45; MD 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16) probably slightly increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Risedronate (T-score -1.08; MD 0.26, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.84) may result in little to no difference compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). We are uncertain whether alendronate (T-score 2.36; MD 3.70, 95% CI -2.01 to 9.41) increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Quality of life No quantitative analyses could be performed for quality of life, as only three studies reported this outcome. All three studies showed only minimal differences between the respective interventions examined. Overall fracture rate We estimated that 70 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo had fractures. Evidence from the NMA (16 trials; 19,492 participants) indicates that treatment with clodronate or ibandronate (42 of 1000; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92; 40 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86, respectively) decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (high certainty). Denosumab or zoledronic acid (51 of 1000; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.01; 55 of 1000; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.11, respectively) probably slightly decreases the number of fractures; and risedronate (39 of 1000; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.16) probably decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Pamidronate (106 of 1000; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.06) probably increases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Overall survival We estimated that 920 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo survived overall. Evidence from the NMA (17 trials; 30,991 participants) suggests that clodronate (924 of 1000; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17), denosumab (927 of 1000; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21), ibandronate (915 of 1000; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34) and zoledronic acid (925 of 1000; HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14) may result in little to no difference regarding overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Additionally, we are uncertain whether pamidronate (905 of 1000; HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.78) decreases overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Osteonecrosis of the jaw We estimated that 1 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 23,527 participants) suggests that denosumab (25 of 1000; RR 24.70, 95% CI 9.56 to 63.83), ibandronate (6 of 1000; RR 5.77, 95% CI 2.04 to 16.35) and zoledronic acid (9 of 1000; RR 9.41, 95% CI 3.54 to 24.99) probably increases the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Additionally, clodronate (3 of 1000; RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.83 to 8.50) may increase the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Renal impairment We estimated that 14 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed renal impairment. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 22,469 participants) suggests that ibandronate (28 of 1000; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.88) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Zoledronic acid (21 of 1000; RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.58) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment while clodronate (12 of 1000; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39) and denosumab (11 of 1000; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19) probably results in little to no difference regarding the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering bone-modifying agents for managing bone loss in women with early or locally advanced breast cancer, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Our findings suggest that bisphosphonates (excluding alendronate and pamidronate) or denosumab compared to no treatment or placebo likely results in increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture rates. Our survival analysis that included pre and postmenopausal women showed little to no difference regarding overall survival. These treatments may lead to more adverse events. Therefore, forming an overall judgement of the best ranked bone-modifying agent is challenging. More head-to-head comparisons, especially comparing denosumab with any bisphosphonate, are needed to address gaps and validate the findings of this review.

A Real-world Study of Denosumab For Reducing Refracture Risk after Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of anti-osteoporotic agents and refracture incidence in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) following percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA) and to evaluate the real-world treatment of patients using denosumab following PVA. This study aims to provide spine surgeons with empirical insights derived from real-world scenarios to enhance the management of bone health in OVCF patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was based on data from the MarketScan and Optum databases from the USA. Female patients aged 55-90 years who underwent PVA for OVCF between January 2013 and March 2020 were included and followed up from the day after surgery. Patients who received at least one dose of denosumab were included in the denosumab cohort and were further divided into the on-treatment and off-treatment groups according to whether they received a second dose of denosumab, with follow-up beginning on the index day (225 days after the first denosumab dose). In this study, the off-treatment group was considered as the control group. Refracture incidence after PVA, the proportion of patients using anti-osteoporotic agents in the total study population, and refracture incidence after the index day in the denosumab cohort were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 13,451 and 21,420 patients from the MarketScan and Optum databases, respectively, were included. In the denosumab cohort, the cumulative incidence of clinical osteoporotic fractures within 3 years after the index day was significantly lower in the on-treatment group than in the off-treatment group (MarketScan database: 23.0% vs 39.0%, p = 0.002; Optum database: 28.2% vs 40.0%, p = 0.023). The cumulative incidence of clinical vertebral fractures was also lower in the on-treatment group than in the off-treatment group, with a significant difference in the MarketScan database (14.4% vs 25.5%, p = 0.002) and a numerical difference was found in the Optum database (20.2% vs 27.5%, p = 0.084).The proportion of patients using anti-osteoporotic agents was low at 6 months postoperatively, with only approximately 7% using denosumab and 13%-15% taking oral bisphosphonates. CONCLUSION: Postmenopausal women have a high refracture rate and a low proportion of anti-osteoporotic drug use after PVA. Continued denosumab treatment after PVA is associated with a lower risk of osteoporotic and clinical vertebral fractures. Therefore, denosumab may be a treatment option for patients with osteoporosis after PVA.

Novel genetic mutation associated with hyperphosphatemic familial tumoral calcinosis/hyperostosis-hyperphosphatemia syndrome treated with denosumab: a case report.

In this case report, a novel N-acetylgalactosaminyltransferase 3 homozygous mutation (c.782 G>A; p.R261Q) associated with hyperphosphatemic familial tumoral calcinosis/hyperostosis-hyperphosphatemia syndrome is described. The patient had elbow, pelvis, and lower limb pain and a hard mass in the hip and olecranon regions. Increased levels of inorganic phosphorus (Pi) and C-reactive protein were observed. After treating the patient with conventional drugs, we tested denosumab, which reduced but did not normalize the Pi.

Efficacy of denosumab treatment for lung metastasis secondary to proximal humerus chondroblastoma.

Chondroblastoma is a rare benign cartilaginous tumor that accounts for approximately 1% of bone tumors, but it can be associated with lung metastasis in extremely rare cases, leading to a poor prognosis and death. Herein, we report the case of a 19-year-old male patient who presented with an aggressive chondroblastoma of the proximal humerus and bilateral lung metastasis. The patient was treated with wide local resection, partial metastasectomy, and denosumab. Denosumab treatment was effective in controlling metastatic progression and preventing local recurrence.

Combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors and denosumab improves clinical outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer with bone metastases.

BACKGROUND: The concomitant use of denosumab and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment may have synergistic effects and enhance antitumor activity; however, this has not been fully evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with bone metastases receiving combination therapy and to identify the best combination regimen. METHODS: Eighty-six NSCLC patients with bone metastases who received ICI treatment were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into two groups; a denosumab combination group (D + ICI group; n = 47) and a non-combination group (non-D + ICI group; n = 39). The response rate (RR) for bone metastases, disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), real world progression-free survival (rwPFS), and the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were evaluated. Additionally, the time when denosumab treatment should commence and concomitant treatment duration were evaluated. RESULTS: The D + ICI group showed significantly better RR (40.4 % vs. 20.5 %, p = 0.01), DCR (67.3 % vs. 38.7 %, p = 0.02), OS (14.2 vs. 8.6 months, p = 0.02), and rwPFS (7.4 vs. 3.6 months, p < 0.01) than the non-D + ICI group; however, incidence of irAEs showed no difference (29.7 % vs. 12.8 %, p = 0.07). Although clinical outcomes did not differ regardless of whether denosumab was initiated before or after ICI treatment, the group that received concomitant denosumab for more than four months had significantly better RR (46.2 % vs. 17.4 %, p = 0.03), OS (20.3 vs. 3.8 months, p < 0.01), and rwPFS (10.9 vs. 2.8 months, p < 0.01) than the group that received concomitant denosumab for less than four months. However, the landmark analysis showed no significant differences in OS (20.4 vs. 12.7 months, p = 0.11) and rwPFS (22.8 vs. 11.2 months, p = 0.21), and the results of denosumab duration were influenced by long-term survivors. CONCLUSION: Denosumab showed favorable synergistic effects with ICI treatment and may significantly improve the response to bone metastasis and prognosis without increasing the incidence of irAEs.

Long-Term Bone Mineral Density Changes in Kidney Transplant Recipients Treated with Denosumab: A Retrospective Study with Nonequivalent Control Group.

Data on the effectiveness of denosumab on osteoporosis after kidney transplantation are limited. We investigated the long-term bone mineral density (BMD) changes in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) treated with denosumab compared to untreated KTRs. We enrolled KTRs treated with denosumab 60 mg/6 months for 4 years. An untreated group of sex and age-matched KTRs with a 1:1 ratio was included. The primary outcome was BMD changes assessed by Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry over 4 years. Data on serum creatinine, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), parathyroid hormone, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D were collected. All patients received oral cholecalciferol and calcium supplementation. 23 denosumab-treated KTRs were enrolled, and 23 untreated KTRs. The median time from transplant to the start of denosumab was 4 years (range 0:24). The denosumab group showed a significant increase from baseline in BMD at the lumbar spine (LS) (9.0 ± 10.7%, p < 0.001), and total hip (TH) (3.8 ± 7.9%, p = 0.041). The untreated group showed a significant decrease at all sites (- 3.0 ± 7%, p = 0.041 at the LS; - 6.3 ± 9.2%, p = 0.003 at the TH; - 6.7 ± 9.3%, p = 0.003 at the FN). The between-group differences in percent BMD changes were statistically significant at all sites. Similar results were found for the respective Z-scores. The ALP serum levels significantly decreased from baseline only in the denosumab group, with a significant between-group difference (p = 0.032). No significant differences in serum creatinine, hypocalcaemic events or acute graft rejection rates were observed. Four years of denosumab therapy were associated with increased BMD in KTRs, while untreated KTRs showed significant BMD losses at all sites.

Secondary fracture prevention in Spanish primary care: results of the PREFRAOS Study.

This study demonstrated a large treatment gap in elderly subjects experiencing fragility fracture in Spanish primary care, a low treatment persistence among subjects who do receive treatment, and more than one-quarter having no follow-up visits post-fracture. These data highlight the need to improve secondary fracture prevention in primary care. PURPOSE: To describe osteoporosis (OP) treatment patterns and follow-up in subjects with fragility fracture seen in Spanish primary care (PC). METHODS: This observational, retrospective chart review included subjects aged ≥ 70 years listed in the centers' records (November 2018 to March 2020), with ≥ 1 fragility fracture and prior consultation for any reason; subjects who had participated in another study were excluded. Outcomes included OP treatments and follow-up visits post-fragility fracture. RESULTS: Of 665 subjects included, most (87%) were women; overall mean (SD) age, 82 years. Fewer than two thirds (61%) had received any prior OP treatment (women, 65%; men, 38%); of these, 38% had received > 1 treatment (women, 25%; men, 13%). Among treated subjects, the most frequent first-line treatments were alendronate (43%) and RANKL inhibitor denosumab (22%), with a higher discontinuation rate and shorter treatment duration observed for alendronate (discontinuation, 42% vs 16%; median treatment duration, 2.5 vs 2.1 years). Over one-quarter (26%) of subjects had no follow-up visits post-fragility fracture, with this gap higher in women than men (35% versus 25%). The most common schedule of follow-up visits was yearly (43% of subjects with a fragility fracture), followed by half-yearly (17%) and biennial (10%), with a similar trend in men and women. Most OP treatments were prescribed by PC physicians, other than teriparatide and zoledronate. CONCLUSIONS: Across Spanish PC, we observed a large gap in the treatment and follow-up of elderly subjects experiencing a fragility fracture. Our data highlights the urgent need to improve secondary fracture prevention in PC.

Denosumab vs. bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a meta-analysis of comparative safety in randomized controlled trials.

Denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis are generally well-tolerated, but their comparative safety remains unclear. We aimed to explore the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis. Databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials published in English (as of December 2023). Trials comparing adverse events (AE) between denosumab and bisphosphonates in patients with primary osteoporosis were investigated. Data were pooled using a fixed- or random-effects model to determine the risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for various AEs in patients treated with denosumab in comparison to patients treated with bisphosphonates. Eleven trials (5,545 patients; follow-up period: 12-24 months) were included in this meta-analysis. All trials had a risk of bias (e.g., reporting bias linked to secondary endpoints and selection bias linked to random allocation). In comparison to bisphosphonates, denosumab was significantly associated with less withdrawal due to AEs (RR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34-0.71), more five-point major adverse cardiovascular events (RR = 2.05; 95% CI 1.03-4.09), more cardiovascular AEs (RR = 1.61; 95% CI 1.07-2.41), more infections (RR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.02-1.27), more upper respiratory tract infections (RR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.08-2.25), less vertebral fractures (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.93), and less abdominal pain (RR = 0.44;95% CI 0.22-0.87). We explored the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis, some of which could be attributed to their beneficial effects. However, all trials had a risk of bias. Further investigations are required to confirm our results.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study to evaluate efficacy and safety of the denosumab biosimilar MW031 in Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of MW031 in Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial, 448 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized 3:1 to receive MW031 and placebo for 12 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in BMD at lumbar spine in month 12. The safety and immunogenicity profiles were also included. RESULTS: Of 448 randomized patients, 421 completed the study (MW031, n = 322; placebo, n = 99).After 12 months of MW031 treatment, BMD increased by 5.80% at lumbar spine,3.65% at total hip, and 2.93% at femoral neck. The model-adjusted difference was 3.86% (P<0.0001), 2.34% (P<0.0001), and 1.05% (p = 0.08) compared with placebo group, respectively. For the bone turnover markers, serum CTX level in MW031 group decreased to the maximum difference in month 1 (-71.71%, 95% CI: -77.83%, -65.60%, P<0.0001) compared with the placebo group. The safety analysis showed no significant differences in the proportion of patients reporting any adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that MW031 safely and effectively increased BMD and rapidly decreased the level of bone resorption marker in Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05215977 (ClinicalTrials.gov.).

Key insights into antiresorptive drug use and osteonecrosis in osteoporotic patients undergoing tooth extractions: A clinical and CBCT assessment.

This study investigates the effects of antiresorptive drugs and risk factors for medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws in osteoporotic patients undergoing tooth extraction. Among the findings, antiresorptive-treated patients had thicker lamina dura and longer healing times. Additionally, corticosteroid intake and multi-rooted teeth carried a higher osteonecrosis risk. Bone sequestrum indicated osteonecrosis. PURPOSE: To describe the effects of antiresorptive drugs (ARD) in the maxilla and mandible and risk factors for medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ) in osteoporotic patients undergoing tooth extractions using clinical data and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study collected clinical and CBCT data from 176 patients. The study group (n = 78; 224 extractions) received ARD treatment, underwent tooth extraction, and had a pre-operative CBCT. Additionally, age-, sex-, and tooth-matched controls were selected (n = 98; 227 extractions). Radiographic examinations were performed independently by three calibrated examiners. Statistical analysis included Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney U, and t-tests to contrast clinical and radiographic data between study and control, MRONJ + and MRONJ - , and bisphosphonate and denosumab patients/sites. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: From the study group, 4 patients (5%) and 5 sites (2%) developed MRONJ after tooth extraction. ARD-treated patients exhibited significantly more thickening of the lamina dura and a longer average mucosal healing time (4.4 weeks) than controls (2.6 weeks). In the study group, MRONJ risk significantly increased with corticosteroid intake and in multi-rooted teeth. No significant differences between bisphosphonates and denosumab use were seen in the tomographic features (p > 0.05). Lastly, bone sequestrum was exclusively observed in osteoporotic patients, who exhibited post-operative exposed bone or histological evidence of osteonecrosis. CONCLUSION: Osteoporotic patients under ARD may exhibit thickening of the lamina dura and prolonged post-operative healing. Among these patients, multi-rooted teeth are at higher risk for MRONJ than single-rooted teeth. Sequester formation is a radiographic indicator of osteonecrosis.

Too Much of a Good Thing: Severe Hypercalcemia Presenting with Lethargy and Kidney Failure.

INTRODUCTION: We present a case of a 58-year-old man with a history of laryngo-pharyngectomy including bilateral thyroidectomy due to hypopharyngeal cancer presenting with lethargy, acute kidney failure, and hypercalcemia. Milk alkali syndrome was diagnosed given the history of high-dose calcium / vitamin D supplementation after ruling out other causes of hypercalcemia. After initial treatment with normal saline, furosemide and denosumab, the patient developed severe symptomatic hypocalcemia as a rare adverse effect of denosumab.

Romosozumab in patients who experienced an on-study fracture: post hoc analyses of the FRAME and ARCH phase 3 trials.

Post hoc analysis of FRAME and ARCH revealed that on-study nonvertebral and vertebral fractures by Month 12 were less common in women initially treated with romosozumab versus placebo or alendronate. Recurrent fracture risk was also lower in romosozumab­treated patients, and there were no fracture­related complications. Results support continuing romosozumab treatment post­fracture. PURPOSE: Post hoc analysis evaluating efficacy and safety of romosozumab, administered in the immediate post­fracture period, in the FRAME and ARCH phase 3 trials. METHODS: In FRAME (NCT01575834) and ARCH (NCT01631214), postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized 1:1 to romosozumab 210 mg monthly or comparator (FRAME, placebo; ARCH, alendronate 70 mg weekly) for 12 months, followed by antiresorptive therapy (FRAME, denosumab; ARCH, alendronate). In patients who experienced on-study nonvertebral or new/worsening vertebral fracture by Month 12, we report the following: fracture and treatment­emergent adverse event (TEAE) incidence through 36 months, bone mineral density changes (BMD), and romosozumab timing. Due to the sample sizes employed, meaningful statistical comparisons between treatments were not possible. RESULTS: Incidence of on-study nonvertebral and vertebral fractures by Month 12 was numerically lower in romosozumab- versus comparator-treated patients (FRAME, 1.6% and 0.5% versus 2.1% and 1.6%; ARCH, 3.4% and 3.3% versus 4.6% and 4.9%, respectively). In those who experienced on-study nonvertebral fracture by Month 12, recurrent nonvertebral and subsequent vertebral fracture incidences were numerically lower in patients initially treated with romosozumab versus comparator (FRAME, 3.6% [2/56] and 1.8% [1/56] versus 9.2% [7/76] and 3.9% [3/76]; ARCH, 10.0% [7/70] and 5.7% [4/70] versus 12.6% [12/95] and 8.4% [8/95], respectively). Among those with on-study vertebral fracture by Month 12, recurrent vertebral and subsequent nonvertebral fracture incidences were numerically lower with romosozumab versus comparator (FRAME, 0.0% [0/17] and 0.0% [0/17] versus 11.9% [7/59] and 8.5% [5/59]; ARCH, 9.0% [6/67] and 7.5% [5/67] versus 15.0% [15/100] and 16.0% [16/100], respectively). In patients with fracture by Month 12, no fracture­related complications were reported in romosozumab-treated patients. BMD gains were numerically greater with romosozumab than comparators. CONCLUSION: Data suggest support for the efficacy and safety of continuing romosozumab treatment following fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT01575834; NCT01631214.