PI3Kδ inhibition by idelalisib in patients with relapsed indolent lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase delta (PI3Kδ) mediates B-cell receptor signaling and microenvironmental support signals that promote the growth and survival of malignant B lymphocytes. In a phase 1 study, idelalisib, an orally active selective PI3Kδ inhibitor, showed antitumor activity in patients with previously treated indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. METHODS: In this single-group, open-label, phase 2 study, 125 patients with indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphomas who had not had a response to rituximab and an alkylating agent or had had a relapse within 6 months after receipt of those therapies were administered idelalisib, 150 mg twice daily, until the disease progressed or the patient withdrew from the study. The primary end point was the overall rate of response; secondary end points included the duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 64 years (range, 33 to 87); patients had received a median of four prior therapies (range, 2 to 12). Subtypes of indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma included follicular lymphoma (72 patients), small lymphocytic lymphoma (28), marginal-zone lymphoma (15), and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma with or without Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (10). The response rate was 57% (71 of 125 patients), with 6% meeting the criteria for a complete response. The median time to a response was 1.9 months, the median duration of response was 12.5 months, and the median progression-free survival was 11 months. Similar response rates were observed across all subtypes of indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, though the numbers were small for some categories. The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (in 27% of the patients), elevations in aminotransferase levels (in 13%), diarrhea (in 13%), and pneumonia (in 7%). CONCLUSIONS: In this single-group study, idelalisib showed antitumor activity with an acceptable safety profile in patients with indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who had received extensive prior treatment. (Funded by Gilead Sciences and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01282424.).

Idelalisib and rituximab in relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have clinically significant coexisting medical conditions are less able to undergo standard chemotherapy. Effective therapies with acceptable side-effect profiles are needed for this patient population. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of idelalisib, an oral inhibitor of the delta isoform of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, in combination with rituximab versus rituximab plus placebo. We randomly assigned 220 patients with decreased renal function, previous therapy-induced myelosuppression, or major coexisting illnesses to receive rituximab and either idelalisib (at a dose of 150 mg) or placebo twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. At the first prespecified interim analysis, the study was stopped early on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board owing to overwhelming efficacy. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the placebo group and was not reached in the idelalisib group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the idelalisib group, 0.15; P<0.001). Patients receiving idelalisib versus those receiving placebo had improved rates of overall response (81% vs. 13%; odds ratio, 29.92; P<0.001) and overall survival at 12 months (92% vs. 80%; hazard ratio for death, 0.28; P=0.02). Serious adverse events occurred in 40% of the patients receiving idelalisib and rituximab and in 35% of those receiving placebo and rituximab. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of idelalisib and rituximab, as compared with placebo and rituximab, significantly improved progression-free survival, response rate, and overall survival among patients with relapsed CLL who were less able to undergo chemotherapy. (Funded by Gilead; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01539512.).

A phase 2 study of idelalisib plus rituximab in treatment-naïve older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Idelalisib is a first-in-class oral inhibitor of PI3Kδ that has shown substantial activity in patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). To evaluate idelalisib as initial therapy, 64 treatment-naïve older patients with CLL or small lymphocytic leukemia (median age, 71 years; range, 65-90) were treated with rituximab 375 mg/m(2) weekly ×8 and idelalisib 150 mg twice daily continuously for 48 weeks. Patients completing 48 weeks without progression could continue to receive idelalisib on an extension study. The median time on treatment was 22.4 months (range, 0.8-45.8+). The overall response rate (ORR) was 97%, including 19% complete responses. The ORR was 100% in patients with del(17p)/TP53 mutations and 97% in those with unmutated IGHV. Progression-free survival was 83% at 36 months. The most frequent (>30%) adverse events (any grade) were diarrhea (including colitis) (64%), rash (58%), pyrexia (42%), nausea (38%), chills (36%), cough (33%), and fatigue (31%). Elevated alanine transaminase/aspartate transaminase was seen in 67% of patients (23% grade ≥3). The combination of idelalisib and rituximab was highly active, resulting in durable disease control in treatment-naïve older patients with CLL. These results support the further development of idelalisib as initial treatment of CLL. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT01203930.

Delaying skeletal-related events in a randomized phase 3 study of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in patients with advanced cancer: an analysis of data from patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Bone complications of metastatic disease, including skeletal-related events (SREs), impair patients' functioning and quality of life. In a randomized, phase 3 trial of 1,776 patients with metastases from solid tumors (except breast or prostate) or multiple myeloma, denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid (ZA) in delaying or preventing SREs. This ad hoc analysis reports outcomes in the subgroup of 1,597 patients with solid tumors, excluding patients with multiple myeloma. METHODS: Patients received monthly subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg or intravenous ZA 4 mg, adjusted for creatinine clearance, with calcium and vitamin D supplementation recommended. Endpoints included times to first on-study SRE, first-and-subsequent SREs, and pain worsening. RESULTS: Denosumab significantly delayed time to first on-study SRE compared with ZA (HR, 0.81; 95 % CI, 0.68-0.96) and time to first-and-subsequent SREs (RR, 0.85; 95 % CI, 0.72-1.00). Denosumab also significantly delayed time to development of moderate or severe pain (HR, 0.81; 95 % CI, 0.66-1.00), pain worsening (HR, 0.83; 95 % CI, 0.71-0.97), and worsening pain interference in patients with no/mild baseline pain (HR, 0.77; 95 % CI, 0.61-0.96). Adverse event rates were 96 % in both groups. Grade 3 or 4 hypocalcemia, mostly without clinical sequelae, was more frequent in denosumab-treated patients (denosumab 4 %, ZA 2 %). Osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred infrequently (denosumab 0.8 %, ZA 1.1 %). CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab was more effective in delaying or preventing SREs in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors and also prevented pain progression compared to ZA in this ad hoc analysis.

Pain outcomes in patients with advanced breast cancer and bone metastases: results from a randomized, double-blind study of denosumab and zoledronic acid.

BACKGROUND: In this study, the authors evaluated the effect of denosumab versus zoledronic acid (ZA) on pain in patients with advanced breast cancer and bone metastases. METHODS: The prevention of pain, reduction in pain interference with daily life activities, and the proportion of patients requiring strong opioid analgesics were assessed in a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy phase 3 study comparing denosumab with ZA for preventing skeletal-related events in 2046 patients who had breast cancer and bone metastases. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form at baseline and monthly thereafter. RESULTS: Fewer patients who received denosumab reported a clinically meaningful worsening of pain severity (≥2-point increase) from baseline compared with patients who received ZA, and a trend was observed toward delayed time to pain worsening with denosumab versus ZA (denosumab, 8.5 months; ZA, 7.4 months; P = .08). 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 ZA (9.7 months vs 5.8 months; P = .002). Denosumab delayed the time to increased pain interference by approximately 1 month compared with ZA (denosumab, 16.0 months; ZA, 14.9 months; P = .09). The time to pain improvement (P = .72) and the time to decreased pain interference (P = .92) were similar between the groups. Fewer denosumab-treated patients reported increased analgesic use from no/low use at baseline to strong opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab demonstrated improved pain prevention and comparable pain palliation compared with ZA. In addition, fewer denosumab-treated patients shifted to strong opioid analgesic use.

Denosumab and bone-metastasis-free survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: results of a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in men with prostate cancer. Preclinical studies suggest that osteoclast inhibition might prevent bone metastases. We assessed denosumab, a fully human anti-RANKL monoclonal antibody, for prevention of bone metastasis or death in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study, men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer at high risk of bone metastasis (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥8·0 µg/L or PSA doubling time ≤10·0 months, or both) were enrolled at 319 centres from 30 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg or subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by PSA eligibility criteria and previous or ongoing chemotherapy for prostate cancer. Patients, investigators, and all people involved in study conduct were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was bone-metastasis-free survival, a composite endpoint determined by time to first occurrence of bone metastasis (symptomatic or asymptomatic) or death from any cause. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. The masked treatment phase of the trial has been completed. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00286091. FINDINGS: 1432 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (716 denosumab, 716 placebo). Denosumab significantly increased bone-metastasis-free survival by a median of 4·2 months compared with placebo (median 29·5 [95% CI 25·4-33·3] vs 25·2 [22·2-29·5] months; hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·73-0·98, p=0·028). Denosumab also significantly delayed time to first bone metastasis (33·2 [95% CI 29·5-38·0] vs 29·5 [22·4-33·1] months; HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·71-0·98, p=0·032). Overall survival did not differ between groups (denosumab, 43·9 [95% CI 40·1-not estimable] months vs placebo, 44·8 [40·1-not estimable] months; HR 1·01, 95% CI 0·85-1·20, p=0·91). Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in both groups, except for osteonecrosis of the jaw and hypocalcaemia. 33 (5%) patients on denosumab developed osteonecrosis of the jaw versus none on placebo. Hypocalcaemia occurred in 12 (2%) patients on denosumab and two (<1%) on placebo. INTERPRETATION: This large randomised study shows that targeting of the bone microenvironment can delay bone metastasis in men with prostate cancer. FUNDING: Amgen Inc.

Denosumab versus zoledronic acid for treatment of bone metastases in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases are a major burden in men with advanced prostate cancer. We compared denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody against RANKL, with zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events in men with bone metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3 study, men with castration-resistant prostate cancer and no previous exposure to intravenous bisphosphonate were enrolled from 342 centres in 39 countries. An interactive voice response system was used to assign patients (1:1 ratio), according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence, to receive 120 mg subcutaneous denosumab plus intravenous placebo, or 4 mg intravenous zoledronic acid plus subcutaneous placebo, every 4 weeks until the primary analysis cutoff date. Randomisation was stratified by previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen concentration, and chemotherapy for prostate cancer within 6 weeks before randomisation. Supplemental calcium and vitamin D were strongly recommended. Patients, study staff, and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was time to first on-study skeletal-related event (pathological fracture, radiation therapy, surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression), and was assessed for non-inferiority. The same outcome was further assessed for superiority as a secondary endpoint. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00321620, and has been completed. FINDINGS: 1904 patients were randomised, of whom 950 assigned to denosumab and 951 assigned to receive zoledronic acid were eligible for the efficacy analysis. Median duration on study at primary analysis cutoff date was 12·2 months (IQR 5·9-18·5) for patients on denosumab and 11·2 months (IQR 5·6-17·4) for those on zoledronic acid. Median time to first on-study skeletal-related event was 20·7 months (95% CI 18·8-24·9) with denosumab compared with 17·1 months (15·0-19·4) with zoledronic acid (hazard ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·71-0·95; p = 0·0002 for non-inferiority; p = 0·008 for superiority). Adverse events were recorded in 916 patients (97%) on denosumab and 918 patients (97%) on zoledronic acid, and serious adverse events were recorded in 594 patients (63%) on denosumab and 568 patients (60%) on zoledronic acid. More events of hypocalcaemia occurred in the denosumab group (121 [13%]) than in the zoledronic acid group (55 [6%]; p<0·0001). Osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred infrequently (22 [2%] vs 12 [1%]; p = 0·09). INTERPRETATION: Denosumab was better than zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events, and potentially represents a novel treatment option in men with bone metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer. FUNDING: Amgen.

Estimating minimally important differences for the worst pain rating of the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form.

The Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) is widely used for assessing pain in clinical and research studies. The worst pain rating is often the primary outcome of interest; yet, no published data are available on its minimally important difference (MID). Breast cancer patients with bone metastases enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, phase III study comparing denosumab with zoledronic acid for preventing skeletal related events and completed the BPI-SF, FACT-B, and EQ-5 Datbaseline, week 5, and monthly through the end of the study. Anchor-and distribution-based MID estimates were computed. Data from 1,564 patients were available. Spearman correlation coefficients for anchors ranged from 0.33-0.65. Mean change scores for worst pain ratings corresponding to one-category improvement in each anchor were 0.26-1.04 for BPI-SF current pain, -1.40 to -2.42 for EQ-5D Index score, 1.71-1.98 for EQ-5D Pain item, -2.22 to -0.51 for FACT-BTOI, -1.61 to -0.16 for FACT-G Physical, and -1.31 to -0.12 for FACT-G total. Distribution-based results were ISEM = 1.6, 0.5 effect size = 1.4, and Guyatt's statistic = 1.4. Combining anchor-and distribution-based results yielded a two-point MID estimate. An MID estimate of two points is useful for interpreting how much change in worst pain is considered clinically meaningful.

Denosumab in patients with giant-cell tumour of bone: an open-label, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Giant-cell tumour (GCT) of bone is a primary osteolytic bone tumour with low metastatic potential and is associated with substantial skeletal morbidity. GCT is rich in osteoclast-like giant cells and contains mononuclear (stromal) cells that express RANK ligand (RANKL), a key mediator of osteoclast activation. We investigated the potential therapeutic effect of denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against RANKL, on tumour-cell survival and growth in patients with GCT. METHODS: In this open-label, single-group study, 37 patients with recurrent or unresectable GCT were enrolled and received subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg monthly (every 28 days), with loading doses on days 8 and 15 of month 1. The primary endpoint was tumour response, defined as elimination of at least 90% of giant cells or no radiological progression of the target lesion up to week 25. Study recruitment is closed; patient treatment and follow-up are ongoing. The study is registered with Clinical Trials.gov, NCT00396279. FINDINGS: Two patients had insufficient histology or radiology data for efficacy assessment. 30 of 35 (86%; 95% CI 70-95) of evaluable patients had a tumour response: 20 of 20 assessed by histology and 10 of 15 assessed by radiology. Adverse events were reported in 33 of 37 patients; the most common being pain in an extremity (n=7), back pain (n=4), and headache (n=4). Five patients had grade 3-5 adverse events, only one of which (grade 3 increase in human chorionic gonadotropin concentration not related to pregnancy) was deemed to be possibly treatment related. Five serious adverse events were reported although none were deemed treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Further investigation of denosumab as a therapy for GCT is warranted. FUNDING: Amgen, Inc.

A single dose of pegfilgrastim compared with daily filgrastim for supporting neutrophil recovery in patients treated for low-to-intermediate risk acute myeloid leukemia: results from a randomized, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are often neutropenic as a result of their disease. Furthermore, these patients typically experience profound neutropenia following induction and/or consolidation chemotherapy and this may result in serious, potentially life-threatening, infection. This randomized, double-blind, phase 2 clinical trial compared the efficacy and tolerability of pegfilgrastim with filgrastim for assisting neutrophil recovery following induction and consolidation chemotherapy for de novo AML in patients with low-to-intermediate risk cytogenetics. METHODS: Patients (n = 84) received one or two courses of standard induction chemotherapy (idarubicin + cytarabine), followed by one course of consolidation therapy (high-dose cytarabine) if complete remission was achieved. They were randomized to receive either single-dose pegfilgrastim 6 mg or daily filgrastim 5 mug/kg, beginning 24 hours after induction and consolidation chemotherapy. RESULTS: The median time to recovery from severe neutropenia was 22.0 days for both pegfilgrastim (n = 42) and filgrastim (n = 41) groups during Induction 1 (difference 0.0 days; 95% CI: -1.9 to 1.9). During Consolidation, recovery occurred after a median of 17.0 days for pegfilgrastim versus 16.5 days for filgrastim (difference 0.5 days; 95% CI: -1.1 to 2.1). Therapeutic pegfilgrastim serum concentrations were maintained throughout neutropenia. Pegfilgrastim was well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that of filgrastim. CONCLUSION: These data suggest no clinically meaningful difference between a single dose of pegfilgrastim and multiple daily doses of filgrastim for shortening the duration of severe neutropenia following chemotherapy in de novo AML patients with low-to-intermediate risk cytogenetics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00114764.

Early intervention with antithrombin III therapy to prevent progression of hepatic venoocclusive disease.

Venoocclusive disease (VOD) is the most frequent cause of early nonrelapse mortality among patients receiving high-dose chemoradiotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Endothelial injury of sinusoids and hepatic veins following chemotherapy is considered the initial event in the development of VOD. Activation of the coagulation cascade and inflammatory processes following endothelial injury results in a hypercoagulable state and a localized consumption of the natural anticoagulants, antithrombin III, protein C and protein S. The resultant coagulopathy can lead to multiorgan dysfunction and death. The objective was to retrospectively study the largest series of patients that has received antithrombin III for the treatment of VOD following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. A total of 48 patients were diagnosed with VOD post hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (median age, 39 years; range, 1-69 years); 38 of the 48 received a nonradiation-based conditioning regimen and 21 of 48 received a transplant from an unrelated donor. Treatment was primarily directed at early intervention rather than prophylactic therapy to correct the antithrombin III deficiency associated with VOD. We attempted to achieve antithrombin III levels greater than 120%. There was no significant treatment-related morbidity. The overall 100-day mortality for the treatment cohort was 17%, with 10% for the mild/moderate group and 39% for the severe group, respectively. In conclusion, the encouraging results of this study suggest that this antithrombin III treatment should be further considered in patients with severe VOD.

New Cancer Immunotherapy Agents in Development: a report from an associated program of the 31stAnnual Meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, 2016.

This report is a summary of 'New Cancer Immunotherapy Agents in Development' program, which took place in association with the 31st Annual Meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), on November 9, 2016 in National Harbor, Maryland. Presenters gave brief overviews of emerging clinical and pre-clinical immune-based agents and combinations, before participating in an extended panel discussion with multidisciplinary leaders, including members of the FDA, leading academic institutions and industrial drug developers, to consider topics relevant to the future of cancer immunotherapy.

Denosumab and bone metastasis-free survival in men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: exploratory analyses by baseline prostate-specific antigen doubling time.

PURPOSE: Denosumab, an anti-RANK ligand monoclonal antibody, significantly increases bone metastasis-free survival (BMFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; P = .028) and delays time to first bone metastasis in men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 8.0 ng/mL and/or PSA doubling time (PSADT) ≤ 10.0 months. To identify men at greatest risk for bone metastasis or death, we evaluated relationships between PSA and PSADT with BMFS in the placebo group and the efficacy and safety of denosumab in men with PSADT ≤ 10, ≤ 6, and ≤ 4 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1,432 men with nonmetastatic CRPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to monthly subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg or placebo. Enrollment began February 2006; primary analysis cutoff was July 2010, when approximately 660 men were anticipated to have developed bone metastases or died. RESULTS: In the placebo group, shorter BMFS was observed as PSADT decreased below 8 months. In analyses by shorter baseline PSADT, denosumab consistently increased BMFS by a median of 6.0, 7.2, and 7.5 months among men with PSADT ≤ 10 (HR, 0.84; P = .042), ≤ 6 (HR, 0.77; P = .006), and ≤ 4 months (HR, 0.71; P = .004), respectively. Denosumab also consistently increased time to bone metastasis by PSADT subset. No difference in survival was observed between treatment groups for the overall study population or PSADT subsets. CONCLUSION: Patients with shorter PSADT are at greater risk for bone metastasis or death. Denosumab consistently improves BMFS in men with shorter PSADT and seems to have the greatest treatment effects in men at high risk for progression.

The development of denosumab for the treatment of diseases of bone loss and cancer-induced bone destruction.

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody against RANK ligand (RANKL), an essential cytokine for the formation, function, and survival of osteoclasts. The role of excessive RANKL as a contributor to conditions characterized by bone loss or bone destruction has been well studied. With its novel mechanism of action, denosumab offers a significant advance in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis; bone loss associated with hormone ablation therapy in women with breast cancer and men with prostate cancer; and the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors by offering clinical benefit to these patients in need.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: With increasing healthcare resource constraints, it has become important to understand the incremental cost-effectiveness of new medicines. Subcutaneous denosumab is superior to intravenous zoledronic acid (ZA) for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases. This study sought to determine the lifetime cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs ZA in this setting, from a US managed-care perspective. METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed, with relative rate reductions in SREs for denosumab vs ZA derived from three pivotal Phase 3 trials involving patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), breast cancer, and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bone metastases. The real-world SRE rates in ZA-treated patients were derived from a large commercial database. SRE and treatment administration quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements were estimated with time-trade-off studies. SRE costs were estimated from a nationally representative commercial claims database. Drug, drug administration, and renal monitoring costs were included. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with a reduced number of SREs, increased QALYs, and increased lifetime total costs vs ZA. The costs per QALY gained for denosumab vs ZA in CRPC, breast cancer, and NSCLC were $49,405, $78,915, and $67,931, respectively, commonly considered good value in the US. Costs per SRE avoided were $8567, $13,557, and $10,513, respectively. Results were sensitive to drug costs and SRE rates. LIMITATIONS: Differences in pain severity and analgesic use favoring denosumab over ZA were not captured. Mortality was extrapolated from fitted generalized gamma function beyond the trial duration. CONCLUSION: Denosumab is a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases compared to ZA. The overall value of denosumab is based on superior efficacy, favorable safety, and more efficient administration.

Bench to bedside: elucidation of the OPG-RANK-RANKL pathway and the development of denosumab.

Bone is a complex tissue that provides mechanical support for muscles and joints, protection for vital organs, a mineral reservoir that is essential for calcium homeostasis, and the environment and niches required for haematopoiesis. The regulation of bone mass in mammals is governed by a complex interplay between bone-forming cells termed osteoblasts and bone-resorbing cells termed osteoclasts, and is guided physiologically by a diverse set of hormones, cytokines and growth factors. The balance between these processes changes over time, causing an elevated risk of fractures with age. Osteoclasts may also be activated in the cancer setting, leading to bone pain, fracture, spinal cord compression and other significant morbidities. This Review chronicles the events that led to an increased understanding of bone resorption, the elucidation of the signalling pathway mediated by osteoprotegerin, receptor activator of NF-κB (RANK) and RANK ligand (RANKL) and its role in osteoclast biology, as well as the evolution of recombinant RANKL antagonists, which culminated in the development of the therapeutic RANKL-targeted antibody denosumab.

Bone-related complications and quality of life in advanced breast cancer: results from a randomized phase III trial of denosumab versus zoledronic acid.

PURPOSE: Denosumab was shown to be superior to zoledronic acid in preventing skeletal related events (SRE) in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases in a randomized, double-blind phase III study. We evaluated further results from this study related to skeletal complications and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg (n = 1,026) and intravenous placebo, or intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg (n = 1,020) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks. Analyses reported here include the proportion of patients with one or multiple on-study SREs, time to first radiation to bone, time to first SRE or hypercalcemia of malignancy, and change in HRQoL (functional assessment of cancer therapy-general). RESULTS: Fewer patients receiving denosumab than zoledronic acid had an on-study SRE (31% vs. 36%, P = 0.006). The incidence of first radiation to bone was 12% (n = 123) with denosumab versus 16% (n = 162) with zoledronic acid. Denosumab prolonged the time to first radiation to bone by 26% versus zoledronic acid (HR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.94, P = 0.012) and prolonged the time to first SRE or hypercalcemia of malignancy by 18% (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.95; P = 0.007). Ten percent more patients had a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQoL with denosumab relative to zoledronic acid, regardless of baseline pain levels. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid in reducing bone-related complications of metastatic breast cancer and maintained HRQoL, providing an efficacious, well-tolerated treatment option for patients with bone metastases from breast cancer.

Randomized, double-blind study of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in the treatment of bone metastases in patients with advanced cancer (excluding breast and prostate cancer) or multiple myeloma.

PURPOSE: This study compared denosumab, a fully human monoclonal anti-receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand antibody, with zoledronic acid (ZA) for delaying or preventing skeletal-related events (SRE) in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases (excluding breast and prostate) or myeloma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind, double-dummy design to receive monthly subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg (n = 886) or intravenous ZA 4 mg (dose adjusted for renal impairment; n = 890). Daily supplemental calcium and vitamin D were strongly recommended. The primary end point was time to first on-study SRE (pathologic fracture, radiation or surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression). RESULTS: Denosumab was noninferior to ZA in delaying time to first on-study SRE (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.98; P = .0007). Although directionally favorable, denosumab was not statistically superior to ZA in delaying time to first on-study SRE (P = .03 unadjusted; P = .06 adjusted for multiplicity) or time to first-and-subsequent (multiple) SRE (rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.04; P = .14). Overall survival and disease progression were similar between groups. Hypocalcemia occurred more frequently with denosumab. Osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred at similarly low rates in both groups. Acute-phase reactions after the first dose occurred more frequently with ZA, as did renal adverse events and elevations in serum creatinine based on National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events grading. CONCLUSION: Denosumab was noninferior (trending to superiority) to ZA in preventing or delaying first on-study SRE in patients with advanced cancer metastatic to bone or myeloma. Denosumab represents a potential novel treatment option with the convenience of subcutaneous administration and no requirement for renal monitoring or dose adjustment.

Denosumab compared with zoledronic acid for the treatment of bone metastases in patients with advanced breast cancer: a randomized, double-blind study.

PURPOSE: This randomized study compared denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor κ B (RANK) ligand, with zoledronic acid in delaying or preventing skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with breast cancer with bone metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg and intravenous placebo (n = 1,026) or intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg adjusted for creatinine clearance and subcutaneous placebo (n = 1,020) every 4 weeks. All patients were strongly recommended to take daily calcium and vitamin D supplements. The primary end point was time to first on-study SRE (defined as pathologic fracture, radiation or surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression). RESULTS: Denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid in delaying time to first on-study SRE (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.95; P = .01 superiority) and time to first and subsequent (multiple) on-study SREs (rate ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.89; P = .001). Reduction in bone turnover markers was greater with denosumab. Overall survival, disease progression, and rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were similar between groups. An excess of renal AEs and acute-phase reactions occurred with zoledronic acid; hypocalcemia occurred more frequently with denosumab. Osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred infrequently (2.0%, denosumab; 1.4%, zoledronic acid; P = .39). CONCLUSION: Denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid in delaying or preventing SREs in patients with breast cancer metastatic to bone and was generally well tolerated. With the convenience of a subcutaneous injection and no requirement for renal monitoring, denosumab represents a potential treatment option for patients with bone metastases.