Treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors with bone-modifying agents: a web survey of Italian oncologists investigating patterns of practice drug prescription and prevention of side effects.

PURPOSE: Optimal use of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors is uncertain in some aspects: the drug choice; the planned treatment duration and long-term therapy; the prevention and management of possible side effects, including renal toxicity, hypocalcaemia, and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). METHODS: Italian oncologists were invited to fulfil a 24-question web survey about prescription of BMAs for bone metastases of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and other solid tumors. Prevention and management of side effects were also investigated. RESULTS: Answers of 191 oncologists were collected. BMAs are usually prescribed at the time of diagnosis of bone metastases by 87.0% (breast cancer) and 76.1% (solid tumors except breast and prostate cancers) of oncologists; the decision is more articulated for prostate cancer (endocrine-sensitive versus castration-resistant). The creatinine level (32.3%), the availability of patient venous access (15.8%), and the type of primary neoplasm (13.6%) are the most reported factors involved in choice between bisphosphonates and denosumab. Zoledronic acid every 3 months was considered as a valid alternative to monthly administration by 94% of Italian oncologists. Oncologists reported a good confidence with measures aimed to prevent MRONJ, whereas uncertainness about prevention and management of hypocalcemia was registered. CONCLUSION: Italian oncologists showed a high attitude in prescribing bisphosphonates or denosumab at the time of diagnosis of bone metastases, with a large application of preventive measures of side effects. Further studies are needed to investigate some controversial aspects, such as optimal drug treatment duration and long-term drug schedules.

Italian position paper (SIPMO-SICMF) on medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ).

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to describe the 2023 update position paper on MRONJ developed by the Italian Societies of Oral Pathology and Medicine (SIPMO) and of Maxillofacial Surgery (SICMF). METHODS: This is the second update following the 2013 and 2020 Italian position papers by the Expert panel, which is a representation of the two scientific societies (SIPMO and SICMF). The paper is based on an extensive analysis of the available literature from January 2003 to February 2020, and the subsequent review of literature conducted between March 2020 and December 2022 to include all new relevant published papers to confirm or modify the previous set of recommendations. RESULTS: This position paper highlights the main issues of MRONJ on risk estimates, disease definition, diagnostic pathway, individual risk assessment, and the fundamental role of imaging in the diagnosis, classification, and management of MRONJ. CONCLUSION: The Expert Panel confirmed the MRONJ definition, the diagnostic work-up, the clinical-radiological staging system and the prophylactic drug holiday, as recognized by SIPMO-SICMF; while, it presented novel indications regarding the categories at risk of MRONJ, the prevention strategies, and the treatment strategies associated with the therapeutic drug holiday.

Immune Dysfunction in Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw.

The pathogenesis of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is multifactorial and there is a substantial consensus on the role of antiresorptive drugs (ARDs), including bisphosphonates (BPs) and denosumab (Dmab), as one of the main determinants. The time exposure, cumulative dose and administration intensity of these drugs are critical parameters to be considered in the treatment of patients, as cancer patients show the highest incidence of MRONJ. BPs and Dmab have distinct mechanisms of action on bone, but they also exert different effects on immune subsets which interact with bone cells, thus contributing to the onset of MRONJ. Here, we summarized the main effects of ARDs on the different immune cell subsets, which consequently affect bone cells, particularly osteoclasts and osteoblasts. Data from animal models and MRONJ patients showed a deep interference of ARDs in modulating immune cells, even though a large part of the literature concerns the effects of BPs and there is a lack of data on Dmab, demonstrating the need to further studies.

MRONJ in breast cancer patients under bone modifying agents for cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL): a multi-hospital-based case series.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) is the most common adverse event experienced by patients affected by breast cancer (BC) patients, without bone metastases. Bone modifying agents (BMAs) therapy is prescribed for the prevention of CTIBL, but it exposes patients to the risk of MRONJ. METHODS: This multicentre hospital-based retrospective study included consecutive non-metastatic BC patients affected by MRONJ related to exposure to low-dose BMAs for CTIBL prevention. Patients' data were retrospectively collected from the clinical charts of seven recruiting Italian centres. RESULTS: MRONJ lesions were found in fifteen females (mean age 67.5 years), mainly in the mandible (73.3%). The mean duration of BMAs therapy at MRONJ presentation was 34.9 months. The more frequent BMAs was denosumab (53.3%). Ten patients (66.7%) showed the following local risk factors associated to MRONJ development: periodontal disease (PD) in three cases (20%) and the remaining six (40%) have undergone PD-related tooth extractions. One patient presented an implant presence-triggered MRONJ (6.7%). In five patients (33.3%) no local risk factors were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first case series that investigated BC patients under BMAs for CTIBL prevention suffering from MRONJ. These patients seem to have similar probabilities of developing MRONJ as osteo-metabolic ones. Breast cancer patients under BMAs for CTIBL prevention need a regular prevention program for MRONJ, since they may develop bone metastases and be treated with higher doses of BMAs, potentially leading to a high-risk of MRONJ.

One changing and challenging scenario: the treatment of cancer patients with bone metastases by bisphosphonates and denosumab, the cost-benefit evaluation of different options, and the risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ).

Antiresorptive drugs (bisphosphonates and denosumab) have become the cornerstone of medical supportive treatment of bone metastases in solid cancer patients. In the beginning, the choice of available antiresorptive agents was limited to bisphosphonates and the treatment options restricted principally to monthly pamidronate and monthly zoledronic acid. Introduction of new antiresorptive therapies (monthly denosumab) and schedules (zoledronic acid every 3 months, upfront or after initial period of monthly infusion) in the last decade increased the range of available options, thus challenging treatment decision making. Direct and indirect costs of very different treatment options are difficult to interpret in a global cost-benefit analysis. In addition, awareness of the increased risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in bone metastatic cancer patients receiving long-term antiresorptive medications is likely to influence therapy choice in the real-life scenario. We discuss the possible threat of MRONJ risk underestimation and the need for long-term risk stratification of patients based on actuarial data, the role of bisphosphonates and denosumab in that scenario, and the emerging role of surgical therapy to successfully cure MRONJ, in the light of the improved quality of life and survival of patients with bone metastases from solid cancers.

The preventive care of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ): a position paper by Italian experts for dental hygienists.

PURPOSE: The prevention and early diagnosis of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is fundamental to reducing the incidence and progression of MRONJ. Many in the field believe that dental hygienists should play an integral role in primary and secondary MRONJ prevention. However, to date, very few publications in the literature have proposed standardised MRONJ protocols, which are dedicated to dental hygienists. The aim of this study was to provide guidance to the health care providers managing MRONJ. METHODS: The expert opinion in this study was developed by dental hygienists from the main Italian technical-scientific associations (Italian Dental Hygienists Association, AIDI and National Union of Dental Hygienists, UNID) and authors of the latest Italian recommendations regarding MRONJ from the field of dentistry and maxillofacial surgery. RESULTS: The oral care protocol outlined in this position paper is focused on the role of dental hygienist in patients at risk or affected by MRONJ, and it regards 3 main issues: primary prevention, secondary prevention and supporting the treatment of MRONJ. Each issue contains easy-to-apply indications and procedures, as described by the authors, regarding the role of the dental hygienist. CONCLUSION: Referring to the main issues under consideration (primary prevention, secondary prevention and the treatment of MRONJ), a clinical examination of periodontal tissue is critical in preventing MRONJ. It is the opinion of the authors of this study that the application of a periodontal screening score is fundamental in defining personalised strategies for patients at risk of MRONJ. By means of these basic procedures, a protocol for assisting the health care provider and the presentation of a practical approach for patients at risk or affected by MRONJ are described in this study.

Correction to: Standard (8 weeks) vs long (12 weeks) timing to minimally-invasive surgery after NeoAdjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled parallel group trial (TiMiSNAR).

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported that the family name of the author, Ludovica Baldari, was misspelled.

Standard (8 weeks) vs long (12 weeks) timing to minimally-invasive surgery after NeoAdjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled parallel group trial (TiMiSNAR).

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of surgery in relation to chemoradiation is still controversial. Retrospective analysis has demonstrated in the recent decades that the regression of adenocarcinoma can be slow and not complete until after several months. More recently, increasing pathologic Complete Response rates have been demonstrated to be correlated with longer time interval. The purpose of the trial is to demonstrate if delayed timing of surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy actually affects pathologic Complete Response and reflects on disease-free survival and overall survival rather than standard timing. METHODS: The trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled, unblinded, parallel-group trial comparing standard and delayed surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. Three-hundred and forty patients will be randomized on an equal basis to either robotic-assisted/standard laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery after 8 weeks or robotic-assisted/standard laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery after 12 weeks. DISCUSSION: To date, it is well-know that pathologic Complete Response is associated with excellent prognosis and an overall survival of 90%. In the Lyon trial the rate of pCR or near pathologic Complete Response increased from 10.3 to 26% and in retrospective studies the increase rate was about 23-30%. These results may be explained on the relationship between radiation therapy and tumor regression: DNA damage occurs during irradiation, but cellular lysis occurs within the next weeks. Study results, whether confirmed that performing surgery after 12 weeks from neoadjuvant treatment is advantageous from a technical and oncological point of view, may change the current pathway of the treatment in those patient suffering from rectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT3465982.

Epidemiology, clinical manifestations, risk reduction and treatment strategies of jaw osteonecrosis in cancer patients exposed to antiresorptive agents.

 Osteonecrosis of the jaws (ONJ) is an adverse side event of bisphosphonates and denosumab, antiresorptive agents that effectively reduce the incidence of skeletal-related events in patients with metastatic bone cancer and multiple myeloma. Available data suggest that 0-27.5% of individuals exposed to antiresorptive agents can develop ONJ. There is increasing evidence that avoidance of surgical trauma and infection to the jawbones can minimize the risk of ONJ, but there are still a significant number of individuals who develop ONJ in the absence of these risk factors. Bone necrosis is almost irreversible and there is no definitive cure for ONJ with the exclusion, in certain cases, of surgical resection. However, most ONJ individuals are affected by advanced incurable cancer and are often managed with minimally invasive nonsurgical interventions in order to control jawbone infections and painful symptoms. This article summarizes current knowledge of ONJ epidemiology, manifestations, risk-reduction and therapeutic strategies. Further research is needed in order to determine individual predisposition to ONJ and clarify the effectiveness of available treatments.

Management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss in patients with breast and hormone sensitive prostate cancer: AIOM survey.

PURPOSE: Cancer treatment-induced bone loss is a side effect of hormonal therapy that can severely affect patients' quality of life. The aim of this survey was to obtain an updated picture of management of bone health in patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant hormonal therapy and in patients with hormone sensitive prostate cancer according to Italian oncologists. METHODS: Our survey was made up of 21 multiple-choice questions: the first part dealt with the respondents' characteristics, while the second with management of bone health in the described setting. An invitation to complete the survey was sent by e-mail to 2336 oncologists, members of Italian Association of Medical Oncology, in October 2022. RESULTS: Overall, 121 (5.2%) Italian oncologists completed the survey. In most cases (57%) the oncologist personally took charge of the management of bone health in patients at risk for cancer treatment-induced bone loss. At the beginning of hormonal therapy, most respondents reported to require bone health diagnostic exams, such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (89%), repeated with different timing. Main reported reasons (not mutually exclusive) for prescribing antiresorptive drugs were modifying fracture risk (87%), densitometry values (75%) or prognosis (34%). Answers about the management of antiresorptive therapy were heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: A heterogeneous approach on the management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss in Italy arises from this survey. This scenario highlights the need for a major consensus of the Italian scientific community on the diagnostic and therapeutic approach of cancer treatment-induced bone loss and for a greater awareness of this topic among Italian oncologists.

Adjuvant chemotherapy of pT1a and pT1b breast carcinoma: results from the NEMESI study.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of pT1a-pT1b breast cancer (BC) used to be considered very good, with a 10-y RFS of 90%. However, some retrospective studies reported a 10-y RFS of 81%-86% and suggested benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy. METHODS: To evaluate the variables that determined the choice of adjuvant chemotherapy and the type of chemotherapy delivered in pT1a-pT1b BC, we analysed the small tumours enrolled in the NEMESI study. RESULTS: Out of 1,894 patients with pathological stage I-II BC enrolled in NEMESI, 402 (21.2%) were pT1a-pT1b. Adjuvant chemotherapy was delivered in 127/402 (31.59%). Younger age, grading G3, high proliferative index, ER-negative and HER2-positive status were significantly associated with the decision to administer adjuvant chemotherapy. An anthracycline without taxane regimen was administered in 59.1% of patients, anthracycline with taxane in 24.4%, a CMF-like regimen in 14.2% and taxane in 2.4%. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 88.4% triple-negative and 73.46% HER2-positive pT1a-pT1b BC. Adjuvant trastuzumab was delivered in 30/49 HER2-positive BC (61.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant chemotherapy was delivered in 31.59% T1a-pT1b BC treated at 63 Italian oncological centres from January 2008 to June 2008. The choice to deliver chemotherapy was based on biological prognostic factors. Anthracycline-based chemotherapy was administered in 83.5% patients.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 protects from morbidity, mortality and sequelae from COVID19 in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although SARS-CoV-2 vaccines immunogenicity in patients with cancer has been investigated, whether they can significantly improve the severity of COVID-19 in this specific population is undefined. METHODS: Capitalizing on OnCovid (NCT04393974) registry data we reported COVID-19 mortality and proxies of COVID-19 morbidity, including post-COVID-19 outcomes, according to the vaccination status of the included patients. RESULTS: 2090 eligible patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between 02/2020 and 11/2021 were included, of whom 1930 (92.3%) unvaccinated, 91 (4.4%) fully vaccinated and 69 (3.3%) partially vaccinated. With the exception of a higher prevalence of patients from the UK (p = 0.0003) and receiving systemic anticancer therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis (p = 0.0082) among fully vaccinated patients, no demographics/oncological features were associated with vaccination status. The 14-days case fatality rate (CFR) (5.5% vs 20.7%, p = 0.0004) and the 28-days CFR (13.2% vs 27.4%, p = 0.0028) demonstrated a significant improvement for fully vaccinated patients in comparison with unvaccinated patients. The receipt of prior full vaccination was also associated with reduced symptomatic COVID-19 (79.1% vs 88.5%, p = 0.0070), need of COVID-19 oriented therapy (34.9% vs 63.2%, p < 0.0001), complications from COVID-19 (28.6% vs 39.4%, p = 0.0379), hospitalizations due to COVID-19 (42.2% vs 52.5%, p = 0.0007) and oxygen therapy requirement (35.7% vs 52%, p = 0.0036). Following Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (IPTW) procedure no statistically significant difference according to the vaccination status was confirmed; however, all COVID-19 related outcomes were concordantly in favour of full vaccination. Among the 1228 (58.8%) patients who underwent a formal reassessment at participating centres after COVID-19 resolution, fully vaccinated patients experienced less sequelae than unvaccinated patients (6.7% vs 17.2%, p = 0.0320). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides initial evidence in support of the beneficial effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in patients with cancer.

A pragmatic window of opportunity to minimise the risk of MRONJ development in individuals with osteoporosis on Denosumab therapy: a hypothesis.

Denosumab is associated with the development of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ), an uncommon but severe oral side effect with a higher prevalence in metastatic cancer patients than in patients with metabolic bone fragility. Although several oral triggers can initiate MRONJ, invasive oral treatments and tooth extraction still remain the most common precipitating event. In general, tooth extraction and oral surgery should be avoided in patients at increased risk of MRONJ, while extraction of non-restorable teeth should be performed based on specific risk reduction protocols to eliminate dental/periodontal infections, still protecting from MRONJ onset. Based on the different pharmacological activity of denosumab and nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates, it is likely that the MRONJ risk profile of patients with osteoporosis could somewhat vary. We hypothesize the chance to maximize the pharmacokinetic of denosumab 60 mg (Prolia®) and identify a time interval in which invasive oral treatments can ideally take place without restrictions in patients with metabolic bone fragility, We propose that dental surgery (e.g. tooth extraction) may be safely performed without additional intra or peri-operative procedures in osteoporosis patients using denosumab provided that careful case selection, adequate communication among specialists, planning of a delayed dosing window (1-month deferral) and rigorous postoperative follow-up are granted.