Cancer treatment-induced bone loss in premenopausal women: a need for therapeutic intervention?

Current clinical treatment guidelines recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or both (with targeted therapy if indicated) for premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer, depending on the biologic characteristics of the primary tumor. Some of these therapies can induce premature menopause or are specifically designed to suppress ovarian function and reduce circulating estrogen levels. In addition to bone loss associated with low estrogen levels, cytotoxic chemotherapy may have a direct negative effect on bone metabolism. As a result, cancer treatment-induced bone loss poses a significant threat to bone health in premenopausal women with breast cancer. Clinical trials of antiresorptive therapies, such as bisphosphonates, have demonstrated the ability to slow or prevent bone loss in this setting. Current fracture risk assessment tools are based on data from healthy postmenopausal women and do not adequately address the risks associated with breast cancer therapy, especially in younger premenopausal women. We therefore recommend that all premenopausal women with breast cancer be informed about the potential risk of bone loss prior to beginning anticancer therapy. Women who experience amenorrhea should have bone mineral density assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and receive regular follow-up to monitor bone health. Regular exercise and daily calcium and vitamin D supplementation are recommended. Women with a Z-score <-2.0 or Z-score ≤-1.0 and/or a 5-10% annual decrease in bone mineral density should be considered for bisphosphonate therapy in addition to calcium and vitamin D supplements.

What do prescribers think of biosimilars?

Until recently, prescribers had to deal with generics, considered to be simple molecules that are easy to copy. But as discussed in this paper, the biodisponibility of generics remains a source of uncertainty. And now there are biosimilars, limited for the time being in the cancer setting to granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) and epoetins. Soon there will be biosimilar monoclonal antibodies with anticancer activity. Prescribers will ask, as they did for generics, if such drugs have the same activity as originators, if their safety profile is the same, if quality of the production process is guaranteed. Prescribers will want to know if their patients are indeed receiving the prescribed product, and not another. Finally prescribers will want to check that the lower cost of biosimilars will allow them to adhere to international guidelines. This should benefit patients and the community.

Management of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss in postmenopausal women with breast cancer: practical guidance for prevention and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Bone mineral density (BMD)-based guidelines for bone-directed therapy in women with early breast cancer (EBC) appear inadequate for averting fractures, particularly during aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Therefore, an algorithm was developed to better assess risk and direct treatment (Hadji P, Body JJ, Aapro MS et al. Practical guidance for the management of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 1407-1416). Here, we provide updated guidance on pharmacologic interventions to prevent/treat aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss (AIBL). DESIGN: Systematic literature review identified recent advances in preventing/treating AIBL. Individual agents were assessed based on trial size, design, follow-up, and safety. RESULTS: Fracture risk factors in patients with EBC remain unchanged (Hadji P, Body JJ, Aapro MS et al. Practical guidance for the management of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 1407-1416). The World Health Organization Fracture Risk Assessment Tool algorithm includes fracture risk factors plus BMD but does not adequately address AIBL effects. Several antiresorptives can prevent/treat AIBL. However, concerns regarding compliance and long-term efficacy/safety remain. Overall, evidence is strongest for twice-yearly zoledronic acid (ZOL), and recent advances support additional anticancer benefits from ZOL. CONCLUSIONS: All patients initiating AIs need advice regarding exercise, calcium/vitamin D supplements, baseline BMD monitoring (when available), and bone-directed therapy if T-score <-2.0 or at least two fracture risk factors were observed. Patients with T-score > -2.0 and no risk factors should be managed based on BMD loss during years 1-2. Unsatisfactory compliance/decreasing BMD after 12-24 months on oral bisphosphonates should trigger a switch to i.v. bisphosphonate.

2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality and also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. In Europe, prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim (including approved biosimilars), lenograstim or pegfilgrastim is available to reduce the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. The need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines led to the formation of a European Guidelines Working Party by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and the publication in 2006 of guidelines for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. A new systematic literature review has been undertaken to ensure that recommendations are current and provide guidance on clinical practice in Europe. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors, such as elderly age (≥65 years) and neutrophil count be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk before administering each cycle of chemotherapy. It is important that after a previous episode of FN, patients receive prophylactic administration of G-CSF in subsequent cycles. We provide an expanded list of common chemotherapy regimens considered to have a high (≥20%) or intermediate (10-20%) risk of FN. Prophylactic G-CSF continues to be recommended in patients receiving a chemotherapy regimen with high risk of FN. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% of patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Clinical evidence shows that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications where indicated. Filgrastim biosimilars are also approved for use in Europe. While other forms of G-CSF, including biosimilars, are administered by a course of daily injections, pegfilgrastim allows once-per-cycle administration. Choice of formulation remains a matter for individual clinical judgement. Evidence from multiple low level studies derived from audit data and clinical practice suggests that some patients receive suboptimal daily G-CSFs; the use of pegfilgrastim may avoid this problem.

Aprepitant: drug-drug interactions in perspective.

The implications of chemotherapeutic drug-drug interactions can be serious and thus need to be addressed. This review concerns the potential interactions of the antiemetic aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist indicated for use (in Europe) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and corticosteroids and (in the United States) in combination with other antiemetic agents, for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of highly emetogenic cancer chemotherapy including high-dose cisplatin. When considering use of aprepitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, its potential drug-drug interaction profile as a moderate inhibitor of cytochrome P-450 isoenzyme 3A4 (CYP3A4) has been a source of concern for some physicians and other health care professionals. We explore in this paper how real those concerns are. Our conclusion is that either no interaction or no clinically relevant interaction exists with chemotherapeutic agents (intravenous cyclophosphamide, docetaxel, intravenous vinorelbine) or 5-HT3 antagonists (granisetron, ondansetron, palonosetron). For relevant interactions, appropriate measures, such as corticosteroid dose modifications and extended International Normalized Ratio monitoring of patients on warfarin therapy, can be taken to effectively manage them. Therefore, the concern of negative interactions remains largely theoretical but needs to be verified with new agents extensively metabolized through the 3A4 pathway.

Febrile neutropenia and related complications in breast cancer patients receiving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis versus current practice neutropaenia management: results from an integrated analysis.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) reduce febrile neutropaenia (FN) incidence but may be used inconsistently in current practice (CP). This study compared the efficacy of pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis (PPP) with CP neutropaenia management in breast cancer. Individual patient data (N=2282) from 11 clinical trials and observational studies using chemotherapy regimens with > or =15% FN risk and PPP (6 mg, all cycles) or CP (no G-CSF or any cycle G-CSF/pegfilgrastim) were included in an integrated analysis. Most patients received docetaxel-containing regimens. A generalised linear mixed model was fitted (N=2210). Neutropaenia prophylaxis (PPP versus CP), age and disease stage influenced the incidence of FN. Overall, FN was less frequent with PPP than with CP (odds ratio [OR]: 0.124; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08, 0.194; P<0.0001). Odds for cycle 1 FN, dose reductions > or =15% and FN-related hospitalisation were also significantly lower with PPP. These data support PPP in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with moderately high/high FN risk.

Practical guidance for the management of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate that women with breast cancer are at increased risk of fracture compared with their age-matched peers. Current treatment guidelines are inadequate for averting fractures in osteopenic women, especially those receiving aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Therefore, we sought to identify clinically relevant risk factors for fracture that can be used to assess overall fracture risk and to provide practical guidance for preventing and treating bone loss in women with breast cancer receiving AI therapy. METHODS: Systematic review of pertinent information from published literature and meeting abstracts through December 2007 was carried out to identify factors contributing to fracture risk in women with breast cancer. An evidence-based medicine approach was used to select risk factors that can be used to determine when to initiate bisphosphonate treatment of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss (AIBL). RESULTS: Fracture risk factors were chosen from large, well-designed, controlled, population-based trials in postmenopausal women. Evidence from multiple prospective clinical trials in women with breast cancer was used to validate AI therapy as a fracture risk factor. Overall, eight fracture risk factors were validated in women with breast cancer: AI therapy, T-score <-1.5, age >65 years, low body mass index (BMI <20 kg/m(2)), family history of hip fracture, personal history of fragility fracture after age 50, oral corticosteroid use >6 months, and smoking. Treatment recommendations were derived from randomized clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: The authors recommend the following for preventing and treating AIBL in women with breast cancer. All patients initiating AI therapy should receive calcium and vitamin D supplements. Any patient initiating or receiving AI therapy with a T-score >/=-2.0 and no additional risk factors should be monitored every 1-2 years for change in risk status and bone mineral density (BMD). Any patient initiating or receiving AI therapy with a T-score <-2.0 should receive bisphosphonate therapy. Any patient initiating or receiving AI therapy with any two of the following risk factors-T-score <-1.5, age >65 years, low BMI (<20 kg/m(2)), family history of hip fracture, personal history of fragility fracture after age 50, oral corticosteroid use >6 months, and smoking-should receive bisphosphonate therapy. BMD should be monitored every 2 years, and treatment should continue for at least 2 years and possibly for as long as AI therapy is continued. To date, the overwhelming majority of clinical evidence supports zoledronic acid 4 mg every 6 months to prevent bone loss in women at high risk. Although there is a trend towards fewer fractures with zoledronic acid, studies completed to date have not been designed to capture significant differences in fracture rate, and longer follow-up is needed.

[Medical oncology trends]. / Oncotogie médicate.

The 2007 vintage leads to renewed enthusiasm in medical oncology, as published data with major impact on daily practice relate to many areas. While we do not review congress abstracts, exceptions are needed to this rule. Indeed, after renal cell cancer patients, we now see patients with another tumor, difficult to treat so far, being offered some hope: hepatocarcinoma has been the focus of recent attention. While many of the reviewed papers are about "targeted" cancer treatment, progress in chemotherapy data is also remarkable. One simply continues to regret the lack of focused studies which would improve on the response rates and survival impact. One may hope that the near future will deliver on this, leading to an increased treatment effectiveness and decreased exposure to unjustified toxicity.

[Medical oncology]. / Oncologie médicate.

The 2006 vintage leads to decreased enthusiasm in medical oncology, compared to the amazing 2005. One notable exception is the marketing of sunitinib and sorafenib, two agents which increase remarkably the chances of benefiting renal cell cancer patients. Several of the reviewed papers indicate the need to better target cancer treatment, including chemotherapy. One may hope that the near future will deliver on this, leading to an increased treatment effectiveness and decreased exposure to unjustified toxicity.

Organization of the clinical activity of geriatric oncology: report of a SIOG (International Society of Geriatric Oncology) task force.

Management for elderly cancer patients world wide is far from being optimal and few older patients are entering clinical trials. A SIOG Task Force was therefore activated to analyze how the clinical activity of Geriatric Oncology is organized. A structured questionnaire was circulated among the SIOG Members. Fifty eight answers were received. All respondents identified Geriatric Oncology, as an area of specialization, however the organization of the clinical activity was variable. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) was performed in 60% of cases. A Geriatric Oncology Program (GOP) was identified in 21 centers, 85% located in Oncology and 15% in Geriatric Departments. In the majority of GOP scheduled case discussion conferences dedicated to elderly cancer patients took regular place, the composition of the multidisciplinary team involved in the GOP activity included Medical Oncologists, Geriatricians, Nurses, Pharmacists, Social Workers. Fellowships in Geriatric Oncology were present in almost half of GOPs. Over 60% of respondents were willing to recruit patients over 70 years in clinical trials, while the proportion of cases included was only 20%. Enrolment in clinical trials was perceived as more difficult by 52% and much more difficult in 12% of the respondents. In conclusion, a better organization of the clinical activity in Geriatric Oncology allows a better clinical practice and an optimal clinical research. The GOP which can be set up in the oncological as well as in the geriatric environment thought a multidisciplinary coordinator effort. Future plans should also concentrate on divisions, units or departments of Geriatric Oncology.

EORTC guidelines for the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer: 2006 update.

Anaemia is frequently diagnosed in patients with cancer, and may have a detrimental effect on quality of life (QoL). We previously conducted a systematic literature review (1996-2003) to produce evidence-based guidelines on the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer.[Bokemeyer C, Aapro MS, Courdi A, et al. EORTC guidelines for the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:2201-2216.] We report here an update to these guidelines, including literature published through to November 2005. The results of this updated systematic literature review have enabled us to refine our guidelines based on the full body of data currently available. Level I evidence exists for a positive impact of erythropoietic proteins on haemoglobin (Hb) levels when administered to patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease, when used to prevent cancer anaemia, and in patients undergoing cancer surgery. The addition of further Level I studies confirms our recommendation that in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, treatment with erythropoietic proteins should be initiated at a Hb level of 9-11 g/dL based on anaemia-related symptoms rather than a fixed Hb concentration. Early intervention with erythropoietic proteins may be considered in asymptomatic anaemic patients with Hb levels 11.9 g/dL provided that individual factors like intensity and expected duration of chemotherapy are considered. Patients whose Hb level is below 9 g/dL should primarily be evaluated for need of transfusions potentially followed by the application of erythropoietic proteins. We do not recommend the prophylactic use of erythropoietic proteins to prevent anaemia in patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy who have normal Hb levels at the start of treatment, as the literature has not shown a benefit with this approach. The addition of further supporting studies confirms our recommendation that the target Hb concentration following treatment with erythropoietic proteins should be 12-13 g/dL. Once this level is achieved, maintenance doses should be titrated individually. There is Level I evidence that dosing of erythropoietic proteins less frequently than three times per week is efficacious when used to treat chemotherapy-induced anaemia or prevent cancer anaemia, with studies supporting the use of epoetin alfa and epoetin beta weekly and darbepoetin alfa given every week or every 3 weeks. We do not recommend the use of higher than standard initial doses of erythropoietic proteins with the aim of producing higher haematological responses, due to the limited body of evidence available. There is Level I evidence that, within reasonable limits of body weight, fixed doses of erythropoietic proteins can be used to treat patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia. This analysis confirms that there are no baseline predictive factors of response to erythropoietic proteins that can be routinely used in clinical practice if functional iron deficiency or vitamin deficiency is ruled out; a low serum erythropoietin (EPO) level (only in haematological malignancies) appears to be the only predictive factor to be verified in Level I studies. Further studies are needed to investigate the value of hepcidin, c-reactive protein, and other measures as predictive factors. In these updated guidelines, we explored a new question of whether oral or intravenous iron supplementation increases the response rate to erythropoietic proteins. We found no evidence of increased response with the addition of oral iron supplementation, but there is Level II evidence of improved response to erythropoietic proteins with the addition of intravenous iron. However, the doses and schedules for intravenous iron supplementation are not yet well defined, and further studies in this area are warranted. The two major goals of erythropoietic protein therapy are prevention or elimination of transfusions and improvement of QoL. The total body of evidence shows that red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirements are reduced following treatment with erythropoietic proteins. This analysis also confirms that QoL is significantly improved in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia and in those with anaemia of chronic disease following erythropoietic protein therapy, with more robust evidence now available that QoL was improved in studies investigating early intervention in cases of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced anaemia. There is only indirect evidence that patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease initially classified as non-responders to standard doses proceed to respond to treatment following a dose increase. None of the studies addressed the question in a prospective, randomised fashion, and so the Taskforce does not recommend dose escalation as a general approach in all patients who are not responding. There is still insufficient data to determine the effect on survival following treatment with erythropoietic proteins in conjunction with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Our analysis of survival endpoints in studies involving patients receiving radio(chemo)therapy found that most studies were inconclusive, with no clear link between the use of erythropoietic proteins and survival. Likewise, we found no clear link between erythropoietic therapy and other endpoints such as local tumour control, time to progression, and progression-free survival. There is no evidence that pure red cell aplasia occurs in cancer patients following treatment with erythropoietic proteins, and the fear of this condition developing should not lead to erythropoietic proteins being withheld in patients with cancer. There is Level I evidence that the risk of thromboembolic events and hypertension are slightly elevated in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia receiving erythropoietic proteins. Additional trials are warranted, especially to define the optimal doses and schedules of intravenous iron supplementation during erythropoietic therapy. While our review did not address cost benefit evaluations in detail, the consensus is that studies taking into account all real determinants of cost and benefit need to be performed prospectively.

EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphomas and solid tumours.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is not only a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality, but is also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact on the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. The incidence of severe or FN can be reduced by prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim, lenograstim or pegfilgrastim. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. While several academic groups have produced evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in an effort to standardise and optimise the management of FN, there remains a need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines. To this end, we undertook a systematic literature review and formulated recommendations for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors such as elderly age (>or=65 years), be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk prior to administering each cycle of chemotherapy. In addition, when using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in >20% patients, prophylactic G-CSF is recommended. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Finally, studies have shown that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications, where indicated.

A phase III, double-blind, randomized trial of palonosetron compared with ondansetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: This pivotal phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to a single intravenous dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg or 0.75 mg, or ondansetron 32 mg prior to HEC. Dexamethasone pre-treatment (with stratification) was used at investigator discretion. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR) during the first 24 h post-chemotherapy (acute phase). RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat analysis (n = 667), palonosetron 0.25 mg and 0.75 mg were at least as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV (59.2%, 65.5%, and 57.0% CR rates, respectively); CR rates were slightly higher with palonosetron than ondansetron during the delayed (24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) phases. Two thirds of patients (n = 447) received concomitant dexamethasone. Patients pre-treated with palonosetron 0.25 mg plus dexamethasone had significantly higher CR rates than those receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone during the delayed (42.0% versus 28.6%) and overall (40.7% versus 25.2%) phases. Palonosetron and ondansetron were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose palonosetron was as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV following HEC, and with dexamethasone pre-treatment, its effectiveness was significantly increased over ondansetron throughout the 5-day post-chemotherapy period.

Comparison of an aprepitant regimen with a multiple-day ondansetron regimen, both with dexamethasone, for antiemetic efficacy in high-dose cisplatin treatment.

BACKGROUND: We compared an aprepitant regimen with a control regimen of ondansetron + dexamethasone given for 4 days. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin > or =70 mg/m(2) were randomized to either the aprepitant regimen (aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2-3; dexamethasone on day 4) or control regimen (ondansetron + dexamethasone on days 1-4). Patients recorded vomiting, nausea and rescue therapy use. The primary end point was complete response (no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy) in the overall phase (days 1-5 post-cisplatin). RESULTS: Complete response rates were higher in the aprepitant than control group in the overall (72% versus 61%; P = 0.003), acute (day 1; 88% versus 79%; P = 0.005) and delayed phases (days 2-5; 74% versus 63%; P = 0.004), as were rates of no vomiting (overall 77% versus 62%, P < or = 0.001; acute 89% versus 81%, P = 0.004; delayed 79% versus 64%, P < or = 0.001). Rates of no rescue therapy were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with an antiemetic regimen in which ondansetron + dexamethasone were given for 4 days, the aprepitant regimen was superior in the acute, delayed and overall phases of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The aprepitant regimen should be considered a new standard of antiemetic therapy for cisplatin-treated patients. www.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NTC00090207.