PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the necessity of post-marketing safety monitoring focused on osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in patients with bone metastatic cancer treated with denosumab (AMG162). METHODS: The ONJ safety data from three randomized phase III trials were pooled, and risk ratios and power were computed using traditional methods and simulation. RESULTS: A total of 89 ONJ cases (1.57%; 95% CI, 1.26-1.92) were reported with 52 (1.83%; 95% CI, 1.37-2.39) occurring in the denosumab group (n = 2,841) and 37 (1.30%; 95% CI, 0.92-1.79) in the zoledronic acid group (n = 2,836). Overall, the pooled risk ratio (RR) for ONJ was 1.40 (95% CI, 0.92-2.13; p = 0.11). In the trials reporting superior therapeutic efficacy of denosumab, the RR for ONJ was 1.61 (95% CI, 0.99-2.62; p = 0.052). However, neither separately nor pooled had any trial adequate power (>80%) to detect excess relative risks of ONJ of up to 76%, assuming fixed ONJ rates in the control arms. The joint power of the trials to detect the observed excess relative risk of 40% was only 36%. The rate of mucosal healing in patients with ONJ appeared similar in both groups (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.66-2.45; p = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall frequency of ONJ was low, post-marketing risk-benefit studies with this novel compound appear warranted focusing specifically on this rare toxicity, which can potentially have a high impact on quality of life.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the necessity of post-marketing safety monitoring focused on osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in patients with bone metastatic cancer treated with denosumab (AMG162). METHODS: The ONJ safety data from three randomized phase III trials were pooled, and risk ratios and power were computed using traditional methods and simulation. RESULTS: A total of 89 ONJ cases (1.57%; 95% CI, 1.26-1.92) were reported with 52 (1.83%; 95% CI, 1.37-2.39) occurring in the denosumab group (n = 2,841) and 37 (1.30%; 95% CI, 0.92-1.79) in the zoledronic acid group (n = 2,836). Overall, the pooled risk ratio (RR) for ONJ was 1.40 (95% CI, 0.92-2.13; p = 0.11). In the trials reporting superior therapeutic efficacy of denosumab, the RR for ONJ was 1.61 (95% CI, 0.99-2.62; p = 0.052). However, neither separately nor pooled had any trial adequate power (>80%) to detect excess relative risks of ONJ of up to 76%, assuming fixed ONJ rates in the control arms. The joint power of the trials to detect the observed excess relative risk of 40% was only 36%. The rate of mucosal healing in patients with ONJ appeared similar in both groups (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.66-2.45; p = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall frequency of ONJ was low, post-marketing risk-benefit studies with this novel compound appear warranted focusing specifically on this rare toxicity, which can potentially have a high impact on quality of life.
Authors: Salvatore L Ruggiero; Thomas B Dodson; Leon A Assael; Regina Landesberg; Robert E Marx; Bhoomi Mehrotra Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Martin H Cohen; Ramzi Dagher; Donna J Griebel; Amna Ibrahim; Alison Martin; Nancy S Scher; Gerald H Sokol; Grant A Williams; Richard Pazdur Journal: Oncologist Date: 2002
Authors: David H Henry; Luis Costa; Francois Goldwasser; Vera Hirsh; Vania Hungria; Jana Prausova; Giorgio Vittorio Scagliotti; Harm Sleeboom; Andrew Spencer; Saroj Vadhan-Raj; Roger von Moos; Wolfgang Willenbacher; Penella J Woll; Jianming Wang; Qi Jiang; Susie Jun; Roger Dansey; Howard Yeh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert E Coleman; Pierre Major; Allan Lipton; Janet E Brown; Ker-Ai Lee; Matthew Smith; Fred Saad; Ming Zheng; Yong Jiang Hei; John Seaman; Richard Cook Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-06-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M A Dimopoulos; E Kastritis; C Bamia; I Melakopoulos; D Gika; M Roussou; M Migkou; E Eleftherakis-Papaiakovou; D Christoulas; E Terpos; A Bamias Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-08-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Beatrice J Edwards; Mrinal Gounder; June M McKoy; Ian Boyd; Mathew Farrugia; Cesar Migliorati; Robert Marx; Salvatore Ruggiero; Meletios Dimopoulos; Dennis W Raisch; Seema Singhal; Ken Carson; Eniola Obadina; Steve Trifilio; Dennis West; Jayesh Mehta; Charles L Bennett Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: C I Ripamonti; M Maniezzo; T Campa; E Fagnoni; C Brunelli; G Saibene; C Bareggi; L Ascani; E Cislaghi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-07-22 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: J G Messer; E J Castillo; A M Abraham; J M Jiron; R Israel; J F Yarrow; S Thomas; M C Reynolds; R D Wnek; M Jorgensen; N Wanionok; C Van Poznak; I Bhattacharyya; D B Kimmel; J I Aguirre Journal: Bone Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: J Ignacio Aguirre; Mohammed P Akhter; Donald B Kimmel; Jennifer E Pingel; Alyssa Williams; Marda Jorgensen; Lakshmyya Kesavalu; Thomas J Wronski Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Rodica Anghel; Alexander Bachmann; Meral Bekşac; Thomas Brodowicz; Jindřich Finek; Radko Komadina; Krzysztof Krzemieniecki; Istvan Lang; Jozef Marencak; Roger von Moos; Martin Pecherstorfer; Tamara Rordorf; Damir Vrbanec; Christoph Zielinski Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2013-07-06 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: T Van den Wyngaert; M Delforge; C Doyen; L Duck; K Wouters; I Delabaye; C Wouters; H Wildiers Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-08-18 Impact factor: 3.603