Literature DB >> 28228781

Denosumab is really effective in the treatment of osteoporosis secondary to hypogonadism in prostate carcinoma patients? A prospective randomized multicenter international study.

Carlo Doria1, Paolo Tranquilli Leali1, Federico Solla2, Gianluca Maestretti3, Massimo Balsano4, Robero Mario Scarpa5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis is a complication of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with prostate carcinoma. The best defense against osteoporosis in prostate cancer is to identify patients with a high risk for fracture during the first clinical visit, select an effective anti-osteoporosis agent, and advise the patient to change his lifestyle and diet to prevent further bone loss. New agents include denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the RANK ligand (RANKL). RANKL promotes the formation, activity, and survival of osteoclasts and, thus, supports the breakdown of bone.
PURPOSE: This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind prospective study on use of denosumab versus alendronate in the therapy of secondary osteoporosis related to ADT in prostate cancer patients in three European countries (Italy, France, Switzerland). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this 24-month observation study we enrolled 234 patients with diagnosis of osteoporosis underwent ADT for prostate cancer. All patients aged ≥55 years and had a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) T-score <-1.0 (hip or spine, measured within last 2 years) and ≥ 1 fragility fracture. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months or alendronate (70 mg weekly) for 2 years. All patient received supplemental vitamin D (600 IU per day) and supplemental calcium to maintain a calcium intake of 1200 mg per day. Effectiveness of therapy in both groups (denosumab group and alendronate group) was assessed by changes in bone turnover markers (BTMs), Bone Mineral Density (BMD), fracture incidence, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score for back pain, and Short Form-8 (SF-8TM) health survey score for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Percent changes from baseline in BTMs and BMD were assessed using the paired t test; a P-value 0.05). Mean changes in BMD at final follow-up differed significantly between two groups. BMD changes at the lumbar spine at 24 months were 5.6% with denosumab vs -1.1% with alendronate (P<0.001). New vertebral fractures developed in fewer patients in the denosumab group than in the alendronate group during the 24-month period, although this difference was not significant (P=0.10). Back pain significantly (P<0.001) improved from baseline at all time points during the study in both study groups. SF-8 health survey scores significantly improved following treatment with both drugs. Incidence of adverse drug reactions were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSION: In our study denosumab and alendronate showed similar clinical efficacy in the therapy of ADT-related osteoporosis in men with prostate carcinoma; both drugs provided significant improvements in back pain and general health conditions. Denosumab showed significant increase of BTMs and BMD than alendronate with lower rate of new vertebral fractures.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone Mineral Density; denosumab; hypogonadism; osteoporosis; prostate cancer

Year:  2017        PMID: 28228781      PMCID: PMC5318171          DOI: 10.11138/ccmbm/2016.13.3.195

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab        ISSN: 1724-8914


  42 in total

1.  Monitoring skeletal changes by radiological techniques.

Authors:  C C Glüer
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  Cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention in men who receive androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kouta Ito; Elena B Elkin; Monica Girotra; Michael J Morris
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Leuprolide versus diethylstilbestrol for previously untreated stage D2 prostate cancer. Results of a prospectively randomized trial.

Authors:  M B Garnick
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Practice patterns in patients at risk for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

Authors:  Adrianne C Feldstein; Patricia J Elmer; Gregory A Nichols; Michael Herson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-09-03       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  The predictive value of forearm bone mineral content measurements in men.

Authors:  P Gärdsell; O Johnell; B E Nilsson
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 4.398

6.  Leuprolide versus diethylstilbestrol for metastatic prostate cancer.

Authors: 
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1984-11-15       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  Screening for osteoporosis in the adult U.S. population: ACPM position statement on preventive practice.

Authors:  Lionel S Lim; Laura J Hoeksema; Kevin Sherin
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 8.  Radiologic diagnosis of osteoporosis. Current methods and perspectives.

Authors:  S Grampp; M Jergas; C C Glüer; P Lang; P Brastow; H K Genant
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 2.303

9.  The incidence of vertebral fractures in men and women: the Rotterdam Study.

Authors:  Marjolein Van der Klift; Chris E D H De Laet; Eugene V McCloskey; Albert Hofman; Huibert A P Pols
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Randomized trial of denosumab in patients receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors for nonmetastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Georgiana K Ellis; Henry G Bone; Rowan Chlebowski; Devchand Paul; Silvana Spadafora; Judy Smith; Michelle Fan; Susie Jun
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-08-25       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  7 in total

1.  Bone-modifying agents for bone loss in patients with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy; insights from a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hirotaka Miyashita; Sera Satoi; Christina Cruz; Se-Min Kim; Vaibhav G Patel
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2021-08-15       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Canadian Urological Association best practice report: Bone health in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Luke T Lavallée; Ryan McLarty; Christopher Tran; Rodney H Breau; Patrick Richard; Bobby Shayegan; Brita Danielson; Marie-Paul Jammal; Fred Saad
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 3.  Cancer Treatment-Induced Bone Loss: Role of Denosumab in Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Boman Dhabhar
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)       Date:  2022-07-14

4.  Guidance for the assessment and management of prostate cancer treatment-induced bone loss. A consensus position statement from an expert group.

Authors:  Janet E Brown; Catherine Handforth; Juliet E Compston; William Cross; Nigel Parr; Peter Selby; Steven Wood; Lawrence Drudge-Coates; Jennifer S Walsh; Caroline Mitchell; Fiona J Collinson; Robert E Coleman; Nicholas James; Roger Francis; David M Reid; Eugene McCloskey
Journal:  J Bone Oncol       Date:  2020-08-02       Impact factor: 4.072

5.  Bisphosphonates or RANK-ligand-inhibitors for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tina Jakob; Yonas Mehari Tesfamariam; Sascha Macherey; Kathrin Kuhr; Anne Adams; Ina Monsef; Axel Heidenreich; Nicole Skoetz
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-12-03

Review 6.  Bone Health in Men with Prostate Cancer: Review Article.

Authors:  Salma A M El Badri; Abdulazeez Salawu; Janet E Brown
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 5.096

Review 7.  Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Denosumab with Bisphosphonates in Increasing Bone Mineral Density in Patients with Prostate Cancer and Breast Cancer on Antihormonal Treatment.

Authors:  Abdul Razaq; Safeera Khan; Junaid Hassan; Bilal Haider Malik; Mahrukh Razaq
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-12-17
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.