Optimizing clinical benefits of bisphosphonates in cancer patients with bone metastases

Bisphosphonates are important treatments for bone metastases. Considerations for optimizing the clinical benefits of bisphosphonates include efficacy, compliance, and safety. Several bisphosphonates are approved for clinical use; however, few have demonstrated broad efficacy in the oncology setting and been compared directly in clinical trials. Among patients with bone metastases from breast cancer, the efficacy of approved bisphosphonates was evaluated in a Cochrane review, showing a reduction in the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) ranging from 8% to 41% compared with placebo. Between-trial comparisons are confounded by inconsistencies in trial design, SRE definition, and endpoint selection. Zoledronic acid has demonstrated clinical benefits beyond those of pamidronate in a head-to-head trial that included patients with breast cancer or multiple myeloma. Compliance and adherence also have effects on treatment efficacy. In a comparison study, the adherence rates with oral bisphosphonates were found to be significantly lower compared with those of intravenous bisphosphonates. The safety profiles of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates differ. Oral bisphosphonates are associated with gastrointestinal side effects, whereas intravenous bisphosphonates have dose- and infusion rate-dependent effects on renal function. Osteonecrosis of the jaw is an uncommon but serious event in patients receiving monthly intravenous bisphosphonates or denosumab. The incidence of this event can be reduced with careful oral hygiene. A positive benefit-risk ratio for bisphosphonates has been established, and ongoing clinical trials will determine whether individualized therapy is possible.