Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeIn 2013, Angelina Jolie disclosed in the New York Times (NYT) that she had undergone risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy (RRBM) after learning that she was a BRCA1 mutation carrier. We examined the rates of BRCA testing and RRBM from 1997 to 2016, and quantified trends before and after the Jolie op-ed.MethodsThis observational study of insurance claims data representative of the commercially-insured US population (Truven MarketScan® database) measured BRCA testing and RRBM rates among females ≥ 18 years. Censoring events were breast cancer or ovarian cancer diagnosis, last follow-up date (September 2016), or death. Interrupted time series analyses were used to quantify trends before and after the op-ed.ResultsAngelina Jolie’s NYT op-ed led to a statistically significant increase in the uptake of genetic testing and in RRBM among women without previous diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer in the US population, and in women who did not undergo testing for BRCA (P < 0.0001 for both). The rate (slope) of RRBM among women who were previously tested for BRCA (P = 0.70) was unchanged. After excluding women with in-situ tumors, the editorial’s effect became less pronounced, suggesting that high-risk women with in-situ breast cancers were most influenced by Jolie’s announcement.ConclusionThe Angelina Effect—a term coined by Time magazine to describe the rise in internet searches related to breast cancer genetics and counseling—represents a long-lasting impact of celebrity on public health awareness as significant increases in genetic testing and mastectomy rates were observed and sustained in subsequent years.

Background Bone complications (pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, surgery to bone and radiation to bone) are a common problem in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We set out to provide insights into the real-world burden of bone complications in patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). Methods We conducted a retrospective review of medical charts of patients with NDMM whose disease had progressed following first-line treatment in the 3 months before data collection in 2016 in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom). Results The aggregated study population included 813 patients. Bone pain commonly led to MM diagnosis (63%) and 74% of all patients had two or more bone lesions at initiation of first-line treatment. Furthermore, 26% of patients experienced a new bone complication between MM diagnosis and disease progression following first-line treatment, despite 75% of individuals receiving bisphosphonates. Most bone complications (52%) occurred in the period before initiation of first-line treatment (mean duration: 2.3 months) and more than half of patients (56%) who experienced a new bone complication were hospitalised. Analgesics were used more frequently in patients with bone complications than in those without them (76% vs 50%, respectively). Furthermore, 51% of patients had renal impairment by the time first-line treatment was started. Overall, 25% of patients did not receive bisphosphonates for prevention of bone complications and one in four of those with renal impairment at initiation of first-line treatment did not receive bisphosphonates. Conclusions Bone complications are common in patients with NDMM. They are frequently associated with hospitalization and analgesic use. Data from this study, conducted in the era of novel anti-myeloma therapies and before the approval of denosumab for use in patients with MM, suggest that although most patients (75%) received bisphosphonates, use of anti-resorptive therapy for prevention of bone complications may be suboptimal in patients with NDMM, irrespective of renal function.

PurposeTo describe use of bisphosphonates in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients in Denmark.MethodsUsing data from the Danish National Multiple Myeloma Registry, we conducted a population-based cohort study. Among patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma from 2005 to 2015, we examined use of bisphosphonates at first- and at progression/second-line anti-myeloma treatment overall, by patient characteristics, and myeloma complications.ResultsOf 2947 patients starting first-line anti-myeloma treatment, 2207 patients (74.9%) received bisphosphonates. During a median follow-up of 27.6 (quartiles, 10.6–52.5) months, disease progression post-first-line treatment was recorded in 1546 patients, of whom 1065 (68.9%) were treated with bisphosphonates. Altogether, 80.9% of patients with and 37.6% of patients without myeloma bone disease were treated with bisphosphonates at first line and 73.0% and 42.7%, respectively, at progression/second line. Moreover, the proportion of patients treated with bisphosphonates decreased with increasing severity of renal impairment at first and at progression/second-line treatment.ConclusionThe proportion of patients treated with bisphosphonates as part of first- and second-line anti-myeloma treatment increased with presence of myeloma bone disease and decreased by presence and severity of renal impairment. Overall, 25% of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients had no record of bisphosphonate treatment, potentially indicating an unmet need.

Background Patients with cancer can experience bone metastases and/or cancer treatment–induced bone loss (CTIBL), and the resulting bone complications place burdens on patients and healthcare provision. Management of bone complications is becoming increasingly important as cancer survival rates improve. Advances in specialist oncology nursing practice benefit patients through better management of their bone health, which may improve quality of life and survival. Methods An anonymised online quantitative survey asked specialist oncology nurses about factors affecting their provision of support in the management of bone metastases and CTIBL. Results Of 283 participants, most stated that they worked in Europe, and 69.3% had at least 8 years of experience in oncology. The most common areas of specialisation were medical oncology, breast cancer and/or palliative care (20.8–50.9%). Awareness of bone loss prevention measures varied (from 34.3% for alcohol intake to 77.4% for adequate calcium intake), and awareness of hip fracture risk factors varied (from 28.6% for rheumatoid arthritis to 74.6% for age > 65 years). Approximately one-third reported a high level of confidence in managing bone metastases (39.9%) and CTIBL (33.2%). International or institution guidelines were used by approximately 50% of participants. Common barriers to better specialist care and treatment were reported to be lack of training, funding, knowledge or professional development. Conclusion This work is the first quantitative analysis of reports from specialist oncology nurses about the management of bone metastases and CTIBL. It indicates the need for new nursing education initiatives with a focus on bone health management.

Purpose In the integrated analysis of phase III head-to-head trials in patients with advanced solid tumors, denosumab demonstrated superiority over zoledronic acid in preventing skeletal-related events (SREs). Regular and continued drug use (persistence) is a precondition of clinical efficacy; persistence in real-life is yet undetermined for denosumab. Methods This was a single-arm, prospective, observational, non-interventional study in 598 patients with bone metastases from breast, prostate, lung, or other solid tumors treated with denosumab every four weeks in real-world clinical practice in Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, and Bulgaria. Persistence was defined as denosumab administration at ≤ 35-day intervals over 24 or 48 weeks, respectively. Results Previous SREs were found in 10.9% of patients. 62.6% were persistent over 24 weeks and 40.1% over 48 weeks. The Kaplan-Meier median (95% CI) time to non-persistence was 274.0 days (232.0, 316.0). The most frequent reason for non-persistence was delayed administration. There was a trend towards weaker analgesics over time, with approximately 60% of patients not requiring any analgesics. Serum calcium remained within the normal range throughout the study. Adjudicated osteonecrosis of the jaw was documented in three patients with an incidence per patient-year (95% CI) of 0.012 (0.004, 0.029). Conclusions Most patients received denosumab regularly once every four weeks over 24 weeks of treatment. Non-persistence was mainly due to delayed administration. The incidence of adverse drug reactions, especially of osteonecrosis of the jaw, was in line with expectations from previous studies.

Background Most patients with advanced prostate cancer develop bone metastases, which often result in painful and debilitating skeletal-related events. Inhibitors of bone resorption, such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, can each reduce the incidence of skeletal-related events and delay the progression of bone pain. However, these agents are associated with an increased risk of hypocalcaemia, which, although often mild and transient, can be serious and life-threatening. Here we provide practical advice on managing the risk of hypocalcaemia in patients with advanced prostate cancer who are receiving treatment with bone resorption inhibitors. Relevant references for this review were identified through searches of PubMed with the search terms ‘prostate cancer’, ‘bone-targeted agents’, ‘anti-resorptive agents’, ‘bisphosphonates’, ‘zoledronic acid’, ‘denosumab’, ‘hypocalcaemia’, and ‘hypocalcemia’. Additional references were suggested by the authors. Main text Among patients with advanced cancer receiving a bisphosphonate or denosumab, hypocalcaemia occurs most frequently in those with prostate cancer, although it can occur in patients with any tumour type. Consistent with its greater ability to inhibit bone resorption, denosumab has shown superiority in the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from solid tumours. Consequently, denosumab is more likely to induce hypocalcaemia than the bisphosphonates. Likewise, various bisphosphonates have differing potencies for the inhibition of bone resorption, and thus the risk of hypocalcaemia varies between different bisphosphonates. Other risk factors for the development of hypocalcaemia include the presence of osteoblastic metastases, vitamin D deficiency, and renal insufficiency. Hypocalcaemia can lead to treatment interruption, but it is both preventable and manageable. Serum calcium concentrations should be measured, and any pre-existing hypocalcaemia should be corrected, before starting treatment with inhibitors of bone resorption. Once treatment has started, concomitant administration of calcium and vitamin D supplements is essential. Calcium concentrations should be monitored during treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab, particularly in patients at high risk of hypocalcaemia. If hypocalcaemia is diagnosed, patients should receive treatment with calcium and vitamin D. Conclusion With preventative strategies and treatment, patients with prostate cancer who are at risk of, or who develop, hypocalcaemia should be able to continue to benefit from treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab.

Purpose Bisphosphonates and denosumab prevent bone complications in patients with bone metastases from solid tumours. This retrospective, longitudinal, cohort study provides data on their real-world use in this setting in Germany. Methods Adults with bone metastases from breast, prostate or lung cancer who were newly initiated on a bisphosphonate or denosumab between 1 July 2011 and 31 December 2015 were identified from a German healthcare insurance claims database. Primary outcomes included persistence, compliance, discontinuation and switch rates at 12 months. Results This study included 1130 patients with bone metastases: 555 (49%) had breast cancer, 361 (32%) prostate cancer and 242 (21%) lung cancer. Mean age was 65 years for patients with breast or lung cancer and 74 years for those with prostate cancer. Across all tumour types, compared with any bisphosphonate, 12-month persistence was higher with denosumab (breast cancer 78% vs 54–58%, prostate cancer 58% vs 50%, lung cancer 68% vs 34–60%), median time to discontinuation was longer with denosumab and switch rates were lower for denosumab (breast cancer 5% vs 14–19%, prostate cancer 2% vs 11%, lung cancer 3% vs 7–12%). Compliance at 12 months was longer for denosumab than for any bisphosphonate in breast cancer (75% vs 42–48%) and in prostate cancer (47% vs 36%). Conclusions Patients initiated on denosumab following a diagnosis of bone metastases from breast, prostate or lung cancer had greater medication persistence, longer time to discontinuation, improved compliance and lower switch rates than those initiated on a bisphosphonate.

Calcium metabolism in cancer and hypercalcaemia of malignancy The balance between bone formation and resorption may be disrupted in patients with cancer, leading either to increased bone resorption, calcium release, and possibly hypercalcaemia, or to increased bone formation, sequestration of calcium, and possibly hypocalcaemia. In adults, hypercalcaemia of malignancy is most common in patients with tumours that produce factors that induce osteoclast activation and enhance bone resorption. Impaired renal function and increased renal tubular calcium resorption may further affect calcium levels. Treatment of hypercalcaemia of malignancy Inhibitors of bone resorption, first the bisphosphonates and, later, denosumab, have been shown to be effective in hypercalcaemia treatment. Bisphosphonates (which are administered intravenously) are approved for hypercalcaemia of malignancy and are the current mainstay of treatment, whereas denosumab (which is administered subcutaneously) may offer an option for patients who do not respond to bisphosphonates or suffer from renal insufficiency. Hypocalcaemia: treatment and prevention Hypocalcaemia is most common in patients with prostate cancer and osteoblastic bone metastases, but can occur in patients with a variety of tumour types who are receiving inhibitors of bone resorption. While patients often respond to calcium and vitamin D supplementation, prevention should be the aim; at-risk patients should be identified before starting treatment with inhibitors of bone resorption, be closely monitored during at least the first few months of treatment, and receive concomitant calcium and vitamin D supplementation unless hypercalcaemia is present. Conclusion Both hypercalcaemia and hypocalcaemia can be serious if left untreated. It is therefore important that patients with cancer are closely monitored and receive adequate prevention and treatment measures to maintain normal blood calcium levels.

Purpose The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the potential barriers to uptake of bone-targeted agents for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases. Methods A top-line literature review was conducted to identify trends in and barriers to initiating bone-targeted therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Results The majority of patients with bone metastases that are secondary to breast cancer clearly benefit from treatment with a bone-targeted agent such as the RANK ligand inhibitor denosumab or the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid, because both delay the onset of SREs. Evidence suggests, however, that these agents are not being used in these patients as per European guideline recommendations. Conclusions Adoption of a number of behavioral changes may help to overcome barriers to earlier initiation of treatment with bone-targeted agents in these patients. This includes raising awareness of the guidelines that are available for bone-targeted therapies, providing physician and patient education on the appropriate use of these agents, and highlighting to physicians the importance of early treatment and regular monitoring for adverse events. Earlier initiation of treatment should help to reduce the risk of SREs and thus lessen the burden that these debilitating skeletal complications place on patients and healthcare systems.

BackgroundPatients with prostate cancer are at risk of impaired bone health. Prostate cancer has a propensity to metastasize to bone, after which patients are at risk of skeletal-related events (SREs). These complications are associated with increased mortality, substantial pain, and reduced quality of life. Patients are also at risk of bone loss due to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which can be compounded in elderly patients with reduced bone density. It is essential, therefore, that aspects of bone health and therapies able to prevent the occurrence of SREs are considered throughout the clinical course of prostate cancer.MethodsWe reviewed the literature regarding the molecular mechanisms underpinning bone lesion formation, the modes of action of therapies that prevent SREs, and the efficacy and safety of these therapies in patients with hormone-sensitive or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).ResultsTherapies such as denosumab (a RANKL inhibitor) and zoledronic acid (a bisphosphonate) were indicated for prevention of SREs. Radium-223 dichloride also has proven efficacy in delaying symptomatic SREs, as well as in improving overall survival through effects on bone metastases. Before development of bone metastases, low-dose denosumab may also be used for treatment of ADT-associated bone loss. Denosumab may also have the potential to delay bone metastases development in patients with CRPC, although this is not currently an approved indication. The safety profile of therapies to prevent SREs should be considered. This review consolidates the available evidence on use of denosumab and bisphosphonates in prostate cancer, differentiated by hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant disease.ConclusionsThere is convincing evidence to support the use of denosumab and bisphosphonates to maintain bone health in patients with prostate cancer. Clinicians should be mindful of the adverse event risk profile of these therapies.