Explore the vast range of titles available.

Multiple myeloma is characterised by monoclonal paraprotein production and osteolytic lesions, commonly leading to skeletal-related events (spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, or surgery or radiotherapy to affected bone). Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting RANKL, reduces skeletal-related events associated with bone lesions or metastases in patients with advanced solid tumours. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In this international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, patients in 259 centres and 29 countries aged 18 years or older with symptomatic newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who had at least one documented lytic bone lesion were randomly assigned (1:1; centrally, by interactive voice response system using a fixed stratified permuted block randomisation list with a block size of four) to subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg plus intravenous placebo every 4 weeks or intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg plus subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (both groups also received investigators' choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy). Stratification was by intent to undergo autologous transplantation, antimyeloma therapy, International Staging System stage, previous skeletal-related events, and region. The clinical study team and patients were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid with respect to time to first skeletal-related event in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients). All safety endpoints were analysed in the safety analysis set, which includes all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of active study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345019. From May 17, 2012, to March 29, 2016, we enrolled 1718 patients and randomly assigned 859 to each treatment group. The study met the primary endpoint; denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·85–1·14; pnon-inferiority=0·010). 1702 patients received at least one dose of the investigational drug and were included in the safety analysis (850 patients receiving denosumab and 852 receiving zoledronic acid). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events for denosumab and zoledronic acid were neutropenia (126 [15%] vs 125 [15%]), thrombocytopenia (120 [14%] vs 103 [12%]), anaemia (100 [12%] vs 85 [10%]), febrile neutropenia (96 [11%] vs 87 [10%]), and pneumonia (65 [8%] vs 70 [8%]). Renal toxicity was reported in 85 (10%) patients in the denosumab group versus 146 (17%) in the zoledronic acid group; hypocalcaemia adverse events were reported in 144 (17%) versus 106 (12%). Incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was not significantly different between the denosumab and zoledronic acid groups (35 [4%] vs 24 [3%]; p=0·147). The most common serious adverse event for both treatment groups was pneumonia (71 [8%] vs 69 [8%]). One patient in the zoledronic acid group died of cardiac arrest that was deemed treatment-related. In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to skeletal-related events. The results from this study suggest denosumab could be an additional option for the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma with bone disease. Amgen.

Although repeat radiation treatment has been shown to palliate pain in patients with bone metastases from multiple primary origin sites, data for the best possible dose fractionation schedules are lacking. We aimed to assess two dose fractionation schedules in patients with painful bone metastases needing repeat radiation therapy. We did a multicentre, non-blinded, randomised, controlled trial in nine countries worldwide. We enrolled patients 18 years or older who had radiologically confirmed, painful (ie, pain measured as ≥2 points using the Brief Pain Inventory) bone metastases, had received previous radiation therapy, and were taking a stable dose and schedule of pain-relieving drugs (if prescribed). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 8 Gy in a single fraction or 20 Gy in multiple fractions by a central computer-generated allocation sequence using dynamic minimisation to conceal assignment, stratified by previous radiation fraction schedule, response to initial radiation, and treatment centre. Patients, caregivers, and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall pain response at 2 months, which was defined as the sum of complete and partial pain responses to treatment, assessed using both Brief Pain Inventory scores and changes in analgesic consumption. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00080912. Between Jan 7, 2004, and May 24, 2012, we randomly assigned 425 patients to each treatment group. 19 (4%) patients in the 8 Gy group and 12 (3%) in the 20 Gy group were found to be ineligible after randomisation, and 140 (33%) and 132 (31%) patients, respectively, were not assessable at 2 months and were counted as missing data in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the intention-to-treat population, 118 (28%) patients allocated to 8 Gy treatment and 135 (32%) allocated to 20 Gy treatment had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·21; response difference of 4·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 9·2, less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). In the per-protocol population, 116 (45%) of 258 patients and 134 (51%) of 263 patients, respectively, had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·17; response difference 6·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 13·2, greater than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). The most frequently reported acute radiation-related toxicities at 14 days were lack of appetite (201 [56%] of 358 assessable patients who received 8 Gy vs 229 [66%] of 349 assessable patients who received 20 Gy; p=0·011) and diarrhoea (81 [23%] of 357 vs 108 [31%] of 349; p=0·018). Pathological fractures occurred in 30 (7%) of 425 patients assigned to 8 Gy and 20 (5%) of 425 assigned to 20 Gy (odds ratio [OR] 1·54, 95% CI 0·85–2·75; p=0·15), and spinal cord or cauda equina compressions were reported in seven (2%) of 425 versus two (<1%) of 425, respectively (OR 3·54, 95% CI 0·73–17·15; p=0·094). In patients with painful bone metastases requiring repeat radiation therapy, treatment with 8 Gy in a single fraction seems to be non-inferior and less toxic than 20 Gy in multiple fractions; however, as findings were not robust in a per-protocol analysis, trade-offs between efficacy and toxicity might exist. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, US National Cancer Institute, Cancer Council Australia, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Dutch Cancer Society, and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris.

Background This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study assessed the efficacy and safety of tanezumab in subjects with cancer pain predominantly due to bone metastasis receiving background opioid therapy. Methods Subjects were randomized (stratified by (1) tumor aggressiveness and (2) presence/absence of concomitant anticancer treatment) to placebo or tanezumab 20 mg. Treatment was administered by subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks for 24 weeks (3 doses) followed by a 24-week safety follow-up period. The primary outcome was change in daily average pain in the index bone metastasis cancer pain site (from 0 = no pain to 10 = worst possible pain) from baseline to week 8. Results LS mean (SE) change in pain at week 8 was −1.25 (0.35) for placebo (n = 73) and –2.03 (0.35) for tanezumab 20 mg (n = 72). LS mean (SE) [95% CI] difference from placebo was –0.78 (0.37) [–1.52, –0.04]; P = .0381 with α = 0.0478. The number of subjects with a treatment-emergent adverse event during the treatment period was 50 (68.5%) for placebo and 53 (73.6%) for tanezumab 20 mg. The number of subjects with a prespecified joint safety event was 0 for placebo and 2 (2.8%) for tanezumab 20 mg (pathologic fracture; n = 2). Conclusion Tanezumab 20 mg met the primary efficacy endpoint at week 8. Conclusions on longer-term efficacy are limited since the study was not designed to evaluate the durability of the effect beyond 8 weeks. Safety findings were consistent with adverse events expected in subjects with cancer pain due to bone metastasis and the known safety profile of tanezumab. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02609828. Bone metastasis is a common cause of cancer-related pain. This article reports on the potential of anti-nerve growth factor therapies, such as tanezumab, to reduce pain caused by bone metastases.

Bone metastases are a major cause of morbidity in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Abiraterone acetate potently disrupts intracrine androgen receptor signalling pathways implicated in the progression of the disease, including bone metastases. We assessed data for pain control and skeletal-related events prospectively collected as part of the randomised, phase 3 COU-AA-301 trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus placebo plus prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel chemotherapy. The COU-AA-301 trial enrolled patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in whom one or two lines of chemotherapy (one docetaxel based) had been unsuccessful and who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance statuses of 2 or less. Pain intensity and interference of pain with daily activities were assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form questionnaire at baseline, day 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of each treatment cycle thereafter until discontinuation. We assessed, with prospectively defined response criteria that incorporated analgesic use, clinically meaningful changes in pain intensity and interference with daily living. We measured time to first occurrence of skeletal-related events, which we defined as pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, palliative radiation to bone, or bone surgery, and regularly assessed them throughout the study. Pain palliation was assessed in patients who had clinically significant baseline pain, whereas all other analyses were done in the overall intention-to-treat population. COU-AA-301 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00638690. Median follow-up was 20·2 months (IQR 18·4–22·1). In patients with clinically significant pain at baseline, abiraterone acetate and prednisone resulted in significantly more palliation (157 of 349 [45·0%] patients vs 47 of 163 [28·8%]; p=0·0005) and faster palliation (median time to palliation 5·6 months [95% CI 3·7–9·2] vs 13·7 months [5·4–not estimable]; p=0·0018) of pain intensity than did prednisone only. Palliation of pain interference (134 of 223 [60·1%] vs 38 of 100 [38·0%], p=0·0002; median time to palliation of pain interference 1·0 months [95% CI 0·9–1·9] vs 3·7 months [2·7–not estimable], p=0·0004) and median duration of palliation of pain intensity (4·2 months [95% CI 3·0–4·9] vs 2·1 months [1·4–3·7]; p=0·0056) were significantly better with abiraterone acetate and prednisone than with prednisone only. In the overall population, median time to occurrence of first skeletal-related event was significantly longer with abiraterone acetate and prednisone than with prednisone only (25·0 months [95% CI 25·0–not estimable] vs 20·3 months [16·9–not estimable]; p=0·0001). In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate and prednisone offer significant benefits compared with prednisone alone in terms of pain relief, delayed pain progression, and prevention of skeletal-related events. Janssen Research & Development and Janssen Global Services.

Background: Due to concerns of fragility fracture, exercise is a perceived contraindication for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases. These patients experience significant functional impairment and muscle atrophy, which may lead to an increased likelihood of skeletal complications (i.e., pathological fracture, bone pain) and/or falls. Safe resistance exercise prescription may counteract this effect. The aim of this feasibility trial was to determine the safety and efficacy of resistance exercise by prostate cancer survivors with bone metastatic disease. Methods: Twenty men with established bone metastases secondary to prostate cancer were randomly assigned to a 12-week resistance exercise program in which exercise prescription was based on the location of bone lesions ( n =10) or usual care ( n =10). Outcomes included safety and tolerance of the exercise program, physical function, physical activity level, body composition, fatigue, quality of life and psychological distress. Outcomes were compared between groups using analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline values. Results: Participants had significant disease load with 65% of participants presenting with two or more regions affected by bone metastases and an average Gleason score of 8.2±0.9. Five participants (exercise=2; usual care=3) did not complete the intervention, three of which were due to advancing disease (exercise=2; usual care=1). No adverse events or skeletal complications occurred during the supervised exercise sessions. The exercise program was well tolerated as evidenced by high attendance (83%) and compliance rates (93%), and the ability of the participants to exercise at an intensity within the target range for cancer survivors (rating of perceived exertion =13.8±1.5). The change in physical function (muscle strength ∼11%; submaximal aerobic exercise capacity ∼5% and ambulation ∼12%), physical activity level (∼24%) and lean mass (∼3%) differed significantly between groups following the intervention, with favorable changes in the exercise group compared with the usual care group. No significant between-group differences were observed for fatigue, quality of life or psychological distress. Conclusions: This initial evidence involving a small sample size suggests that appropriately designed and supervised resistance exercise may be safe and well tolerated by prostate cancer patients with bone metastatic disease and can lead to improvements in physical function, physical activity levels and lean mass. Future trials involving larger sample sizes are required to expand these preliminary findings.

Background Skeletal-related events (SREs) are significant contributors to the morbidity and mortality in patients with bone metastasis from breast cancer. Thus, bone-modifying agents (BMAs) are recommended in this population. However, the baseline risk factors of SREs in patients with bone metastasis from breast cancer receiving BMAs are not well understood. Methods We analyzed the patient-level data from a controlled arm of a clinical trial comparing denosumab with zoledronate in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT00321464) available at Project Data Sphere, a broad-access research platform that collects and curates patient-level data from completed, phase III cancer trials. The primary endpoint was the first SRE after the inclusion to the trial. The time to the first on study SRE was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards model based on patients’ baseline characteristics including age, race, ECOG performance status (PS), histology and immunohistochemistry of breast cancer, and urine and serum laboratory data. Results Among 756 patients in the zoledronate arm of the trial, we excluded 64 patients with a documented history of osteopenia or osteoporosis. The median age of the patients was 56 years old, the median follow-up was 553 days, and 249 patients (36%) had SREs. The univariate analysis showed that black or African American heritage, ECOG PS > 0, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positivity, high urine N-telopeptide cross-links / creatinine ratio (NTx/Cre), and elevated serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) are significant baseline risk factors for SREs. Patients with the characteristics of ECOG PS > 0, HER2 positivity, and elevated ALP also showed a significantly higher hazard ratio of SREs in multivariate analysis. Conclusions We determined risk factors for SREs in patients with bone metastasis from breast cancer.

Purpose The EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) are validated tools for measuring quality of life (QOL) and the impact of pain in patients with advanced cancer. Interpretation of these instrument scores can be challenging and it is difficult to know what numerical changes translate to clinically significant impact in patients' lives. To address this issue, our study sought to establish the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for these two instruments in a prospective cohort of patients with advanced cancer and painful bone metastases. Methods Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MCID scores from patients enrolled in a randomized phase III trial evaluating two different re-irradiation treatment schedules. For the anchor-based method, the global QOL item from the QLQ-C30 was chosen as the anchor. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for all items and only those items with moderate or better correlation (|r| ≥ 0.30) with the anchor were used for subsequent analysis. A 10-point difference in the global QOL score was used to classify improvement and deterioration, and the MCID scores were calculated for each of these categories. These results were compared with scores obtained by the distribution-method, which estimates the MCID purely from the statistical characteristics of the sample population. Results A total of 375 patients were included in this study with documented pain responses and completed QOT. questionnaires at 2 months. 9/14 items in the QLQ-C30 and 6/10 items in the BPI were found to have moderate or better correlation with the anchor. For deterioration, statistically significant MCID scores were found in all items of the QLQ-C30 and BPI. For improvement, statistically significant MCID scores were found in 7/9 items of the QLQ-C30 and 2/6 items of the BPI. The MCID scores for deterioration were uniformly higher than the MCIDs for improvement. Using the distribution-based method, there was good agreement between the 0.5 standard deviation (SD) values and anchor-based scores for deterioration. For improvement, there was less agreement and the anchor-based scores were lower than the 0.5 SD values obtained from the distribution-based method. Conclusion We present MCID scores for the QLQ-C30 and BPI instruments obtained from a large cohort of patients with advanced cancer undergoing re-irradiation for painful bone metastases. The results from this study were compared to other similar studies which showed larger MCID scores for improvement compared to deterioration. We hypothesize that disease trajectory and patient expectations are important factors in understanding the contrasting results. The results of this study can guide clinicians and researchers in the interpretation of these instruments.

Background Denosumab has been approved for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors. QL1206 is the first denosumab biosimilar and needs to be compared with denosumab in a phase III trial. Objective This phase III trial aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics between QL1206 and denosumab in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. Methods This randomized, double-blind, phase III trial was conducted in 51 centers in China. Patients aged 18–80 years, with solid tumors and bone metastases, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 were eligible. This study was divided into a 13-week double-blind period, a 40-week open-label period, and a 20-week safety follow-up period. In the double-blind period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive three doses of QL1206 or denosumab (120 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks, each). Randomization was stratified by tumor types, previous skeletal-related events, and current systemic anti-tumor therapy. In the open-label period, up to ten doses of QL1206 could be given in both groups. The primary endpoint was percentage change in urinary N-telopeptide/creatinine ratio (uNTX/uCr) from baseline to Week 13. Equivalence margins were ± 0.135. Secondary endpoints included percentage change in uNTX/uCr at Week 25 and 53, percentage change in serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase at Week 13, 25, and 53, and time to on-study skeletal-related events. The safety profile was evaluated based on adverse events and immunogenicity. Results From September 2019 to January 2021, in the full analysis set, 717 patients were randomly assigned to receive QL1206 ( n = 357) or denosumab ( n = 360). Median percentage changes in uNTX/uCr at Week 13 in two groups were − 75.2% and − 75.8%, respectively. Least-squares mean difference in the natural log-transformed ratio of uNTX/uCr at Week 13 to baseline between the two groups was 0.012 (90% confidence interval − 0.078 to 0.103), within the equivalence margins. There were no differences in the secondary endpoints between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Adverse events, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics were similar in the two groups. Conclusions Denosumab biosimilar QL1206 had promising efficacy, tolerable safety, and pharmacokinetics equivalent to denosumab and could benefit patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04550949, retrospectively registered on 16 September, 2020

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy of bisphosphonate therapy on bone pain in patients with osteoid osteoma (OO) (main objective), and to describe bisphosphonate-induced changes in nidus mineralisation and regional bone-marrow oedema (BMO).MethodsA prospective, observational study was conducted from 2011 to 2014. Patients with risk factors for complications of percutaneous or surgical ablation or recurrence after ablation, were offered once monthly intravenous bisphosphonate treatment until significant pain alleviation was achieved.ResultsWe included 23 patients. The first two patients received pamidronate and the next 21 zoledronic acid (mean, 2.95 infusions per patient). Bisphosphonate therapy was successful in 19 patients (83%), whose mean pain visual analogue scale score decreased by 76.7%; this pain-relieving effect persisted in 17 patients (74%) with a mean follow-up time of 36 months. Computed tomography (CT) demonstrated a mean nidus density increase of 177.7% (p = 0.001). By magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), mean decreases were 38.4% for BMO surface area and 30.3% for signal intensity (p = 0.001 and p = 0.000, respectively).ConclusionsIn 17/23 patients with painful OO managed conservatively with bisphosphonates, long-term final success was achieved. Bisphosphonates may accelerate the spontaneous healing of OO.Key points• 19/23 patients with OO managed with bisphosphonates experienced significant pain relief• Pain relief was sustained in 17/23 patients, mean follow-up of 36 months• CT demonstrated a significant increase in nidus mineralisation• MRI demonstrated a significant decrease in bone marrow oedema• Bisphosphonate therapy may accelerate the spontaneous healing of OO

Purpose Refractory cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) affects a patient’s functional capacity and quality of life, but there is limited evidence to guide opioid choice. We assessed the feasibility, tolerability and possible efficacy of methadone rotation (MR) compared to other opioid rotations (OOR) in this cohort. Methods Adults with CIBP and worst pain intensity ≥ 4/10 and/or opioid toxicity graded ≥ 2 on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were randomised 1:1 to methadone or another opioid rotation. Standardised assessment tools were used at pre-defined study time points up to 14 days. Results Of 51 eligible participants, 38 (74.5%) consented, and 29 (76.3%, MR: 14, OOR: 15) completed the fourteen days follow-up post-opioid rotation. Both groups displayed significant reduction in average (MR: d  =  − 1.2, p  = 0.003, OOR: d  =  − 0.8, p  = 0.015) and worst pain (MR: d  =  − 0.9, p  = 0.042, OOR: d  =  − 0.6, p  = 0.048) and total pain interference score (MR: d  =  − 1.1, p  = 0.042, OOR: d  =  − 0.7, p  = 0.007). Oral morphine equivalent daily dose was reduced significantly in MR compared to the OOR group ( d  =  − 0.8, p  = 0.05). The incidence of opioid-related adverse events following MR was unchanged but lower in the OOR group ( d  = 0.9, 95% CI 0.1,1.7, p  = 0.022). There were no within-group or between-group differences in satisfaction with analgesia at the end of the study. Conclusion This pilot study demonstrated that MR and OOR in patients with refractory CIBP are feasible, safe and acceptable to patients. Appropriately powered multi-centre randomised controlled studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of MR and OOR in this cohort. Trial registration ACTRN12621000141842 registered 11 February 2021.