Administration and cancer-control outcomes of bone-modifying agents in real-world patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Hormonal agents administered for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may lead to osteoporosis, skeletal events, reduced quality of life, and even reduced overall survival (OS). Bone-modifying agents may prevent those events but their effect on cancer-control outcomes remains uncertain. Relying on our institutional tertiary-care database, we explored the effect of bone-modifying agents (bisphosphonates such as zoledronic acid and denosumab) on OS and progression-free survival in patients with mCRPC with at least 1 bone metastasis using Kaplan-Meyer estimates and Cox regression models. Of 420 patients with mCRPC, 60% received bone-modifying agents who were younger (68 vs 69 years), with more systemic treatment lines for mCRPC (3 vs 2), and a higher proportion of initial de novo metastatic disease (72% vs 62%, all <i>p</i> ≤ .04) than patients without bone-modifying agents. In progression-free survival analyses, no significant differences were observed between both groups. In OS analyses, significant median OS differences were observed in favor of patients with bone-modifying agents (58 vs 45 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.66), even after multivariable adjustment (HR: 0.37; both <i>p</i> ≤ .01). In bone-modifying agent-stratified analyses, 57% received denosumab vs 43% bisphosphonates, with a significantly higher rate of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of ≥2 in the bisphosphonates group. In progression-free and OS analyses, no significant differences were observed between bisphosphonates and denosumab patients, with numerically better results in progression-free survival analysis for denosumab after adjusting for covariates. The cumulative rate of osteonecrosis of the jaw at any treatment time was 12% in both groups and significantly decreased over time. Real-world data suggest a relatively low administration rate of bone-modifying agents in patients with osseous mCRPC. However, real-world data also suggest an OS benefit when bone-modifying agents are used, even after controlling for possible confounding patient and tumor characteristics.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JBMR Plus
Published
2024-11-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jbmrpl/ziae157
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.42
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Administration and cancer-control outcomes of bone-modifying agents in real-world patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Markus Graefen, Carolin Siech, Thomas Steuber, Miriam I. Traumann et al.
1 citations
JBMR Plus
Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
0.42
article

Administration and cancer-control outcomes of bone-modifying agents in real-world patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Markus Graefen, Carolin Siech, Thomas Steuber, Miriam I. Traumann, Derya Tilki, Clara Humke, Fred Saad, Mike Wenzel, Cristina Cano Garcia, Pierre I Karakiewcz, Benedikt Hoeh, Felix K. H. Chun, Maria N. Welte, Philipp Mandel
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Hormonal agents administered for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may lead to osteoporosis, skeletal events, reduced quality of life, and even reduced overall survival (OS). Bone-modifying agents may prevent those events but their effect on cancer-control outcomes remains uncertain. Relying on our institutional tertiary-care database, we explored the effect of bone-modifying agents (bisphosphonates such as zoledronic acid and denosumab) on OS and progression-free survival in patients with mCRPC with at least 1 bone metastasis using Kaplan-Meyer estimates and Cox regression models. Of 420 patients with mCRPC, 60% received bone-modifying agents who were younger (68 vs 69 years), with more systemic treatment lines for mCRPC (3 vs 2), and a higher proportion of initial de novo metastatic disease (72% vs 62%, all <i>p</i> ≤ .04) than patients without bone-modifying agents. In progression-free survival analyses, no significant differences were observed between both groups. In OS analyses, significant median OS differences were observed in favor of patients with bone-modifying agents (58 vs 45 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.66), even after multivariable adjustment (HR: 0.37; both <i>p</i> ≤ .01). In bone-modifying agent-stratified analyses, 57% received denosumab vs 43% bisphosphonates, with a significantly higher rate of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of ≥2 in the bisphosphonates group. In progression-free and OS analyses, no significant differences were observed between bisphosphonates and denosumab patients, with numerically better results in progression-free survival analysis for denosumab after adjusting for covariates. The cumulative rate of osteonecrosis of the jaw at any treatment time was 12% in both groups and significantly decreased over time. Real-world data suggest a relatively low administration rate of bone-modifying agents in patients with osseous mCRPC. However, real-world data also suggest an OS benefit when bone-modifying agents are used, even after controlling for possible confounding patient and tumor characteristics.

JBMR PlusVol. 9(1)
Goethe University Frankfurt (DE), Koç University (TR), Universität Hamburg (DE), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE), Martini-Klinik (DE), University Hospital Frankfurt (DE), Université de Montréal (CA)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
0.42
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.