Affiliation of authors: C. M. Canil, I. F. Tannock, Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Correspondence to: Ian F. Tannock, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Hospital and University of Toronto, 610 University Ave., Toronto, Ontario M5G 2M9, Canada (e-mail: ian.tannock{at}uhn.on.ca).
Prostate cancer is a disease that is characterized by a high incidence of metastases to bone, which cause substantial morbidity, including pain, fractures, and spinal cord compression. The primary modality of treatment for patients with metastatic prostate cancer is hormonal therapy, which is designed to reduce the stimulatory effects of androgens on prostate cancer cells. However, long-term use of androgen blockade has been shown to result in osteoporosis, which further contributes to bone fragility (1). Hormonal therapy to suppress serum testosterone levels is usually continued in patients with prostate cancer, even those with hormone-resistant prostate cancers. Treatment of patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer has focused on palliation of symptoms and quality of life. Management of bone pain includes treatments with narcotic and anti-inflammatory medications, external beam radiation, bone-seeking radioactive isotopes such as strontium-89, and chemotherapy.
The role of bisphosphonates in the treatment of prostate cancer has been controversial. Patients with bone metastases resulting from breast cancer (24) and multiple myeloma (5) had improved pain and decreased risk of skeletal events (fractures, hypercalcemia, need for intervention with surgery or radiation therapy) with the use of bisphosphonates such as pamidronate. However, because bone metastases in patients with breast cancer or multiple myeloma are primarily osteolytic, the observations (25) are in concordance with the principal action of bisphosphonates: to inhibit bone-resorbing osteoclasts. By contrast, bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer are primarily osteoblastic, which results in the deposit of calcium in new bone. The rationale for the use of bisphosphonates in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer comes from studies showing that abnormal osteoblastic bone formation is associated with osteoclastic bone resorption and an elevation in osteoclastic markers (6,7). Fractures, and particularly hypercalcemia, are less common in patients with osteoblastic bone metastases than in patients with osteolytic lesions. Pamidronate has been shown to prevent bone loss in men with prostate cancer and no overt bone metastases who were treated with anti-androgen therapy (8), but the role of bisphosphonates in preventing or treating events relating to osteoblastic metastases remains uncertain.
Although there have been three previous reports (911) of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of the use of bisphosphonates in patients with metastatic prostate cancer, all used less potent drugs than those now available, and two have been presented only in abstract form. Smith (9) randomly assigned 57 patients to receive intravenous and/or oral sodium etidronate or placebo and found no difference in symptomatic response or analgesic requirements. A British study by Dearnaley et al. (10) randomly assigned 311 patients with hormone-sensitive disease to oral clodronate or placebo and, in a preliminary report, found a delay in the time to symptomatic bone progression. Recently, a Canadian study by Ernst et al. (11) randomly assigned 208 patients with hormone-resistant disease and symptomatic bone metastases to receive intravenous clodronate or placebo in addition to palliative chemotherapy with mitoxantrone and prednisone. There were no differences in the primary endpoint of palliative response (defined by improvement in pain and/or decrease in analgesic intake), although a secondary analysis suggested that moderate or severe pain was improved in a small subset of patients who received clodronate.
In this issue of the Journal, Saad and his colleagues (12) describe a study that attempts to define the role of the potent bisphosphonate zoledronic acid in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer with bone metastases. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 643 patients were randomly assigned to three arms in which they were to receive intravenous infusions of placebo or of zoledronic acid (4 mg or 8 mg) every 3 weeks for up to 15 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients having at least one skeletal-related event (pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, surgery to bone, radiation therapy to bone, or a change in antineoplastic therapy to treat bone pain). Because some patients receiving the 8-mg infusion dose of zoledronic acid had renal dysfunction, all patients on this arm subsequently received the 4-mg infusion dose of zoledronic acid. The statistical plan was amended to base the primary analysis on the comparison between those in the 4-mg zoledronic acid arm and the placebo arm. The results of the study show a difference in the primary endpoint of skeletal-related events between patients randomly assigned to the 4-mg zoledronic acid arm and the placebo arm (33.2% versus 44.2%, P = .02). The percentage of patients with skeletal-related events who were randomly assigned to the 8/4-mg zoledronic acid arm was intermediate (38.5%) and was not statistically significantly different from the percentage of patients in the placebo arm. The median time to the first skeletal-related event was at least 420 days in patients in the 4-mg zoledronic acid arm compared with 321 days for those in the placebo arm (P = .01) and 363 days for those in the 8/4-mg zoledronic arm (not statistically significantly different from that in the placebo arm). No differences were identified in disease progression, performance status, or quality-of-life scores in any of the arms. The authors conclude that zoledronic acid may reduce skeletal-related events in prostate cancer patients with bone metastases.
The study by Saad et al. (12) was well designed and showed a statistically significant reduction in skeletal-related events for patients randomly assigned to receive 4-mg doses of zoledronic acid compared with those randomly assigned to receive placebo. However, several features of the study should lead to caution in accepting this result as sufficient evidence to introduce zoledronic acid into standard practice for the treatment of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. First, Saad et al. appropriately reduced the dose of zoledronic acid from 8 mg to 4 mg in the third arm of the study when there was suspicion that higher doses might be associated with renal dysfunction, but the investigators lost statistical power by not including these patients in their revised primary analysis. Second, patients on the 8/4-mg arm would be expected to have at least as great a reduction in skeletal-related events as those starting on the 4-mg arm. The finding of an intermediate level of benefit weakens the conclusions of the study. Most likely, the dose response to zoledronic acid is quite flat above a certain threshold, and the true measure of benefit in reducing skeletal-related events is intermediate between those found on the two treatment arms. Third, Saad et al. (12) comment that zoledronic acid was well tolerated by patients, but the incidence of fatigue, anemia, myalgia, fever, and lower-limb edema were all higher (by at least 5%) in each of the treatment arms when compared with the incidence in patients receiving placebo. Some of these differences are of the same order, although in the opposite direction, as those in the primary endpoint and may explain why quality of life was not improved with treatment. Thus, this study with zoledronic acid has not provided a clear demonstration of net therapeutic benefit.
Analyses of the cost-effectiveness of using pamidronate in patients with breast cancer have shown that its use is associated with high incremental cost per adverse event avoided (13,14). Zoledronic acid is a more expensive agent than pamidronate, and the incremental cost of preventing each skeletal-related event in patients with prostate cancer is likely to be high and outside a range that would be regarded as cost-effective. The study by Saad et al. (12) adds to the evidence that bisphosphonates have some activity in reducing the incidence of skeletal-related events in men with metastatic prostate cancer but with some added toxicity. Zoledronic acid is a reasonable option for patients who do not respond to alternative therapies and who are at high risk for bone fractures or spinal cord compression, but currently zoledronic acid cannot be recommended as a standard therapy for men with prostate cancer and metastases to bone.
REFERENCES
1 Diamond T, Campbell J, Bryant C, Lynch W. The effect of combined androgen blockade on bone turnover and bone mineral densities in men treated for prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1998;83:15616.[Medline]
2 Hortobagyi GN, Theriault RL, Porter L, Blayney D, Lipton A, Sinoff C, et al. Efficacy of pamidronate in reducing skeletal complications in patients with breast cancer and lytic bone metastases. N Engl J Med 1996;335:178591.
3 Theriault RL, Lipton A, Hortobagyi GN, Leff R, Gluck S, Stewart JF, et al. Pamidronate reduces skeletal morbidity in women with advanced breast cancer and lytic bone lesions: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:84654.
4 Pavlakis N, Stockler M. Bisphosphonates for breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002(1):CD003474.
5 Djulbegovic B, Wheatley K, Ross J, Clark O, Bos G, Goldschmidt H, et al. Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002(3):CD003188.
6 Adami S. Bisphosphonates in prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1997;80(8 Suppl):16749.[Medline]
7 Koizumi M, Yamada Y, Takiguchi T, Nomur E, Furukawa M, Kitahara T, et al. Bone metabolic markers in bone metastases. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1995;121:5428.[Medline]
8 Smith MR, McGovern FJ, Zietman AL, Fallon MA, Hayden DL, Schoenfeld DA, et al. Pamidronate to prevent bone loss during androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2001;345:94855.
9 Smith JA Jr. Palliation of painful bone metastases from prostate cancer using sodium etidronate: results of a randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Urol 1989;141:857.[Medline]
10 Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, on behalf of the MRC PR5 Collaborators. Preliminary evidence that oral clodronate delays symptomatic progression of bone metastases from prostate cancer: first results of the MRC PR5 Trial. Proc ASCO 2001;20:174a.
11 Ernst DS, Tannock IF, Venner PM, Winquist EW, Reyno L, Walker H, et al. Randomized placebo controlled trial of mitoxantrone/prednisone and clodronate versus mitoxantrone/prednisone alone in patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) and pain: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group study. Proc ASCO 2002;21:177a.
12 Saad F, Gleason DM, Murray R, Tchekmedyian S, Venner P, Lacombe L, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of zoledronic acid in patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:145868.
13 Hillner BE, Weeks JC, Desch CE, Smith TJ. Pamidronate in prevention of bone complications in metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:729.
14 Dranitsaris G, Hsu T. Cost utility analysis of prophylactic pamidronate for the prevention of skeletal related events in patients with advanced breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 1999;7:2719.[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles in HighWire Press-hosted journals:
![]() |
||||
|
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement |