Denosumab Compared With Zoledronic Acid for the Treatment of Bone Metastases in Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study

  1. Ada Braun
  1. From the University of Arizona, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium; Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Western and Royal Melbourne Hospitals, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Blokhin Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia; National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN; Corporacion Medica de General San Martin, San Martin, Argentina; and Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  1. Corresponding author: Alison T. Stopeck, MD, PO Box 245024, 1515 N Campbell Ave, Tucson, AZ 85724-5024; e-mail: astopeck{at}azcc.arizona.edu.

  1. Presented at the joint 15th Congress of the European Cancer Organisation and the 34th Congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology, September 21, 2009, Berlin, Germany; and the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, December 10, 2009, San Antonio, TX.

 
Next Section

Abstract

Purpose This randomized study compared denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor κ B (RANK) ligand, with zoledronic acid in delaying or preventing skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with breast cancer with bone metastases.

Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg and intravenous placebo (n = 1,026) or intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg adjusted for creatinine clearance and subcutaneous placebo (n = 1,020) every 4 weeks. All patients were strongly recommended to take daily calcium and vitamin D supplements. The primary end point was time to first on-study SRE (defined as pathologic fracture, radiation or surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression).

Results Denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid in delaying time to first on-study SRE (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.95; P = .01 superiority) and time to first and subsequent (multiple) on-study SREs (rate ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.89; P = .001). Reduction in bone turnover markers was greater with denosumab. Overall survival, disease progression, and rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were similar between groups. An excess of renal AEs and acute-phase reactions occurred with zoledronic acid; hypocalcemia occurred more frequently with denosumab. Osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred infrequently (2.0%, denosumab; 1.4%, zoledronic acid; P = .39).

Conclusion Denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid in delaying or preventing SREs in patients with breast cancer metastatic to bone and was generally well tolerated. With the convenience of a subcutaneous injection and no requirement for renal monitoring, denosumab represents a potential treatment option for patients with bone metastases.

Previous SectionNext Section

INTRODUCTION

Up to 80% of patients with metastatic breast cancer develop bone metastases that induce increased osteoclast activity resulting in local bone destruction and skeletal complications, including pain, hypercalcemia, and skeletal-related events (SREs).1 SREs comprise radiation therapy to alleviate pain or prevent fracture, surgery to bone to treat or prevent fractures, and pathologic fracture or spinal cord compression that can result in paresthesias, incontinence, and paralysis.2–5 SREs occur in up to 64% of patients with metastatic breast cancer when they are not treated with bisphosphonates,4 and the burden of SREs contributes to a substantial erosion in quality of life for many advanced breast cancer patients.6–8

Intravenous bisphosphonates, predominantly zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis Pharmaceuticals East Hanover, NJ),9 are effective at preventing SREs. The American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends initiating treatment with intravenous bisphosphonates in breast cancer patients who have evidence of bone destruction on plain radiographs.10 However, SREs still occur in a large proportion of patients despite intravenous bisphosphonate therapy.11,12 Nephrotoxicity has been shown to be associated with zoledronic acid therapy and increases with extended treatment.9,13–16 To minimize this risk, zoledronic acid is contraindicated for patients with creatinine clearance levels < 30 mL/min, and in patients with creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min, it is dose-adjusted for baseline renal function. Zoledronic acid is infused over a minimum of 15 minutes, and it is withheld if creatinine rises to further reduce the risk of renal injury, per zoledronic acid prescribing information.9 Additionally, acute-phase reactions (flu-like symptoms) to intravenous bisphosphonate infusions occur frequently and may further complicate management of patients.9 Therefore, new treatments that further reduce SREs and/or limit toxicity are needed.

Metastatic tumor cells in bone may secrete cytokines and growth factors that induce osteoblasts to release receptor activator of nuclear factor κ B ligand (RANKL), a key mediator of osteoclast formation, function, and survival.17 Osteoclasts resorb bone, thereby releasing growth factors that may promote tumor cell proliferation, metastasis, and survival, thus perpetuating a vicious cycle of tumor expansion and bone resorption.18 Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that specifically binds human RANKL to inhibit osteoclast activity that results in reduced bone resorption, tumor-induced bone destruction, and SREs. Denosumab may potentially disrupt the vicious cycle.

Studies in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and in women receiving aromatase inhibitors for early-stage breast cancer showed that denosumab was generally well tolerated as a subcutaneous 60-mg injection every 6 months and resulted in suppression of bone turnover and increased bone mineral density.19,20 In a large trial of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, denosumab resulted in significant reductions in the incidence of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures.19 Two phase II trials of patients with bone metastases further demonstrated that denosumab, at doses ranging from 30 to 180 mg administered every 4 or every 12 weeks, was similar to intravenous bisphosphonates in suppressing bone turnover markers including urine N-telopeptide (uNTx) and in delaying SREs.21,22 Results from these studies also supported using the higher dosing regimen of denosumab (120 mg every 4 weeks) that was selected for the current trial. Both the dose and schedule were optimized for maximum and sustained suppression of uNTx, a known predictor of SREs and survival23 in patients with bone metastases.21,24,25 In this randomized phase III trial, we compared denosumab with zoledronic acid in delaying or preventing SREs in patients with breast cancer metastatic to bone.

Previous SectionNext Section

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients

Eligible patients were age ≥ 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed breast adenocarcinoma, current or prior radiographic (x-ray, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging) evidence of at least one bone metastasis, with adequate organ function (including albumin-adjusted serum calcium ≥ 2.0 mmol/L [≥ 8.0 mg/dL] and ≤ 2.9 mmol/L [≤ 11.5 mg/dL] calculated by central laboratory), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0, 1, or 2. Patients with creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min (Cockcroft-Gault formula) were excluded because zoledronic acid is contraindicated in this patient population.9 Other key exclusion criteria included prior intravenous bisphosphonate treatment, current or prior oral bisphosphonates for treatment of bone metastases, nonhealed dental/oral surgery, and prior malignancy within 3 years before random assignment. History of breast cancer (diagnosis, hormone receptor status, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2] status, and location of metastatic bone disease) and SREs were also obtained.

Study Design

This international, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled study compared denosumab with zoledronic acid for the treatment of bone metastases in breast cancer patients and involved 322 centers in Europe, North America, South America, Japan, Australia, India, and South Africa. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a subcutaneous injection of denosumab 120 mg and an intravenous infusion of placebo every 4 weeks or an intravenous infusion (lasting no less than 15 minutes) of zoledronic acid 4 mg and a subcutaneous injection of placebo every 4 weeks. Intravenous products (placebo or zoledronic acid) were dose-adjusted on the basis of baseline creatinine clearance ≤ 60 mL/min and were held for renal function deterioration on-study (until serum creatinine returned to within 10% of baseline values), per zoledronic acid prescribing information. There was no requirement for dose adjustment with denosumab. Randomization was stratified by prior SRE, prior oral bisphosphonate use, current chemotherapy, and geographic region (Japan or Other).

Daily supplementation with calcium (≥ 500 mg) and vitamin D (≥ 400 U) was strongly recommended. All cancer-specific therapies such as chemotherapy and hormonal therapy were allowed, except for oral or intravenous bisphosphonates or unapproved investigational products or devices. Patients who discontinued investigational product but continued with scheduled visits were followed for SREs through the primary analysis data cutoff date (March 2009), and all patients were followed for survival unless they withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up. The study duration from first patient enrollment to the primary analysis was approximately 34 months.

All patients provided written informed consent before any study-specific procedure was performed, except for three patients in the zoledronic acid group who were excluded from analysis because properly documented informed consent was not obtained (Fig 1). The study was approved by the institutional review board or ethics committee for each site.

Fig 1.
View larger version:
Fig 1.

Patient disposition.

Assessment of Outcomes

SRE was defined as pathologic fracture (excluding major trauma), radiation therapy to bone, surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression. Hypercalcemia of malignancy was assessed separately. Fractures were assessed by skeletal surveys (x-rays) every 12 weeks or by radiographic assessments (x-ray, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging) during the course of standard care and were identified or confirmed independently by at least two radiologists through blinded central radiology review. Spinal cord compression events were also confirmed by blinded central radiology review. Radiation to bone included use of radioisotopes. Surgery to bone included procedures to set or stabilize a fracture or to prevent an imminent fracture or spinal cord compression. On-study visits occurred at baseline and every 4 weeks thereafter. A data monitoring committee reviewed safety and efficacy data at regular intervals. Bone turnover markers (uNTx corrected for urine creatinine levels [uNTx/Cr] and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase [BSAP]) were measured at baseline and week 13.

End Points

The primary end point was time to first on-study SRE (noninferiority test). Secondary efficacy end points were time to first on-study SRE (superiority test) and time to first and subsequent on-study SREs (multiple event analysis). Subsequent events must have occurred at least 21 days apart from the most recent event to ensure that linked events (eg, surgery to repair a fracture or multiple doses of radiation during a course of treatment) were not counted as separate SREs.

Safety end points included incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), changes in laboratory values, and incidence of antidenosumab antibodies. All AEs were coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) v12.0 system. Oral examinations were conducted twice yearly. Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) events were adjudicated by an independent, blinded ONJ adjudication committee consisting of an external panel of experts.

Exploratory end points included overall survival, disease progression, skeletal morbidity rate (allowing one event per assessing period [3 weeks]), and percent change from baseline to week 13 in uNTx and BSAP levels.

Statistical Analysis

Enrollment of 1,960 patients (980 per group) was planned. If the true hazard ratio (HR) was 0.9, 745 patients with at least one SRE were estimated to provide 97% power to detect noninferiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid, based on a synthesis approach26 designed to demonstrate that denosumab preserves greater than 50% of the treatment effect of zoledronic acid. Assuming a true HR of 0.8 for both secondary end points and a correlation coefficient of 0.6 between the two end points, 745 patients with an SRE were also estimated to provide 90% power to detect superiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid for at least one of these end points.

The Appendix (online only) includes a full description of the statistical analysis. In this intention-to-treat analysis, primary and secondary efficacy analyses were conducted hierarchically (α = .05). Statistical inferences of treatment effect on secondary efficacy end points were conducted because denosumab was declared noninferior to zoledronic acid. To control overall type I errors for multiple comparisons at a significance level of 0.05, secondary efficacy end points were tested simultaneously (Hochberg procedure). Time to first SRE was analyzed using a Cox model. Time to first and subsequent on-study SREs was analyzed using the Andersen and Gill approach.27 Exploratory efficacy end points were tested at a significance level of 0.05 without multiplicity adjustments. All statistical testing was two-sided.

Incidence of AEs was summarized for patients who received at least one active dose of investigational product. No formal statistical testing was done for multiple safety comparisons. AEs with nominal P values < .05 are described. The proportion of patients with adjudicated positive ONJ was compared in prespecified fashion by treatment group using Fisher's exact test. Antidenosumab antibody assessments were conducted using screening methods described previously.28

Previous SectionNext Section

RESULTS

Patients

Patients were enrolled between April 2006 and December 2007 (1,026 denosumab, 1,020 zoledronic acid; Fig 1). Patient characteristics were generally balanced, including age, menopausal status, and ECOG status (Table 1). Seventy-two percent of patients were hormone receptor–positive, 18% were HER2 positive, more than 50% also had visceral metastases, and 40% were receiving chemotherapy within 6 weeks of random assignment. Median time from initial diagnosis of bone metastasis to random assignment was 2 months. Median time on study was 17 months; 45% of patients continued on-study at the time of the primary analysis. The most common reasons for study discontinuation were death (17%), disease progression (12%), and consent withdrawal (12%).

View this table:
Table 1.

Baseline Demographics and Characteristics

The proportion of patients who received on-study cancer treatments for their breast cancer was also balanced between treatment groups (96.7%, denosumab; 95.4%, zoledronic acid; Appendix Table A1, online only). A similar proportion of patients received on-study hormonal therapy (68.6% and 67.7%) or chemotherapy (63.5% and 64.9%) in the denosumab and zoledronic acid groups, respectively.

Efficacy

Denosumab significantly delayed time to first on-study SRE by 18% compared with zoledronic acid (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.95; P < .001 noninferiority; P = .01 superiority; Fig 2A). The treatment effect of denosumab was consistent over time compared with zoledronic acid. Median time to first on-study SRE was 26.4 months for the zoledronic acid group and has not yet been reached for the denosumab group.

Fig 2.
View larger version:
Fig 2.

Kaplan-Meier estimates of (A) time to first skeletal-related event (SRE) and (B) time to first and subsequent SREs (multiple event analysis), which is represented as the cumulative mean number of SREs over time. Drugs were administered every 4 weeks. HR, hazard ratio; Q4W, every 4 weeks. (*) Adjusted for multiplicity.

Denosumab reduced the risk of developing multiple SREs (time to first and subsequent SREs) by 23% compared with zoledronic acid (rate ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.89; P = .001; Fig 2B). Denosumab reduced the mean skeletal morbidity rate, defined as the ratio of the number of SREs per patient divided by the patient's time at risk, by 22% compared with zoledronic acid (0.45 events v 0.58 events per patient per year for denosumab and zoledronic acid, respectively; P = .004). Overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.11; P = .49) and disease progression (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.11; P = .93) were similar between study groups (Fig 3).

Fig 3.
View larger version:
Fig 3.

Kaplan-Meier estimates of (A) overall survival and (B) time to disease progression by treatment group. Drugs were administered every 4 weeks. HR, hazard ratio; Q4W, every 4 weeks.

Denosumab treatment resulted in greater suppression of bone turnover markers compared with zoledronic acid. At study week 13, levels of uNTx/Cr decreased by a median 80% with denosumab compared with 68% with zoledronic acid (P < .001). Levels of BSAP decreased by a median 44% with denosumab compared with 37% with zoledronic acid (P < .001).

Safety

Rates of overall, severe (Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events [CTCAE] grade ≥ 3), and serious AEs (eg, life-threatening or requiring hospitalization) were similar between groups (Table 2). These AEs were mostly reflective of toxicities related to concomitant therapies (eg, chemotherapy) or complications of underlying cancer. No patients developed detectable levels of neutralizing antidenosumab antibodies.

View this table:
Table 2.

Adverse Events

An analysis of all AEs was performed using Fisher's exact test to identify between-group differences with a nominal P value < .05 (Fig 4) by MedDRA preferred terms. Because this analysis does not include adjustments for multiple comparisons, it should be considered exploratory in nature. Twenty AEs with nominal P value < .05 were identified: 18 were more common with zoledronic acid, including pyrexia, bone pain, arthralgia, renal failure, and hypercalcemia; two were more common with denosumab, including toothache and hypocalcemia. Toothache was not associated with the development of ONJ.

Fig 4.
View larger version:
Fig 4.

Forest plot of adverse events with between-group differences with an unadjusted P < .05 (Fisher's exact test).

Analyses for AEs potentially associated with acute-phase reactions (flu-like syndrome including pyrexia, chills, flushing, bone pain, arthralgias, and myalgias), renal toxicity, and ONJ were also performed (Table 2). Acute-phase reactions occurring within the first 3 days after treatment were 2.7 times more common with zoledronic acid.

AEs potentially associated with renal toxicity (8.5% v 4.9%; P = .001), especially severe (2.2% v 0.4%) and serious renal AEs (1.5% v 0.2%), occurred more frequently with zoledronic acid. The incidence of renal AEs among patients with baseline renal clearance ≤ 60 mL/min was also higher in the zoledronic acid group (20.0%) than in the denosumab group (5.9%), and a greater proportion of patients had decreases in their baseline creatinine clearance from ≥ 60 mL/min to < 60 mL/min with zoledronic acid (16.1%) compared with denosumab (12.7%).

Expected decreases in serum calcium, phosphorus, and total alkaline phosphatase were observed in both groups. Decreases in serum calcium were generally mild, transient, and not associated with clinical sequelae. ONJ occurred infrequently (20 [2.0%] denosumab v 14 [1.4%] zoledronic acid). Rates of ONJ were not statistically significantly different between groups (P = .39). ONJ occurred as early as 6 months after random assignment. The cumulative incidence in the denosumab and zoledronic acid groups, respectively, was 0.8% and 0.5% at 1 year, 1.9% and 1.2% at 2 years, and 2.0% and 1.4% at 3 years. Known risk factors for ONJ, including history of dental extraction, poor oral hygiene, or use of dental appliance occurred in 18 (90%) of 20 and 10 (71%) of 14 patients in denosumab and zoledronic acid groups, respectively. Fifteen (75%) denosumab-treated and 11 (79%) zoledronic acid-treated patients who developed ONJ were receiving or had received chemotherapy, and four (29%) patients in the zoledronic acid group (v zero in the denosumab group) had received prior oral bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis. Antiangiogenic therapy has also been associated with an increased risk of ONJ.29–31 Four (20%) ONJ events in the denosumab group and two (14%) in the zoledronic acid group occurred in patients receiving antiangiogenic therapy. As of February 2010, 10 (50%) denosumab-treated patients and six (43%) zoledronic acid–treated patients had resolution of the ONJ event; 10 (50%) denosumab-treated patients and nine (64%) zoledronic acid–treated patients reported local infection; and seven patients in each group (35%, denosumab; 50%, zoledronic acid) reported undergoing limited surgical procedures such as debridement and sequestrectomy.

Previous SectionNext Section

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrated that monthly subcutaneous injection of 120 mg of denosumab is superior to monthly intravenous infusion of 4 mg of zoledronic acid at delaying or preventing SREs in patients with breast cancer metastatic to bone. Denosumab significantly reduced the risk of first on-study SRE and subsequent SREs compared with zoledronic acid. Improved efficacy with denosumab was observed as early as 6 months, with absolute differences between the two treatments continuing to increase throughout the study. The improvement in efficacy over zoledronic acid suggests that greater inhibition of osteoclast-induced bone resorption by denosumab, as evident by increased suppression of bone turnover markers, translates into improved clinical outcomes (ie, prevention of SREs).

The risk of renal toxicity is a known AE associated with use of intravenous bisphosphonates9 and certain chemotherapies. Therefore, management of renal function requires a balance between bisphosphonate use with specific cancer therapies such as platinum-based chemotherapy and other nephrotoxic agents such as antibiotics. Despite dose adjustments per the zoledronic acid prescribing information, the incidence of AEs potentially associated with renal toxicity was still higher and declines in creatinine clearance were more frequently observed with zoledronic acid therapy. Denosumab elimination is likely through nonspecific catabolism in cells of the reticuloendothelial system similar to that of other therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and is not reliant on renal function.32 Thus, denosumab represents a therapeutic option for patients with bone metastases who have chronic renal failure and renal insufficiency and for those with metastatic breast cancer receiving nephrotoxic platinum-based chemotherapy regimens.

Acute-phase reactions (flu-like symptoms) occurred almost three times more frequently with zoledronic acid than with denosumab. These flu-like symptoms represent an added burden for patients and require greater monitoring and potential treatment following zoledronic acid therapy. Hypocalcemia, a known AE of drugs that reduce bone remodeling, occurred more frequently with denosumab. Most of these events occurred within the first 6 months after initiating treatment, likely because of the initial reduction in serum calcium commonly observed with denosumab or zoledronic acid, and were generally not associated with symptoms or clinical consequence. No AEs of hypocalcemia were reported as fatal, and grade 3 or 4 AEs of hypocalcemia were similar between groups (1.6%, denosumab; 1.2%, zoledronic acid).

This trial provides additional insight into the incidence of ONJ. Both groups had similar albeit small numbers of patients who experienced ONJ at a fairly constant rate throughout the trial. Known risk factors for ONJ, including prior dental extractions, poor oral hygiene, and dentures, were present in the vast majority of on-study ONJ cases, indicating that patients at risk may be identified. Although additional safety events associated with long-term denosumab use may still be elucidated, these results demonstrate a favorable risk-benefit profile.

In conclusion, denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid for delaying or preventing SREs and has several potentially beneficial characteristics for patients, including the avoidance of renal toxicity and acute phase reactions and the convenience of a subcutaneous injection. Our results support the use of denosumab as a potential novel treatment option for the management of bone metastases in breast cancer patients.

Previous SectionNext Section

AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Although all authors completed the disclosure declaration, the following author(s) indicated a financial or other interest that is relevant to the subject matter under consideration in this article. Certain relationships marked with a “U” are those for which no compensation was received; those relationships marked with a “C” were compensated. For a detailed description of the disclosure categories, or for more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to the Author Disclosure Declaration and the Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest section in Information for Contributors.

Employment or Leadership Position: Michelle Fan, Amgen (C); Qi Jiang, Amgen (C); Roger Dansey, Amgen (C); Susie Jun, Amgen (C); Ada Braun, Amgen (C) Consultant or Advisory Role: Alison T. Stopeck, Amgen (C), Novartis (C); Allan Lipton, Amgen (C), Novartis (C); Jean-Jacques Body, Amgen (C), Novartis (C); Guenther G. Steger, Amgen (C), Novartis (C); Katia Tonkin, Amgen (C) Stock Ownership: Michelle Fan, Amgen; Qi Jiang, Amgen; Roger Dansey, Amgen; Susie Jun, Amgen; Ada Braun, Amgen Honoraria: Alison T. Stopeck, Amgen, Novartis; Allan Lipton, Amgen, Novartis; Jean-Jacques Body, Amgen; Guenther G. Steger, Amgen, Novartis; Katia Tonkin, Amgen Research Funding: Allan Lipton, Novartis; Katia Tonkin, Amgen; Richard H. de Boer, Amgen; Yasuhiro Fujiwara, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eisai Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku; María Viniegra, Amgen; Michelle Fan, Amgen; Roger Dansey, Amgen; Susie Jun, Amgen; Ada Braun, Amgen Expert Testimony: Allan Lipton, Novartis (C) Other Remuneration: None

Previous SectionNext Section

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conception and design: Alison T. Stopeck, Allan Lipton, Jean-Jacques Body, Richard H. de Boer, Michelle Fan, Qi Jiang, Roger Dansey, Susie Jun

Provision of study materials or patients: Alison T. Stopeck, Allan Lipton, Jean-Jacques Body, Guenther G. Steger, Richard H. de Boer, Yasuhiro Fujiwara, Denise A. Yardley, María Viniegra

Collection and assembly of data: Alison T. Stopeck, Allan Lipton, Guenther G. Steger, Richard H. de Boer, Mikhail Lichinitser, Yasuhiro Fujiwara, Michelle Fan, Qi Jiang, Roger Dansey, Susie Jun, Ada Braun

Data analysis and interpretation: Alison T. Stopeck, Allan Lipton, Jean-Jacques Body, Guenther G. Steger, Katia Tonkin, Richard H. de Boer, Mikhail Lichinitser, Yasuhiro Fujiwara, Denise A. Yardley, María Viniegra, Michelle Fan, Qi Jiang, Roger Dansey, Susie Jun, Ada Braun

Manuscript writing: Alison T. Stopeck, Allan Lipton, Jean-Jacques Body, Guenther G. Steger, Katia Tonkin, Richard H. de Boer, Mikhail Lichinitser, Yasuhiro Fujiwara, Denise A. Yardley, María Viniegra, Michelle Fan, Qi Jiang, Roger Dansey, Susie Jun, Ada Braun

Final approval of manuscript: Alison T. Stopeck, Allan Lipton, Jean-Jacques Body, Guenther G. Steger, Katia Tonkin, Richard H. de Boer, Mikhail Lichinitser, Yasuhiro Fujiwara, Denise A. Yardley, María Viniegra, Michelle Fan, Qi Jiang, Roger Dansey, Susie Jun, Ada Braun

Previous SectionNext Section

Acknowledgment

We thank the patients at all participating sites who made important contributions to this study. We also thank Ting Chang, PhD, of Amgen for writing support. This article was written in memory of Lina Barbosa Cassol, MD, and Carla Fioratti.

Previous SectionNext Section

Appendix

Previous SectionNext Section

Participating Investigators for the 20050136 Breast Cancer Skeletal-Related Event (SRE) Study

Argentina: C. Alasino, P. Alvarez, M.A. Brown Arnold, C. Bas, C. Blajman, R. Bordenave, J. Borgacz, B. Bosch, M.A. Cuevas, C.A. Delfino, J.J. Garcia, N. Giacomi, G.D. Jarchum, J.L. Martinez, J. Nadal, G. Pasccon, E. Richardet, A.E. Stagnaro, M.D. Tatangelo, A.E. Tomadoni; Australia: R. Bell, B. Koczwara, G. Marx, L. Mileshkin, W.K. Patterson, B. Stein, G. Richardson, J. Stewart, R. Stuart-Harris; Austria: C. Marth, E. Kubista, H. Ludwig; Belgium: T. Besse-Hammer, M. Borms, J.-L. Canon, V. Cocquyt, L.Y. Dirix, J.-C. Goeminne, C. Nouwynck, V. Renard, J.-B. Vermorken; Brazil: B.M.H.R. Adam van Eyll, M. Andrade, D. Barqueti Jendiroba, C.H.E. Barrios, C.A. Beato, J. Biazus, C. Cabral, G. de Castro, G.L. Delgado, M. de Oliveira Matias, A. Faccio, M.H. Honda Federico, A.P. Guimaraes, M. Liberatti, S. Martins, A.A. Moraes, A.M. Morelle, Y.V. Neron do Nascimento, J.A. Nogueira, A. Notari, H. Pinczowski, P.E. Pizao, A. Rocha Lima, A. Silva, V.L. Teixeira, L.A. Tinoco, C. Tosello Oliveira, R.J. Valenca; Bulgaria: P. Chilingirov, D. Damyanov, K. Guenova, T. Koynova, V. Taskova, H. Tsekov, V. Tzekova; Canada: H. Assi, M. Bahl, M. Blackstein, N. Califaretti, F. Couture, P. Ellis, D. Grenier, C. Hamm, R. Haq, M. Hussein, H. Kennecke, P. Lopez, Y. Madarnas, A. Paterson, S. Sehdev, T. Vandenberg, D. Warr, P. Whitlock; Chile: C. Del Castillo Santa Maria, H.R. Munoz Manzur, L. Soto Diaz; Czech Republic: J. Prausova, V. Pecha, M. Kohoutek; Denmark: A.B. Jensen, K.A. Moller, P.G. Sorensen; Estonia: P. Padrik; France: P. Beuzeboc, P. Colin, B. Coudert, T. Delozier, J. Gligorov, F. Goldwasser, J.-P. Guastalla, M.T. Hulin, E. Le Rhun, F. Mefti, X. Pivot, G. Romieu, P. Solal Celigny; Germany: I. Bauerfeind, M. Clemens, I. Diel, T. Fehm, B. Heinrich, M. Kaufmann, P. Klare, I. Ruehl, A. Welt; Hungary: E. Kover, A. Ruzsa, J. Szanto, A. Telekes; India: C.J. Desai, S. John, R. Kuttan, K. Lakshmaiah, A. Maru, T. Sahoo, A. Surath, M.S. Vishveshwara; Israel: F. Barak, N. Barak, N. Ben-Baruch, E. Evron, M. Gips, B. Kaufman, N. Yaal-Hahoshen, S. Stemmer, R. Epelbaum; Italy: F. Boccardo, C. Boni, S. Cascinu, P. Foa, T. Gamucci, T. Ibrahim, G. Marini, A. Martoni, S. Ricci, S. Salvagni; Japan: K. Aogi, H. Furusawa, H. Inaji, K. Inoue, H. Iwata, M. Koseki, N. Masuda, H. Minami, H. Mukai, S. Nakamura, Y. Rai, Y. Sasaki, S. Takahashi, Y. Tokuda, Y. Yamanaka; Latvia: E. Grincuka, S. Plate, G. Purkaine, M. Skrodele; Lithuania: I. Cesnaviciene, A. Ciceniene, E. Juozaityte; Mexico: C. Alvarado Silva, E.E. Franco Gonzalez, J. Lopez-Hernandez, L. Oliveros Herrera, M. Ramirez Marquez, G.A. Villarreal Cavazos; the Netherlands: H. Bloemendal, H.J. Nortier, H.P. Sleeboom; Panama: F. Cebamanos, R. Lopez Sanchez; Peru: S. Falcon Lizaraso, M.J. Philco Salas, J.F. Salas Sanchez, C. Losad Zingoni; Poland: J. Jassem, E. Staroslawska, M. Wojtukiewicz; Romania: S. Curescu, A. Eniu, M. Patran, D. Smeianu, D.L. Stanculeanu; Russia: Y. Alexeeva, M. Biyakhov, V. Borisov, I. Davidenko, N. Freichko, O. Gladkov, D. Korman, V. Lubennikov, A. Makhson, A. Manikhas, M. Matrosova, N. Medvedeva, S. Orlov, V. Ruchkin, V. Semiglazov, S. Sidorov, S. Tjulandin; Slovakia: J. Beniak, B. Chern, R. Hruby, L. Jurga, V. Malec, S. Spanik; South Africa: M.A. Coccia-Portugal, J.P. Jordaan, R.A. Mall, J.I. Raats, B.L. Rapoport, D.A. Vorobiof, A. Vorster; Spain: A.M. Casas Fernandez de Tejerina, C. Jara Sanchez, J. Lavernia Giner, M. Martin, M. Munoz-Mateu, C. Rodriguez, I. Tusquets; Sweden: M.-L. Fjallskog, A. Malmstrom, S. Rotstein, M. Soderberg, T.M. Walz; Switzerland: D. Rauch, A.-P. Sappino, R. von Moos; Turkey: H. Bora; Ukraine: B. Bilynskyy, L. Chybisov, O. Dudnichenko, Y. Hotko, O. Kovalyov, O. Lytvynenko, I. Smolanka, I. Sokur; United Kingdom: A. Bowman, K. McAdam, A. Rigg, D. Ritchie, A. Wardley; United States: P. Adams, F. Addo, B. Amin, A. Armas, F. Bari, E. Barylak, Z. Bernstein, L. Bosserman, A. Brufsky, A. Bulgaru, H. Burstein, M. Cassidy, R. Carroll, B. Chinnasami, G. Choy, G. Cohen, F. Cuevas, H. Drabkin, J. Fain, G. Fonseca, E. Gartner, C. Graham, M. Gupta, R.K. Hall, R. Hellman, T. Helsten, C. Henderson, D. Henry, A. Huston, C. Isaacs, H. Jhangiani, S. Kahanic, R. Kerr, K. Kumar, G. Lyman, I. Makhoul, S. Malamud, B. Mirtsching, K. Miller, J. Mortimer, C. Mushtaq, L. Neerukonda, B. O'Connor, Y.L. Ottaviano, D. Patel, A. Perez, D. Patel, D. Prow, M. Rader, R. Rao, T. Repka, G. Rodriguez, P. Rosen, M. Royce, K. Sabbath, L. Schwartzberg, K. Sen, F. Senecal, D. Shiba, P. Stella, F. Swan, R. Theriault, J. Thropay, M. Tirona, C. Van Poznak, C. Vogel, C. Welsh, A. Wierman, R.G. Wiggans, I. Wiznitzer, X. Wu, R. Yanagihara.

Statistical Analysis

Enrollment of 1,960 patients (980 per group) was planned. If the true hazard ratio was 0.9, 745 patients with at least one skeletal-related event (SRE) were estimated to provide 97% power to detect noninferiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid, on the basis of a synthesis approach26 designed to demonstrate that denosumab preserves > 50% of the treatment effect of zoledronic acid. Assuming a true hazard ratio (HR) of 0.8 for both secondary end points and a correlation coefficient of 0.6 between the two end points, 745 patients with an SRE were also estimated to provide 90% power to detect superiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid for at least one of these end points.

The primary and secondary efficacy analyses included randomly assigned patients (full analysis set) and were conducted hierarchically (α = .05). Secondary efficacy end points were tested simultaneously using the Hochberg procedure only when the null hypothesis of the primary end point was rejected at a significance level of 0.05. Exploratory efficacy end points were tested at a significance level of 0.05 without adjusting for multiplicity. All statistical testing was two-sided.

The primary end point was analyzed using a Cox model with treatment groups as the independent variable and stratification factors. A synthesis approach26 was used for the noninferiority test for the primary end point of time to first SRE. The estimate of the effect of zoledronic acid relative to placebo was based on a three-step approach: (1) Data from two trials comparing pamidronate with placebo33,34 were combined to estimate the HR for placebo relative to pamidronate. (2) The results of step 1 were combined with the results of a trial comparing zoledronic acid with pamidronate11 to estimate the HR for placebo relative to zoledronic acid. (3) Because the trials involved in steps 1 and 2 involved non-Japanese patients, the results of step 2 were combined with the results of a trial comparing zoledronic acid with placebo in Japanese patients35 to obtain an overall estimate of the HR of placebo relative to zoledronic acid. To demonstrate 50% preservation of effect, these historical data were combined with the estimate of the effect of denosumab relative to that of zoledronic acid from this trial to estimate the effect of denosumab relative to placebo.

Results of the Cox model were used directly to determine whether denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid. The Andersen and Gill27 approach was used for time to first and subsequent on-study SREs.

The survival functions of time to death and of time to progression of disease were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methodology, and the HRs (two-sided 95% CIs) of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid were estimated using a proportional hazard model stratified by stratification factors and other covariates. Skeletal morbidity rate was compared between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by stratification factors. Comparison of percent changes from baseline to week 13 in urine N-telopeptide corrected for urine creatinine levels and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase levels between groups were conducted using a van Elteren test stratified by stratification factors.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were summarized for patients who received at least one dose of investigational product. No formal statistical testing was done for multiple safety comparisons. An ad hoc comparison between treatment groups of all AEs and serious AEs preferred terms using a Fisher's exact test was summarized. Point estimates and 95% CIs of the risk difference were presented in Figure 4 for AEs with P values < .05. For all reported AEs and serious AEs, the percent occurrence in the zoledronic acid group was subtracted from that in the denosumab group. The difference in percent occurrence was then tested to determine the nominal P value. The proportion of patients with adjudicated positive osteonecrosis of the jaw was compared by treatment group using Fisher's exact test. Antidenosumab antibody assessments were conducted using screening methods described previously.28 Overall survival was summarized for all patients enrolled by treatment group.

View this table:
Table A1.

On-Study Breast Cancer Treatments

Previous SectionNext Section

Footnotes

  • See accompanying editorial on page 5127

  • Written on behalf of the 20050136 Breast Cancer Skeletal-Related Events Study Investigators.

  • Supported by Amgen and Daiichi Sankyo.

  • Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.

  • Clinical trial information can be found for the following: NCT00321464.

  • Received April 7, 2010.
  • Accepted June 22, 2010.
Previous Section
 

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Coleman R
    (2007) Potential use of bisphosphonates in the prevention of metastases in early-stage breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 7(suppl 1):S29–S35.
    CrossRefMedline
  2. ↵
    1. Coleman RE
    (1997) Skeletal complications of malignancy. Cancer 80:1588–1594.
    CrossRefMedline
    1. Coleman RE
    (2001) Metastatic bone disease: Clinical features, pathophysiology and treatment strategies. Cancer Treat Rev 27:165–176.
    CrossRefMedline
  4. ↵
    1. Lipton A,
    2. Theriault RL,
    3. Hortobagyi GN,
    4. et al.
    (2000) Pamidronate prevents skeletal complications and is effective palliative treatment in women with breast carcinoma and osteolytic bone metastases: Long term follow-up of two randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Cancer 88:1082–1090.
    CrossRefMedline
  5. ↵
    1. Abrahm JL,
    2. Banffy MB,
    3. Harris MB
    (2008) Spinal cord compression in patients with advanced metastatic cancer: “All I care about is walking and living my life” JAMA 299:937–946.
    CrossRefMedline
  6. ↵
    1. Costa L,
    2. Badia X,
    3. Chow E,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Impact of skeletal complications on patients' quality of life, mobility, and functional independence. Support Care Cancer 16:879–889.
    CrossRefMedline
    1. Costa L,
    2. Major PP
    (2009) Effect of bisphosphonates on pain and quality of life in patients with bone metastases. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 6:163–174.
    CrossRefMedline
  8. ↵
    1. Pockett RD,
    2. Castellano D,
    3. McEwan P,
    4. et al.
    The hospital burden of disease associated with bone metastases and skeletal-related events in patients with breast cancer, lung cancer, or prostate cancer in Spain. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2009.01135.x [epub ahead of print on August 26, 2009].
  9. ↵
    (2009) Zometa (zoledronic acid) prescribing information, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (East Hanover, NJ) http://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/product/pi/pdf/Zometa.pdf.
  10. ↵
    1. Hillner BE,
    2. Ingle JN,
    3. Chlebowski RT,
    4. et al.
    (2003) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2003 update on the role of bisphosphonates and bone health issues in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:4042–4057.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Rosen LS,
    2. Gordon D,
    3. Kaminski M,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Zoledronic acid versus pamidronate in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with breast cancer or osteolytic lesions of multiple myeloma: A phase III, double-blind, comparative trial. Cancer J 7:377–387.
    Medline
  12. ↵
    1. Rosen LS,
    2. Gordon D,
    3. Kaminski M,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial. Cancer 98:1735–1744.
    CrossRefMedline
  13. ↵
    1. Chang JT,
    2. Green L,
    3. Beitz J
    (2003) Renal failure with the use of zoledronic acid. N Engl J Med 349:1676–1679.
    CrossRefMedline
    1. Markowitz GS,
    2. Fine PL,
    3. Stack JI,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Toxic acute tubular necrosis following treatment with zoledronate (Zometa) Kidney Int 64:281–289.
    CrossRefMedline
    1. Oh WK,
    2. Proctor K,
    3. Nakabayashi M,
    4. et al.
    (2007) The risk of renal impairment in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients with bone metastases treated with zoledronic acid. Cancer 109:1090–1096.
    CrossRefMedline
  16. ↵
    1. Perazella MA,
    2. Markowitz GS
    (2008) Bisphosphonate nephrotoxicity. Kidney Int 74:1385–1393.
    CrossRefMedline
  17. ↵
    1. Lacey DL,
    2. Timms E,
    3. Tan HL,
    4. et al.
    (1998) Osteoprotegerin ligand is a cytokine that regulates osteoclast differentiation and activation. Cell 93:165–176.
    CrossRefMedline
  18. ↵
    1. Roodman GD
    (2004) Mechanisms of bone metastasis. N Engl J Med 350:1655–1664.
    CrossRefMedline
  19. ↵
    1. Cummings SR,
    2. San Martin J,
    3. McClung MR,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 361:756–765.
    CrossRefMedline
  20. ↵
    1. Ellis GK,
    2. Bone HG,
    3. Chlebowski R,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Randomized trial of denosumab in patients receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors for nonmetastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:4875–4882.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Fizazi K,
    2. Lipton A,
    3. Mariette X,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Randomized phase II trial of denosumab in patients with bone metastases from prostate cancer, breast cancer, or other neoplasms after intravenous bisphosphonates. J Clin Oncol 27:1564–1571.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Lipton A,
    2. Steger GG,
    3. Figueroa J,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Randomized active-controlled phase II study of denosumab efficacy and safety in patients with breast cancer-related bone metastases. J Clin Oncol 25:4431–4437.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Coleman RE,
    2. Major P,
    3. Lipton A,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Predictive value of bone resorption and formation markers in cancer patients with bone metastases receiving the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid. J Clin Oncol 23:4925–4935.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Lipton A,
    2. Cook RJ,
    3. Major P,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Zoledronic acid and survival in breast cancer patients with bone metastases and elevated markers of osteoclast activity. Oncologist 12:1035–1043.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Lipton A,
    2. Steger GG,
    3. Figueroa J,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Extended efficacy and safety of denosumab in breast cancer patients with bone metastases not receiving prior bisphosphonate therapy. Clin Cancer Res 14:6690–6696.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. James Hung HM,
    2. Wang SJ,
    3. Tsong Y,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Some fundamental issues with non-inferiority testing in active controlled trials. Stat Med 22:213–225.
    CrossRefMedline
  27. ↵
    1. Anderson PK,
    2. Gill RD
    (1982) Cox's regression model for counting processes: A large sample study. Ann Stat 10:1100–1120.
    CrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. McClung MR,
    2. Lewiecki EM,
    3. Cohen SB,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Denosumab in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density. N Engl J Med 354:821–831.
    CrossRefMedline
  29. ↵
    1. Aragon-Ching JB,
    2. Ning YM,
    3. Chen CC,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Higher incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer treated with anti-angiogenic agents. Cancer Invest 27:221–226.
    CrossRefMedline
    1. Christodoulou C,
    2. Pervena A,
    3. Klouvas G,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Combination of bisphosphonates and antiangiogenic factors induces osteonecrosis of the jaw more frequently than bisphosphonates alone. Oncology 76:209–211.
    CrossRefMedline
  31. ↵
    1. Greuter S,
    2. Schmid F,
    3. Ruhstaller T,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Bevacizumab-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw. Ann Oncol 19:2091–2092.
    FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Tabrizi MA,
    2. Tseng CM,
    3. Roskos LK
    (2006) Elimination mechanisms of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Drug Discov Today 11:81–88.
    CrossRefMedline
  33. ↵
    1. Hortobagyi GN,
    2. Theriault RL,
    3. Porter L,
    4. et al.
    (1996) Efficacy of pamidronate in reducing skeletal complications in patients with breast cancer and lytic bone metastases: Protocol 19 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group. N Engl J Med 335:1785–1791.
    CrossRefMedline
  34. ↵
    1. Theriault RL,
    2. Lipton A,
    3. Hortobagyi GN,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Pamidronate reduces skeletal morbidity in women with advanced breast cancer and lytic bone lesions: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial—Protocol 18 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 17:846–854.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Kohno N,
    2. Aogi K,
    3. Minami H,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Zoledronic acid significantly reduces skeletal complications compared with placebo in Japanese women with bone metastases from breast cancer: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 23:3314–3321.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text

Related Article

  • EDITORIAL: Denosumab: Second Chapter in Controlling Bone Metastases or a New Book?
    • Monica N. Fornier
    JCO Dec 10, 2010:5127-5131; published online on November 8, 2010;
| Table of Contents

This Article

  1. Published online before print November 8, 2010, doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.29.7101 JCO vol. 28 no. 35 5132-5139
  1. Abstract
  2. » Full Text
  3. PDF
  4. Czech PDF
  5. Italian PDF
  6. French PDF

Classifications

Related Content

  1. Related Article

Navigate This Article

Current Issue

  1. July 20, 2013, 31 (21)
  1. Alert me to new issues of JCO
    • Advertisement
    • Advertisement
    • Advertisement