The role of bone modifying agents for secondary osteoporosis prevention and pain control in post-menopausal osteopenic breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant aromatase inhibitors

Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023 Nov 21:14:1297950. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1297950. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

Introduction: Hormonal therapy (HT) blocks the hormone-mediated growth signal dramatically reducing estrogenic levels with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) becoming a crucial component of the treatment mainstay in patients with early breast cancer (BC). Postmenopausal BC patients receiving HT present with a significant risk of secondary osteoporosis with AIs further reducing estrogen levels and ultimately leading to an accelerated rate of bone resorption and thus decreased bone mineral density (BMD). This was an observational retrospective clinical study that consecutively enrolled early BC patients with osteopenia to compare the impact of alendronate versus denosumab on secondary osteoporosis prevention and pain control.

Methods: We identified two groups of patients treated with denosumab 60 mg by subcutaneous injection once every six months or alendronate 70 mg orally once a week. All the patients underwent a baseline physiatric evaluation (T0) and underwent a follow-up visit after 18 months (T1) together with femoral and vertebral Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) exam evaluating T-Score marks. From September 2015 to December 2019 a total of 50 early (stage I-III) BC patients were considered eligible and consecutively enrolled in our study if they met pre-specified inclusion criteria.

Results: In the entire observed population, the addition of treatment with alendronate or denosumab led to a significant T-score improvement at the lumbar spine level (-1.92 vs -1.52, p=0.03), with a comparable contribution from alendronate (-1.60 vs -1.45, p=0.07) and denosumab (-2.26 vs -1.58, p=0.07). Regarding the femoral region, neither alendronate (-0.98 vs -1.07, p=0.23) nor denosumab (-1.39 vs -1.34, p=0.81) were able to produce any statistically relevant effect. However, concerning pain control, BMAs had a significant impact on reducing NRS scoresin the general population (T1 3.94 vs. baseline 4.32, p=0.007), with a likelyspecific contribution from alendronate (T1 3.52 vs. baseline 3.88, p=0.004) compared to denosumab (T1 4.36 vs baseline 4.76, p=0.12), without any differences in analgesic therapy assumption over time (p=0.93).

Discussion: Both alendronate and denosumab significantly contributed to preventing secondary osteoporosis in early BC patients with low BMD undergoing AIs, mostly at the lumbar spine level. Moreover, alendronate seemed to significantly impact pain control in such patients further supporting alendronate as a cost-effective option in this frail setting, although BMAs particularities should be carefully considered on an individual basis according to specific clinical contexts.

Keywords: alendronate; aromatase inhibitors (AIS); breast cancer; denosumab; pain control; secondary osteoporosis.

Publication types

  • Observational Study

MeSH terms

  • Alendronate / therapeutic use
  • Aromatase Inhibitors / adverse effects
  • Bone Density
  • Bone Density Conservation Agents* / therapeutic use
  • Breast Neoplasms* / complications
  • Breast Neoplasms* / drug therapy
  • Denosumab / therapeutic use
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Osteoporosis* / prevention & control
  • Pain / prevention & control
  • Postmenopause
  • Retrospective Studies

Substances

  • Alendronate
  • Aromatase Inhibitors
  • Bone Density Conservation Agents
  • Denosumab

Grants and funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.