Denosumab versus pamidronate in the treatment of osteolytic bone metastases secondary to breast cancer: a multi-institutional analysis

Abstract

Background

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and most often metastasizes to the bone, resulting in skeletal-related events (SREs). Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) including denosumab, a monoclonal antibody against the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-b ligand (RANKL), and pamidronate, a bisphosphonate, are used to prevent these adverse events.

Methods

To analyze the efficacy of denosumab versus pamidronate, we used the TriNetX research platform and compared the outcomes of pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, and overall 5-year survival rate between each pharmacotherapy.

Results

There was no statistical difference for an increased risk in pathological fractures (2.7% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.88), spinal cord compression (2.6% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.88), or 5-year survival rate (45.5% vs. 52.4%, P = 0.78) for the denosumab cohort versus the pamidronate cohort.

Conclusion

Since neither therapy showed an increased risk in the adverse effects measured in this study, factors such as patient preference, financial costs, and additional side effects of each medication should be taken into consideration when choosing a therapy for bone metastases in patients with breast cancer.

Keywords:

• Breast cancer
• denosumab
• metastasis
• osteolytic bone metastasis
• pamidronate

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors report no conflicts of interest. This research was supported by the Institute for Translational Sciences at the University of Texas Medical Branch, supported in part by a Clinical and Translational Science Award (UL1 TR001439) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the Institute for Translational Sciences at the University of Texas Medical Branch, supported in part by a Clinical and Translational Science Award (UL1 TR001439) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.