Daniela Niepel

Background: Bone complications (pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, surgery to bone and radiation to bone) are a common problem in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We set out to provide insights into the real-world burden of bone complications in patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM).Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of medical charts of patients with NDMM whose disease had progressed following first-line treatment in the 3 months before data collection in 2016 in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom).Results: The aggregated study population included 813 patients. Bone pain commonly led to MM diagnosis (63%) and 74% of all patients had two or more bone lesions at initiation of first-line treatment. Furthermore, 26% of patients experienced a new bone complication between MM diagnosis and disease progression following first-line treatment, despite 75% of individuals receiving bisphosphonates. Most bone complications (52%) occurred in the period before initiation of first-line treatment (mean duration: 2.3 months) and more than half of patients (56%) who experienced a new bone complication were hospitalised. Analgesics were used more frequently in patients with bone complications than in those without them (76% vs 50%, respectively). Furthermore, 51% of patients had renal impairment by the time first-line treatment was started. Overall, 25% of patients did not receive bisphosphonates for prevention of bone complications and one in four of those with renal impairment at initiation of first-line treatment did not receive bisphosphonates.Conclusions: Bone complications are common in patients with NDMM. They are frequently associated with hospitalization and analgesic use. Data from this study, conducted in the era of novel anti-myeloma therapies and before the approval of denosumab for use in patients with MM, suggest that although most patients (75%) received bisphosphonates, use of anti-resorptive therapy for prevention of bone complications may be suboptimal in patients with NDMM, irrespective of renal function.

Most patients with advanced prostate cancer develop bone metastases, which often result in painful and debilitating skeletal-related events. Inhibitors of bone resorption, such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, can each reduce the incidence of skeletal-related events and delay the progression of bone pain. However, these agents are associated with an increased risk of hypocalcaemia, which, although often mild and transient, can be serious and life-threatening. Here we provide practical advice on managing the risk of hypocalcaemia in patients with advanced prostate cancer who are receiving treatment with bone resorption inhibitors. Relevant references for this review were identified through searches of PubMed with the search terms ‘prostate cancer’, ‘bone-targeted agents’, ‘anti-resorptive agents’, ‘bisphosphonates’, ‘zoledronic acid’, ‘denosumab’, ‘hypocalcaemia’, and ‘hypocalcemia’. Additional references were suggested by the authors. Among patients with advanced cancer receiving a bisphosphonate or denosumab, hypocalcaemia occurs most frequently in those with prostate cancer, although it can occur in patients with any tumour type. Consistent with its greater ability to inhibit bone resorption, denosumab has shown superiority in the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from solid tumours. Consequently, denosumab is more likely to induce hypocalcaemia than the bisphosphonates. Likewise, various bisphosphonates have differing potencies for the inhibition of bone resorption, and thus the risk of hypocalcaemia varies between different bisphosphonates. Other risk factors for the development of hypocalcaemia include the presence of osteoblastic metastases, vitamin D deficiency, and renal insufficiency. Hypocalcaemia can lead to treatment interruption, but it is both preventable and manageable. Serum calcium concentrations should be measured, and any pre-existing hypocalcaemia should be corrected, before starting treatment with inhibitors of bone resorption. Once treatment has started, concomitant administration of calcium and vitamin D supplements is essential. Calcium concentrations should be monitored during treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab, particularly in patients at high risk of hypocalcaemia. If hypocalcaemia is diagnosed, patients should receive treatment with calcium and vitamin D. With preventative strategies and treatment, patients with prostate cancer who are at risk of, or who develop, hypocalcaemia should be able to continue to benefit from treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab.

Calcium metabolism in cancer and hypercalcaemia of malignancy The balance between bone formation and resorption may be disrupted in patients with cancer, leading either to increased bone resorption, calcium release, and possibly hypercalcaemia, or to increased bone formation, sequestration of calcium, and possibly hypocalcaemia. In adults, hypercalcaemia of malignancy is most common in patients with tumours that produce factors that induce osteoclast activation and enhance bone resorption. Impaired renal function and increased renal tubular calcium resorption may further affect calcium levels. Treatment of hypercalcaemia of malignancy Inhibitors of bone resorption, first the bisphosphonates and, later, denosumab, have been shown to be effective in hypercalcaemia treatment. Bisphosphonates (which are administered intravenously) are approved for hypercalcaemia of malignancy and are the current mainstay of treatment, whereas denosumab (which is administered subcutaneously) may offer an option for patients who do not respond to bisphosphonates or suffer from renal insufficiency. Hypocalcaemia: treatment and prevention Hypocalcaemia is most common in patients with prostate cancer and osteoblastic bone metastases, but can occur in patients with a variety of tumour types who are receiving inhibitors of bone resorption. While patients often respond to calcium and vitamin D supplementation, prevention should be the aim; at-risk patients should be identified before starting treatment with inhibitors of bone resorption, be closely monitored during at least the first few months of treatment, and receive concomitant calcium and vitamin D supplementation unless hypercalcaemia is present. Conclusion Both hypercalcaemia and hypocalcaemia can be serious if left untreated. It is therefore important that patients with cancer are closely monitored and receive adequate prevention and treatment measures to maintain normal blood calcium levels.

Summary Objective To describe the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and use of pegfilgrastim in cancer patients with high overall risk of FN and to investigate the relationship between granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) guideline adherence and chemotherapy delivery in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and Austria. Methods Dose Intensity Evaluation Program and Prophylaxis (DIEPP) was a multicentre, prospective, and observational study of adult patients with breast cancer, lymphoma, lung cancer, gastric cancer, and ovarian cancer, who received chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support and who had an overall risk of FN ≥ 20 %. Physicians assessed patient risk factors and reported their reasons for administering pegfilgrastim. Results Patients were enrolled from 113 centres in CEE and Austria between August 2010 and July 2013, and data were analysed from 1072 patients. The most common tumour types were breast cancer (50 %) and lymphoma (24 %). FN incidence was 5 % overall. FN occurred in 3 % of patients (28/875) who received pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis (PP) and 13 % of patients (19/142) who received it as secondary prophylaxis (SP); 79 % of FN events in SP patients occurred in the first cycle before pegfilgrastim was administered. The three most frequently chosen reasons for using pegfilgrastim were planned chemotherapy with high FN risk, female gender, and advanced disease. Overall, 40 % of patients received > 90 % of their planned chemotherapy dose within 3 days of the planned schedule. Conclusion FN incidence was relatively low with pegfilgrastim PP in patients with a physician-assessed overall FN risk of ≥ 20 %. The most important reasons for pegfilgrastim use were consistent with the investigators’ risk assessment and international guidelines.