CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register
CancerNetwork SearchMedica Medline Drugs

Powered by SearchMedica

 
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
PODCASTS
TOPICS
BLOGS
NURSES
PATIENTS
JOBS
CONFERENCES
CME
SUPPLEMENTS
 

Home » Palliative and Supportive Care

ONCOLOGY. Vol. 20 No. 9
 

Commentary (Chlebowski): Aromatase Inhibitors and Bone Loss

The Perez/Weilbaecher Article Reviewed

By Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD1 | August 1, 2006
1Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California

Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor UCLA Medical Center Torrance, California

In their article, Drs. Perez and Weilbecher provide an informed, balanced, conprehensive review of aromatase inhibitors and bone loss with considerable emphasis on the randomized adjuvant trials comparing aromatase inhibitors to tamoxifen(Drug information on tamoxifen). They suggest that current guidelines for management of bone health related to aromatase inhibitor use may be considered "conservative," and relate the influence of tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors on bone health as an important component in the individualized decision-making process for breast cancer patients. While in general agreement, available and emerging evidence suggests the magnitude of concern regarding aromatase inhibitor use and bone loss can be mitigated.[1,2]

(MORE: Aromatase Inhibitors and Bone Loss)

Fracture incidence has been consistently higher in women receiving aromatase inhibitors as compared to tamoxifen in adjuvant trials.[3-6] However, none of these trials screened for bone mineral density (BMD) before entry or included protocol-defined serial BMD screening or defined therapeutic intervention directed at BMD maintenance. Nonetheless, in the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination) trial, potentially life-threatening hip fractures were rare (68 fractures in 6,142 participants in the two single-agent arms) with comparable incidence of anastrozole(Drug information on anastrozole) (Arimdex) and tamoxifen on hip fracture risk (1.2% vs 1.0%, respectively; P = .50).[3] In current clinical practice the use of baseline screening and preventive interventions following available guidelines[7,8] should result in substantially lower fracture rates compared to those in the clinical trials.

Role of Age in Fracture Risk

The role of age, even relative to BMD, as a modulating fracture risk is receiving increasing attention. In the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment cohort of 170,083 women, hip fracture incidence was extremely low in women aged 50 to 59 with no differences seen after 3 years comparing those with normal T scores, those with osteoporosis (T of -1.0 to -2.0) and those with greater bone loss (T of < -2.0).[9] Similarly, in the ATAC trial total fracture incidence was significantly lower in younger women (< 60 years) compared to older women.[10] The ATAC bone health substudy calls attention to the magnitude of BMD percent change needed to move a women with a normal BMD to the osteoporotic stage. In that study, no women with normal BMD at baseline became osteoporotic during the 5 years' duration of anastrozole use.[11] This is not surprising, as a BMD loss of about 15% to 20% is needed to change a T score from the normal to the osteoporotic range.

We have become used to dichotomizing endometrial cancer risk related to tamoxifen by age (women < 50 years having substantially lower risk compared to older women). It appears we can similarly dichotomize fracture risk related to aromatase inhibitor use by age (< 60 years vs greater), with younger women at substantially less risk for hip fracture, especially. Consideration of bone turnover markers, as discussed by Perez and Weilbaecher, may further improve our ability to identify individual women at increased fracture risk.

Clinical oncologists may not be aware of the relatively modest absolute risk for hip fracture associated with bone loss, even in the osteoporotic range. In the Fracture Intervention Trial, 4,432 postmenopausal women with low bone mass and no prior fracture were randomized to the antiabsorptive agent alendronate (Fosamax) at 10 mg/d or placebo. After 4.2 years of follow-up, the hip fracture incidence in the 1,624 women with baseline T scores < -2.5 (osteoporotic range) was 2.2% for placebo vs 1.0% for alendronate (P = .04).[12]

Vitamin D Intake

The potential contribution of low vitamin D status to bone health problems has recently been emphasized. In Norweigian early-stage breast cancer patients, 89% (108 of 121) had low (< 30 ng/mL) 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at diagnosis.[13] Similarly, in a large population of otherwise healthy US women entering a prevention trial, 85% (1,520 of 1,728) had low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.[14] Thus, attention to vitamin D intake represents an integral component of bone health management.

Conclusions

There is theoretical concern that even temporary bone loss with associated disruption of bone architecture can result in long-term fracture risk increase. However, in the ATAC trial, total fracture incidence was comparable for women in the anastrozole and tamoxifen group when evaluated 6 months after the completion of the 5-year intervention trial.[10] While further follow-up is needed, such results suggest long-term fracture risk may not continue after completion of aromatase inhibitor use.

Such considerations, and the emergence of potentially even more effective intervention strategies,[15,16] indicate that bone health problems related to aromatase inhibitor use can be successfully addressed.

—Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD

Financial Disclosure: Dr. Chlebowski is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Lilly, and receives grant support from Lilly and Amgen.

 

Join the Conversation

Want to join the conversation? If you're a healthcare professional, we'd like to hear your comments. Just sign in or register today to become part of our growing, online community.

This commentary refers to the following article

Aromatase Inhibitors and Bone Loss



EDITH A. PEREZ, MD and KATHERINE WEILBAECHER, MD


1. Chlebowski RT: Emerging trends in bisphosphonates therapy. Am J Oncol Review 5(3 suppl 1):20-26, 2006.

2. Goss PE, Chlebowski RT, LeBoff MS, et al: Recommendations on bone health management for women with early stage breast cancer. Am J Oncol Rev 5(3 suppl 1):34-43, 2006.

3. Howell A, Cuzick J, Baum M, et al: Results of the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination) trial after completion of 5 years' adjuvant treatment for breast cancer. Lancet 365(9453):60-62, 2005.

4. Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S, et al: A randomized trial of letrozole in postmenopausal women after five years of tamoxifen therapy for early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 349:1793-1798, 2003.

5. Coombes RC, Hall E, Gibson LJ, et al: A randomized trial of exemestane after two or three years of tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. N Engl J Med 350:1081-1092, 2004.

6. Thurlimann B, Keshaviah A, Coates AS, et al: A comparison of letrozole and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353(26):2747-2757, 2005.

7. Hillner BE, Ingle JN, Chlebowski RT, et al: 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, 2003.

8. Winer EP, Hudis C, Burstein HJ, et al: ASCO technology assessment on the use of aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: Status report 2004. J Clin Oncol 23:619-629, 2005.

9. Siris ES, Brenneman SK, Barrett-Connor E, et al: The effect of age and bone mineral on the absolute, excess, and relative risk of fracture in postmenopausal women aged 50-99: Results from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment (NORA). Osteoporos Int 17(4):565-574, 2006.

10. Howell A, on behalf of the ATAC Trialists' Group: Analysis of fracture risk factors from the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial: 5 year data (abstract 563). J Clin Oncol 24(suppl 18S):18s, 2006.

11. Coleman RE, on behalf of the ATAC Trialists' Group: Effect of anatrozole on bone mineral density: 5-year result from the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial (abstract 511). J Clin Oncol 24(supp 18S):5s, 2006.

12. Cummings SR, Black DM, Thompson DE, et al: Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. JAMA 280(24):2077-2082, 1998.

13. Lonning P, Geisler J, Krag LE, et al: Vitamin D deficiency: A threat to bone health in breast cancer patients during adjuvant treatment with aromatase inhibitors. J Clin Oncol 24(suppl 18S):16s, 2006.

14. Chlebowski RT, Johnson KC, Kooperberg C, et al: The Women's Health Inititive randomized trial of calcium plus vitamin D: Effects on breast cancer, mammograms and arthralgias (LBA 6). J Clin Oncol 24 (suppl 18S):2s, 2006.

15. Lipton A, Alvarado C, DeBoer R, et al: Randomized, active-controlled study of denosumab (AMG 162) in breast cancer patients with bone metastases not previously treated with intravenous (IV) bisphosphonates (BP) (abstract 512). J Clin Oncol 24(suppl 18S):6s, 2006.

16. Chlebowski RT: Bone health in women with early stage breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 5(suppl 2):S35-S40, 2005.


 
TOPIC INDEX

Cancer Types

 
  • Breast
  • Breast (HER2+)
  • Breast (Triple-Negative)
  • CML
  • Colorectal
  • Gastrointestinal
  • GIST
  • Genitourinary
  • Gynecologic
  • Head & Neck
  • Hematology
  • Kidney (Renal Cell)
  • Leukemia
  • Lung
  • Lymphoma
  • Melanoma
  • Multiple Myeloma
  • Ovarian
  • Prostate
  • Sarcoma

Supportive Care

More Topics

  • Bone Metastases
  • End-of-Life Care
  • Palliative Care
  • Ethics in Oncology
  • Practice Management
  • Practice & Policy


All Topics 


 
   SEARCH MEDICA RX
   Browse drugs by name:
A B C D E F G H I J
K L M N O P Q R S T
U V W X Y Z All      
   Search for drugs:
Search

 

 
FROM PHYSICIANS PRACTICE
Key Differences between FQHCs and RHCs
Chastity Werner, RHIT, June 13, 2013
FQHCs and RHCs take up a unique niche among physician practices. And that affects compensation and billing.
Improving Care Coordination in Your Practice
Susanne Madden,  June 12, 2013
Practices are feverishly working to control the rising costs of healthcare - effective care coordination can help.
Refunding Overpayments: Two Options for Medical Practices
Ericka L. Adler,  June 12, 2013
Medicare and Medicaid providers must return overpayments once identified. Here are two different refund approaches for practices to consider when necessary.
Four Easy Ways to Boost Patient Time of Service Collections
Aubrey Westgate,  June 12, 2013
Simple ways your medical practice staff can increase the likelihood patients will pay when presenting for appointments.
iPad Alternatives for Mobile Physicians
Marisa Torrieri, June 11, 2013
As more physicians are seeing the merits of media tablets, the market is expanding, too.
 

 

 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma
  • Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Who Is Benefiting?
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • ASCO: Long-Term Tamoxifen Benefit for Breast Cancer Confirmed
  • A 48-Year-Old Woman With Irregular Vaginal Bleeding
  • Cannabis Linked to Decreased Bladder Cancer Risk
  • Breast Cancer Screening, Risk, and Options for High-Risk Women
  • Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Update on Treatment
  • Rising PSA Level in a 46-Year-Old Man
  • ASCO: Long-Term Tamoxifen Benefit for Breast Cancer Confirmed
  • ASCO: Dabrafenib Shows Activity in BRAF-Mutated NSCLC Patients
  • Preventing Burnout in Oncology
  • ASCO: Yoga Reduces Insomnia in Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Hormone Therapy
  • Physical Activity Across the Cancer Continuum
  • Exercise After Cancer Diagnosis: Time to Get Moving
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
 
COMMENTS
  • Most Commented
  • Most Recent
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
  • Preventing Exposure to Hazardous Drugs
  • ASCO: Vinegar Screening Significantly Reduces Cervical Cancer Mortality
  • ASCO: Sulforaphane in Prostate Cancer Found Worthy of Further Investigation
  • Study: Recurrent Heartburn Ups Risk for Throat Cancer
  • HER2-Directed Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer
  • Accelerated Partial-Breast Irradiation: The Current State of Our Knowledge
  • It’s Time for Clinicians to Reconsider Their Proscription Against the Use of Soyfoods by Breast Cancer Patients
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
  • ASCO: No Benefit From Avastin in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter


 
SearchMedica Search Result

Find peer-reviewed literature and websites for practicing medical professionals

CME on Palliative And Supportive Care
Evidence on Palliative And Supportive Care
Guidelines on Palliative And Supportive Care
Patient Education on Palliative And Supportive Care
Clinical Trials on Palliative And Supportive Care
Practical Articles on Palliative And Supportive Care
Research and Reviews on Palliative And Supportive Care
All "Palliative And Supportive Care" results



CancerNetwork on Facebook

CancerNetwork | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Musculoskeletal Network | OBGYN.net | PediatricsConsultantLive |
Physicians Practice | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Medical Resources

© 1996 - 2013 UBM Medica LLC, a UBM company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement - UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy