Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws: how to manage cancer patients.

Bisphosphonate related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) is defined as exposed necrotic bone appearing in the jaws of patients treated by systemic IV or oral BPs never irradiated in the head and neck area and that has persisted for more than 8 weeks. More than 90% of cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw have been in patients with cancer who received IV-BPs. The estimate of cumulative incidence of BRONJ in cancer patients with IV-BPs ranges from 0.8% to 18.6%. The pathogenesis of BRONJ appeared related to the potent osteoblast-inhibiting properties of BPs which act by blocking osteoclast recruitment, decreasing osteoclast activity and promoting osteoclast apoptosis. Dental extractions are the most potent local risk factor. Cancer patients wearing a denture could also be at increased risk of BRONJ. Non-healing mucosal breaches caused by dentures could be a portal for the oral flora to access bone, while the oral mucosa of patients on IV-BPs could also be defective. Whether periodontal disease is a risk factor for BRONJ remains controversial. Preventive measures are fundamental. Nevertheless, some teams have questioned its cost-effectiveness. The perceived limitations of surgical therapy of BRONJ led to the restriction of aggressive surgery to symptomatic patients with stage 3 BRONJ. The evidence-based literature on BRONJ is growing but there are still many controversial aspects.

Five years of denosumab exposure in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: results from the first two years of the FREEDOM extension.

The 3-year FREEDOM trial assessed the efficacy and safety of 60 mg denosumab every 6 months for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Participants who completed the FREEDOM trial were eligible to enter an extension to continue the evaluation of denosumab efficacy and safety for up to 10 years. For the extension results presented here, women from the FREEDOM denosumab group had 2 more years of denosumab treatment (long-term group) and those from the FREEDOM placebo group had 2 years of denosumab exposure (cross-over group). We report results for bone turnover markers (BTMs), bone mineral density (BMD), fracture rates, and safety. A total of 4550 women enrolled in the extension (2343 long-term; 2207 cross-over). Reductions in BTMs were maintained (long-term group) or occurred rapidly (cross-over group) following denosumab administration. In the long-term group, lumbar spine and total hip BMD increased further, resulting in 5-year gains of 13.7% and 7.0%, respectively. In the cross-over group, BMD increased at the lumbar spine (7.7%) and total hip (4.0%) during the 2-year denosumab treatment. Yearly fracture incidences for both groups were below rates observed in the FREEDOM placebo group and below rates projected for a "virtual untreated twin" cohort. Adverse events did not increase with long-term denosumab administration. Two adverse events in the cross-over group were adjudicated as consistent with osteonecrosis of the jaw. Five-year denosumab treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis maintained BTM reduction and increased BMD, and was associated with low fracture rates and a favorable risk/benefit profile.

The effect of three or six years of denosumab exposure in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: results from the FREEDOM extension.

CONTEXT: The Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months (FREEDOM) extension is evaluating the long-term efficacy and safety of denosumab for up to 10 years. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to report results from the first 3 years of the extension, representing up to 6 years of denosumab exposure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a multicenter, international, open-label study of 4550 women. INTERVENTION: Women from the FREEDOM denosumab group received 3 more years of denosumab for a total of 6 years (long-term) and women from the FREEDOM placebo group received 3 years of denosumab (crossover). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bone turnover markers (BTMs), bone mineral density (BMD), fracture, and safety data are reported. RESULTS: Reductions in BTMs were maintained (long-term) or achieved rapidly (crossover) after denosumab administration. In the long-term group, BMD further increased for cumulative 6-year gains of 15.2% (lumbar spine) and 7.5% (total hip). During the first 3 years of denosumab treatment, the crossover group had significant gains in lumbar spine (9.4%) and total hip (4.8%) BMD, similar to the long-term group during the 3-year FREEDOM trial. In the long-term group, fracture incidences remained low and below the rates projected for a virtual placebo cohort. In the crossover group, 3-year incidences of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures were similar to those of the FREEDOM denosumab group. Incidence rates of adverse events did not increase over time. Six participants had events of osteonecrosis of the jaw confirmed by adjudication. One participant had a fracture adjudicated as consistent with atypical femoral fracture. CONCLUSION: Denosumab treatment for 6 years remained well tolerated, maintained reduced bone turnover, and continued to increase BMD. Fracture incidence remained low.

Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody to the receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand (RANKL) that blocks its binding to RANK, inhibiting the development and activity of osteoclasts, decreasing bone resorption, and increasing bone density. Given its unique actions, denosumab may be useful in the treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: We enrolled 7868 women between the ages of 60 and 90 years who had a bone mineral density T score of less than -2.5 but not less than -4.0 at the lumbar spine or total hip. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either 60 mg of denosumab or placebo subcutaneously every 6 months for 36 months. The primary end point was new vertebral fracture. Secondary end points included nonvertebral and hip fractures. RESULTS: As compared with placebo, denosumab reduced the risk of new radiographic vertebral fracture, with a cumulative incidence of 2.3% in the denosumab group, versus 7.2% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.41; P<0.001)--a relative decrease of 68%. Denosumab reduced the risk of hip fracture, with a cumulative incidence of 0.7% in the denosumab group, versus 1.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.97; P=0.04)--a relative decrease of 40%. Denosumab also reduced the risk of nonvertebral fracture, with a cumulative incidence of 6.5% in the denosumab group, versus 8.0% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01)--a relative decrease of 20%. There was no increase in the risk of cancer, infection, cardiovascular disease, delayed fracture healing, or hypocalcemia, and there were no cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw and no adverse reactions to the injection of denosumab. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab given subcutaneously twice yearly for 36 months was associated with a reduction in the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures in women with osteoporosis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00089791.)

Zoledronic Acid in Reducing Clinical Fracture and Mortality after Hip Fracture.

BACKGROUND: Mortality is increased after a hip fracture, and strategies that improve outcomes are needed. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 1065 patients were assigned to receive yearly intravenous zoledronic acid (at a dose of 5 mg), and 1062 patients were assigned to receive placebo. The infusions were first administered within 90 days after surgical repair of a hip fracture. All patients received supplemental vitamin D and calcium. The median follow-up was 1.9 years. The primary end point was a new clinical fracture. RESULTS: The rates of any new clinical fracture were 8.6% in the zoledronic acid group and 13.9% in the placebo group, a 35% risk reduction (P = 0.001); the respective rates of a new clinical vertebral fracture were 1.7% and 3.8% (P = 0.02), and the respective rates of new nonvertebral fractures were 7.6% and 10.7% (P = 0.03). In the safety analysis, 101 of 1054 patients in the zoledronic acid group (9.6%) and 141 of 1057 patients in the placebo group (13.3%) died, a reduction of 28% in deaths from any cause in the zoledronic-acid group (P = 0.01). The most frequent adverse events in patients receiving zoledronic acid were pyrexia, myalgia, and bone and musculoskeletal pain. No cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were reported, and no adverse effects on the healing of fractures were noted. The rates of renal and cardiovascular adverse events, including atrial fibrillation and stroke, were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: An annual infusion of zoledronic acid within 90 days after repair of a low-trauma hip fracture was associated with a reduction in the rate of new clinical fractures and improved survival. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00046254.).

What impact do systemically administrated bisphosphonates have on oral implant therapy? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate, analysing the dental literature, whether: * Patients on intravenous (IV) or oral bisphosphonates (BPs) can receive oral implant therapy and what could be the risk of developing bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ)? * Osseointegrated implants could be affected by BP therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Medline search was conducted and all publications fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria from 1966 until December 2008 were included in the review. Moreover, the Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE (from 1980 to December 2008) were searched for English-language articles published between 1966 and 2008. Literature search was completed by a hand research accessing the references cited in all identified publications. RESULTS: The literature search rendered only one prospective and three retrospective studies. The prospective controlled non-randomized clinical study followed patients with and without BP medication up to 36 months after implant therapy. The patients in the experimental group had been on oral BPs before implant therapy for periods ranging between 1 and 4 years. None of the patients developed BRONJ and implant outcome was not affected by the BP medication. The three selected retrospective studies (two case-controls and one case series) yielded very similar results. All have followed patients on oral BPs after implant therapy, with follow-up ranging between 2 and 4 years. BRONJ was never reported and implant survival rates ranged between 95% and 100%. The literature search on BRONJ including guidelines and recommendations found 59 papers, from which six were retrieved. Among the guidelines, there is a consensus on contraindicating implants in cancer patients under IV-BPs and not contraindicating dental implants in patients under oral-BPs for osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: From the analysis of the one prospective and the three retrospective series (217 patients), the placement of an implant may be considered a safe procedure in patients taking oral BPs for <5 years with regard to the occurrence of BRONJ since in these studies no BRONJ has been reported. Moreover, the intake of oral-BPs did not influence short-term (1-4 years) implant survival rates.

Osteogenic sarcoma of the maxillary region in a Mexican mestizo population.

Background and Objectives: This study analyzed maxillary osteosarcoma in a mestizo population, with particular emphasis on the type of treatment and disease-free and overall survival. Methods: This is a retrospective study including all mestizo patients with osteosarcoma of the maxilla seen in a single cancer institution in Mexico during a 20-year period. Results: There were 21 patients. Age ranged from 16 to 76 years (mean, 37.5 y). Mean evolution time to diagnosis was 13 months, with a mean tumor size of 7 x 6 cm(2). Surgery was the initial treatment in 19 patients, 17 of whom received adjuvant treatment. Disease-free survival according to surgical margin and overall survival were not statistically significant. Disease-free survival was 29% at 5 years, and overall survival was 50% and 25% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Conclusions: Osteosarcomas of the maxilla are infrequent lesions that merit early diagnosis and proper treatment because of their rapid evolution. Treatment is currently based on a well-planned surgery with free surgical margins plus adjuvant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy.