Abstract
Background
Studies of bisphosphonate use and breast cancer recurrence have produced conflicting results. Analyses of large adjuvant trials suggest that bisphosphonates reduce recurrence risk only in postmenopausal women.
Methods
We assessed the effect of non-cancer treatment related bisphosphonate use on breast cancer outcomes in a population-based prognostic cohort of women with early stage invasive breast cancer (n=1813; median follow-up 11.8 years). Using medical record, interview, and cancer registry data, information was assembled on risk factors, cancer treatment, medication use, and outcomes. Statistical analyses utilized Cox proportional hazards regression models.
Results
Bisphosphonate use was associated with a significantly decreased risk of a breast cancer event (locoregional/distant recurrence or second primary breast cancer) (HR ever use = 0.65, 95% CI 0.47–0.90). Reduced risks were observed in both pre/peri and postmenopausal women, in both ER-negative and ER-positive breast cancers, and for both earlier and later recurrences. Bisphosphonate use was also associated with a significantly decreased risk of breast cancer mortality (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23–0.69).
Conclusions
Bisphosphonate use was associated with a reduction in risk of breast cancer events and improved breast cancer specific survival in women with early stage breast cancer. We hypothesize that the benefit of bisphosphonates on breast cancer outcomes may be present primarily in women with low bone density and regardless of menopausal status.
Impact
Our findings suggest further consideration of bone density status as a modifier of bisphosphonate’s potential beneficial benefits on breast cancer outcomes is warranted.
Keywords: Breast cancer, bisphosphonates, recurrence, second cancers, mortality
INTRODUCTION
The efficacy of bisphosphonates in preventing age-related bone loss and reducing fracture risk in women with post-menopausal osteoporosis is well-established (1–5). Preclinical data suggest that bisphosphonates may not only have positive effects on bone density and fracture risk but may also have potentially beneficial effects on the evolution of breast cancer. Bisphosphonates inhibit tumor growth and metastasis through inhibition of angiogenesis and tumor cell invasion, induction of apoptosis, and immunomodulatory effects (6–11). Bisphosphonates may also alter the microenvironment in the bone, creating a less hospitable environment for circulating tumor cell deposits (12, 13).
Clinical trials of bisphosphonate therapy for reduction in disease recurrence in women with early stage breast cancer have had conflicting results. The ABCSG-12 trial suggested an improvement in disease-free survival with the addition of intravenous zoledronic acid to endocrine therapy in premenopausal women receiving ovarian suppression (14, 15). Two additional large randomized trials, the NSABP B34 study (16), which evaluated the addition of oral clodronate to standard adjuvant therapy, and the AZURE trial (17, 18), which examined an intensive dosing schedule of zoledronic acid, had overall negative results, but post-hoc subgroup analyses revealed benefits in postmenopausal women. A recent meta-analysis of individual level data from over 18,000 breast cancer patients treated in randomized clinical trials of bisphosphonates vs control found statistically significant reductions in the risks of distant recurrence, bone recurrence, and breast cancer mortality among post-menopausal women, but no discernible effect in premenopausal women (19–21).
Several observational studies have examined the role of bisphosphonates not intended as cancer therapy in women with breast cancer. In a large cohort of primarily postmenopausal women with Stage 0-III breast cancer treated with tamoxifen (median follow-up of five years), Kremer et al found significant decreases in the risk of bone metastases (OR=0.50) and all-cause mortality (OR=0.43) with bisphosphonate use (22). In the BRITE study, bisphosphonate use was associated with a reduced risk of second primary contralateral breast cancer, with stronger reductions seen with current use and longer duration of use (23). Conversely, an analysis of oral bisphosphonate use among breast cancer patients treated in the Kaiser Permanente health care system found no association with either recurrence or contralateral breast cancer (24).
Alendronate is the most commonly prescribed bisphosphonate for osteoporosis, but clinical trials have not assessed it in the context of preventing recurrences. Additionally, the current clinical trial data have relatively short follow-up, and have been unable to assess the effect of BP use on later recurrences. Herein, we examine the association of bisphosphonate use for non-cancer therapy and risk of adverse breast cancer outcomes in a cohort of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at ages 45–79. Our study included an evaluation by menopausal status, assessed patients with both estrogen receptor (ER) positive and ER negative disease, and had a median follow-up of 11.8 years.
METHODS
The Quilt Study is a population-based prognostic cohort study of 2337 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at ages 45–79 from 1993–1999. As reported previously, cases were ascertained through the Cancer Surveillance System, the population-based SEER registry covering western Washington State, and the cohort was formed by joining the cases recruited into three previous population-based studies of breast cancer, the CARE, PACE and EMF studies(25). Briefly, data collection included in-person interviews, telephone interviews, and comprehensive medical record reviews. Information was collected on exposures before and after diagnosis, including reproductive history, exogenous hormone use, medical history, mammography, height, weight, smoking, alcohol, and family history; tumor features/markers; treatment history; and ongoing follow-up for recurrence and/or death. Menopausal status was defined as premenopausal, perimenopausal, or postmenopausal using data on last menstrual period, hormone replacement therapy, and oophorectomy/hysterectomy status collected at interview, as previously described (26). Due to small numbers, all analyses (after Table 1) combined pre- and perimenopausal women into one non-postmenopausal group. All participants provided written informed consent and our institutional review board approved the study protocol.
Table 1.
Distribution of patient and tumor characteristics according to never vs. ever use of bisphosphonates (BP) after breast cancer diagnosis.
| Never BP use | Ever BP use | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n=1511) | (n=302) | (n=1813) | |||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | P value1 | |
| Age at diagnosis | |||||||
| 45–49 | 165 | (10.9) | 20 | (6.6) | 185 | (10.2) | |
| 50–54 | 169 | (11.2) | 26 | (8.6) | 195 | (10.8) | |
| 55–59 | 174 | (11.5) | 33 | (10.9) | 207 | (11.4) | |
| 60–64 | 166 | (11.0) | 39 | (12.9) | 205 | (11.3) | |
| 65–69 | 282 | (18.7) | 69 | (22.8) | 351 | (19.4) | |
| 70–74 | 340 | (22.5) | 69 | (22.8) | 409 | (22.6) | |
| 75–79 | 215 | (14.2) | 46 | (15.2) | 261 | (14.4) | 0.148 |
| Diagnosis year | |||||||
| 1993 | 181 | (12.0) | 24 | (7.9) | 205 | (11.3) | |
| 1994 | 240 | (15.9) | 41 | (13.6) | 281 | (15.5) | |
| 1995 | 94 | (6.2) | 22 | (7.3) | 116 | (6.4) | |
| 1996 | 80 | (5.3) | 21 | (7.0) | 101 | (5.6) | |
| 1997 | 381 | (25.2) | 81 | (26.8) | 462 | (25.5) | |
| 1998 | 388 | (25.7) | 82 | (27.2) | 470 | (25.9) | |
| 1999 | 147 | (9.7) | 31 | (10.3) | 178 | (9.8) | 0.348 |
| Source study | |||||||
| CARE | 425 | (28.1) | 80 | (26.5) | 505 | (27.9) | |
| PACE | 705 | (46.7) | 156 | (51.7) | 861 | (47.5) | |
| EMF | 381 | (25.2) | 66 | (21.9) | 447 | (24.7) | 0.257 |
| Race | |||||||
| White | 1452 | (96.4) | 295 | (97.7) | 1747 | (96.6) | |
| Non-white | 55 | (3.6) | 7 | (2.3) | 62 | (3.4) | |
| Missing | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0.246 | |||
| Menopausal status at diagnosis | |||||||
| Premenopausal | 165 | (10.9) | 26 | (8.6) | 191 | (10.5) | |
| Perimenopausal | 85 | (5.6) | 10 | (3.3) | 95 | (5.2) | |
| Postmenopausal | 1261 | (83.5) | 266 | (88.1) | 1527 | (84.2) | 0.106 |
| BMI at diagnosis | |||||||
| <25 | 732 | (48.8) | 201 | (66.6) | 933 | (51.8) | |
| 25–<30 | 457 | (30.5) | 82 | (27.2) | 539 | (29.9) | |
| 30+ | 311 | (20.7) | 19 | (6.3) | 330 | (18.3) | |
| Missing | 11 | 0 | 11 | 0.000 | |||
| Mammograms in 5 years before diagnosis | |||||||
| No | 205 | (14.0) | 26 | (8.8) | 231 | (13.1) | |
| Yes | 1264 | (86.0) | 270 | (91.2) | 1534 | (86.9) | |
| Missing | 42 | 6 | 48 | 0.016 | |||
| Alcohol use (by questionnaire) at diagnosis | |||||||
| Never | 519 | (35.3) | 117 | (39.3) | 636 | (36.0) | |
| Former | 161 | (11.0) | 21 | (7.0) | 182 | (10.3) | |
| Current | 790 | (53.7) | 160 | (53.7) | 950 | (53.7) | |
| Missing | 41 | 4 | 45 | 0.093 | |||
| Smoking (by questionnaire) at diagnosis | |||||||
| Never | 677 | (44.9) | 141 | (46.7) | 818 | (45.2) | |
| Former | 596 | (39.5) | 115 | (38.1) | 711 | (39.3) | |
| Current | 236 | (15.6) | 46 | (15.2) | 282 | (15.6) | |
| Missing | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.843 | |||
| Family history of breast cancer | |||||||
| No 1st degree relative with breast cancer | 1101 | (78.0) | 227 | (79.1) | 1328 | (78.2) | |
| 1st degree relative with breast cancer | 310 | (22.0) | 60 | (20.9) | 370 | (21.8) | |
| Missing | 100 | 15 | 115 | 0.691 | |||
| Charlson Comorbidity Index | |||||||
| 2–3 | 474 | (31.4) | 77 | (25.5) | 551 | (30.4) | |
| 4 | 376 | (24.9) | 90 | (29.8) | 466 | (25.7) | |
| 5 | 460 | (30.4) | 106 | (35.1) | 566 | (31.2) | |
| 6+ | 201 | (13.3) | 29 | (9.6) | 230 | (12.7) | 0.021 |
| Oral/IV bisphosphonate use | |||||||
| Oral only | 290 | (96.0) | |||||
| IV Only | 5 | (1.7) | |||||
| Oral and IV use | 7 | (2.3) | |||||
| Stage | |||||||
| Local | 1070 | (70.8) | 232 | (76.8) | 1302 | (71.8) | |
| Regional | 441 | (29.2) | 70 | (23.2) | 511 | (28.2) | 0.034 |
| AJCC Stage | |||||||
| I | 788 | (56.6) | 172 | (63.0) | 960 | (57.6) | |
| IIA | 299 | (21.5) | 57 | (20.9) | 356 | (21.4) | |
| IIB | 154 | (11.1) | 15 | (5.5) | 169 | (10.1) | |
| IIIA | 114 | (8.2) | 23 | (8.4) | 137 | (8.2) | |
| IIIB | 38 | (2.7) | 6 | (2.2) | 44 | (2.6) | |
| Missing | 118 | 29 | 147 | 0.064 | |||
| ER Status | |||||||
| ER+ | 1269 | (85.9) | 257 | (87.4) | 1526 | (86.1) | |
| ER− | 209 | (14.1) | 37 | (12.6) | 246 | (13.9) | |
| Missing | 33 | 8 | 41 | 0.481 | |||
| PR Status | |||||||
| PR+ | 1131 | (76.6) | 238 | (81.0) | 1369 | (77.3) | |
| PR− | 345 | (23.4) | 56 | (19.0) | 401 | (22.7) | |
| Missing | 35 | 8 | 43 | 0.106 | |||
| Grade | |||||||
| Well differentiated | 264 | (19.7) | 60 | (22.4) | 324 | (20.2) | |
| Moderately differentiated | 511 | (38.2) | 100 | (37.3) | 611 | (38.0) | |
| Poorly differentiated | 469 | (35.0) | 99 | (36.9) | 568 | (35.3) | |
| Undifferentiated | 95 | (7.1) | 9 | (3.4) | 104 | (6.5) | |
| Missing | 172 | 34 | 206 | 0.117 | |||
| Radiation | |||||||
| No | 507 | (33.6) | 96 | (31.9) | 603 | (33.3) | |
| Yes | 1002 | (66.4) | 205 | (68.1) | 1207 | (66.7) | |
| Missing | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0.567 | |||
| Chemotherapy | |||||||
| No | 1015 | (67.4) | 211 | (70.3) | 1226 | (67.9) | |
| Yes | 491 | (32.6) | 89 | (29.7) | 580 | (32.1) | |
| Missing | 5 | 2 | 7 | 0.320 | |||
| Hormone Treatment | |||||||
| No | 498 | (33.0) | 103 | (34.1) | 601 | (33.2) | |
| Tamoxifen | 998 | (66.2) | 198 | (65.6) | 1196 | (66.1) | |
| Other | 12 | (0.8) | 1 | (0.3) | 13 | (0.7) | |
| Missing | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0.651 | |||
P values calculated using chi-squared test.
Of the 2337 eligible breast cancer cases, we restricted to early-stage women by excluding those with distant (n=53) or unknown (n=3) stage at diagnosis. We further excluded those with incomplete medical record data on bisphosphonate use or recurrence (n=466), and those with another cancer diagnosed at the same time as their breast cancer (n=2), resulting in 1813 women with invasive breast cancer available for analysis. Compared with excluded women, those included were significantly more likely to be older, post-menopausal, treated with adjuvant hormonal therapy, not treated with chemotherapy, more recently diagnosed, and to have received a recent screening mammogram.
Women were followed until the first of any of the following types of events: recurrence of breast cancer (any, locoregional, distant); new breast primary; other cancer; death; or until the end of follow-up. Other non-breast subsequent primary cancers were treated as censored in analyses. Breast cancer deaths in the absence of a reported distant recurrence were deemed as having been preceded by a distant recurrence (n=16), with the event date imputed using median time from distant recurrence to breast cancer death in those with such information available, or last date known to be distant recurrence free, whichever was later. Events in the contralateral breast were considered new breast primaries. Median follow-up time in those without events was 11.8 years (range 2.5–17.6) for recurrences and 15.1 years (range 0.5–21.6) for mortality. Follow-up time in BP users and non-users was similar, with more than 80% of those without events in each group being followed more than 10 years.
Information on bisphosphonate use was obtained from medical record reviews. When a drug appeared in the medical record, abstractors recorded the date, name and type, and whether the drug was started, stopped or being used at that time. For intravenous use of Reclast, we assumed 12 months exposure duration, and for IV Zometa and pamidronate, we assumed 6 months of exposure. We generated an electronic calendar of use of bisphosphonates for each month from diagnosis to first event or time of last follow-up. We assumed continued use after a “start” or “on” notation, until a “stop” or the last mention in the chart. This facilitated calculation of time-varying exposure variables for analysis. Women with no reported use (n=1458) and those with only one mention of use (n=53) were classified as non-users. Bisphosphonate use as treatment for bone or other metastases was excluded. In our analyses of breast cancer mortality, we restricted to use before first event, as our focus was on non-treatment related bisphosphonate use. Pre-diagnosis BP use (n=21 women) was ignored.
Statistical analysis
Cox proportional hazards regression methods were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of bisphosphonate use and the various time-to-event outcomes. Post-diagnosis bisphosphonate exposure, including duration and current (within 6 months) use, was calculated as of the time of each event in the cohort, with all women still event-free and under observation at that time included in each comparison. All analyses were adjusted a priori for age at diagnosis and source study (the original case-control studies from which cases were ascertained: CARE, PACE, EMF). Factors examined as potential confounders (10% change in HR) and effect modifiers (likelihood ratio test interaction p<0.05) include diagnosis age, diagnosis year, source study, race, BMI at diagnosis, screening mammography, menopausal status at diagnosis, pre-diagnosis alcohol and smoking history, comorbid conditions, family history, diagnosis with osteoporosis or osteopenia, stage, grade, ER/PR status, and treatment (radiation, chemotherapy, hormonal treatment, tamoxifen duration as a time-varying covariate). Proportional hazards assumptions were assessed using Schoenfeld residuals. Analyses were conducted in Stata version 14 (College Station, TX). A two-sided p-value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.
Because the absence of mention of bisphosphonate use in medical records was our only indication of non-use, we performed sensitivity analyses that excluded women with less complete chart reviews, specifically those who had no weight measurements and those with an indication of a gap in medical record review. Similar results were seen to those presented below.
RESULTS
Characteristics of the study cohort are presented in Table 1. The mean age at diagnosis was 64.2 years and 84% were postmenopausal at diagnosis. A majority of patients were ER or PR positive (86% and 77% respectively); 67% received hormonal therapy, primarily tamoxifen. Seventeen percent of participants (n=302) used a bisphosphonate after diagnosis. Of these, most (83%) had one or more years of use. The majority (96%) of bisphosphonate use was oral (90% used alendronate and 13% used risendronate); 4% of users took intravenous zoledronate. The mean duration of post-diagnosis bisphosphonate use was 41.2 (range: 2 – 145) months. Ninety percent of bisphosphonate users and 35% of non-users had a recorded diagnosis of osteoporosis or osteopenia.
Bisphosphonate use was associated with a significantly decreased risk of any breast cancer event (locoregional/distant recurrence or second primary breast cancer; Table 2). Ever (vs never) use of bisphosphonates was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 (95% CI 0.47–0.90). The HR for each year of continuous use was 0.87 (0.78–0.96). Use for one or more years of use was associated with a 40% reduction in risk (95% CI 0.41–0.88) with a suggestion of a trend toward lower risk with longer duration of use (p=0.096). A slightly stronger effect was seen for current use of bisphosphonate vs. former use (current use HR=0.54, 95% CI 0.34–0.86; former use HR=0.80, 95% 0.51–1.24). An earlier start of bisphosphonates after diagnosis was associated with stronger reductions in risk of recurrence or second primary breast cancer. Specifically, those who began bisphosphonates within the first three years after diagnosis had a HR of 0.47 (95% CI 0.26–0.86) for any breast cancer event whereas those who started later had a HR of 0.72 (95% CI 0.45–1.16). Additional adjustment for other variables in Table 1 did not substantially alter these results, and subsequent analyses adjusted only for age and source study. Excluding the 12 women who ever used injectable bisphosphonates (7 of whom also used oral bisphosphonates) had no effect on risk estimates.
Table 2.
Association of post-diagnosis bisphosphonate use with the risk of any breast cancer event (locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence or second primary breast cancer)
| Person-years at risk | Any Event | Rate per 1000 p-y | HR (95% CI) 1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bisphosphonate Use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 13707 | 441 | 32.2 | 1.00 (ref) |
| Ever BP use | 1976 | 42 | 21.3 | 0.65 (0.47–0.90) |
| Duration of bisphosphonate use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 13707 | 441 | 32.2 | 1.00 (ref) |
| >1 month to < 1 year | 451 | 12 | 26.6 | 0.82 (0.46–1.46) |
| 1 or more years | 1525 | 30 | 19.7 | 0.60 (0.41–0.88) |
| Current bisphosphonate use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 13707 | 441 | 32.2 | 1.00 (ref) |
| Former | 848 | 23 | 27.1 | 0.80 (0.51–1.24) |
| Current (within 6 months) | 1128 | 19 | 16.8 | 0.54 (0.34–0.86) |
| HR for each continuous year of use | 0.87 (0.78–0.96) | |||
| Duration by timing of first bisphosphonate use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 13707 | 441 | 32.2 | 1.00 (ref) |
| >1 month to < 1 year | 451 | 12 | 26.6 | 0.82 (0.46–1.46) |
| 1 or more years, 1st use 3 or more years post-dx | 784 | 19 | 24.2 | 0.72 (0.45–1.16) |
| 1 or more years, 1st use within 3 years post-dx | 742 | 11 | 14.8 | 0.47 (0.26–0.86) |
Adjusted for age and source study (the original three studies through which women were ascertained); Hazard Ratio (HR), Confidence Interval (CI)
Never use defined as no report of use or one reported instance of use (one month); Ever use defined as greater than one reported instance of use
To assess whether the effect of bisphosphonates was limited to certain types of events, we assessed each type individually (Table 3). Though the numbers of patients per event type were smaller and power more constrained, a generally similar pattern of risk to that in the overall group was observed. Non-significant reductions in risk in relation to ever use of bisphosphonates use were observed for locoregional recurrence (ever use HR=0.61, 95% CI 0.26–1.43; 1+ years use HR=0.7 95% CI 0.28–1.77), distant recurrence (ever use HR=0.62, 95% CI 0.36–1.06; 1+ years use HR=0.51, 95% CI 0.26–1.00) and second primary breast cancer (ever use HR=0.75, 95% CI 0.48–1.18; 1+ years use HR=0.71, 95% CI 0.43–1.17). Bisphosphonate use was associated with non-significant reduced risks for a first distant recurrence occurring in bone (ever use HR=0.53, 95% CI 0.24–1.15; 1+ years use HR=0.41, 95% CI 0.15–1.13) and outside of bone (ever use HR=0.73, 95% CI 0.35–1.52; 1+ years use HR=0.63, 95% CI 0.25–1.58).
Table 3.
Association of post-diagnosis bisphosphonate use with risk of locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence, and second primary breast cancer.
| Locoregional Recurrence | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Person-years at risk | Event | Rate per 1000 p-y | HR (95% CI) 1 | |
| Bisphosphonate Use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 13676 | 88 | 6.4 | 1.00 (ref) |
| Ever BP use | 2008 | 6 | 3.0 | 0.61 (0.26–1.43) |
| Duration of bisphosphonate use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 13676 | 88 | 6.4 | 1.00 (ref) |
| >1 month to < 1 year | 456 | 1 | 2.2 | 0.38 (0.05–2.76) |
| 1 or more years | 1552 | 5 | 3.2 | 0.70 (0.28–1.77) |
| Current bisphosphonate use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 13676 | 88 | 6.4 | 1.00 (ref) |
| Former | 906 | 1 | 1.1 | 0.27 (0.04–2.00) |
| Current (within 6 months) | 1102 | 5 | 4.5 | 0.81 (0.32–2.01) |
| HR for each continuous year of use | 0.81 (0.58–1.13) | |||
| Distant Recurrence | ||||
| Person-years at risk | Event | Rate per 1000 p-y | HR (95% CI) 1 | |
| Bisphosphonate Use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 13698 | 224 | 16.4 | 1.00 (ref) |
| Ever BP use | 1986 | 15 | 7.6 | 0.62 (0.37–1.06) |
| Duration of bisphosphonate use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 13698 | 224 | 16.4 | 1.00 (ref) |
| >1 month to < 1 year | 451 | 6 | 13.3 | 0.90 (0.40–2.04) |
| 1 or more years | 1535 | 9 | 5.9 | 0.51 (0.26–1.00) |
| Current bisphosphonate use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 13698 | 224 | 16.4 | 1.00 (ref) |
| Former | 870 | 5 | 5.7 | 0.66 (0.27–1.64) |
| Current (within 6 months) | 1116 | 10 | 9.0 | 0.60 (0.32–1.14) |
| HR for each continuous year of use | 0.81 (0.65–1.01) | |||
| Second Primary Breast Cancer | ||||
| Person-years at risk | Event | Rate per 1000 p-y | HR (95% CI) 1 | |
| Bisphosphonate Use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 13084 | 139 | 10.6 | 1.00 (ref) |
| Ever BP use | 1890 | 23 | 12.2 | 0.75 (0.47–1.18) |
| Duration of bisphosphonate use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 13084 | 139 | 10.6 | 1.00 (ref) |
| >1 month to < 1 year | 436 | 5 | 11.5 | 0.95 (0.39–2.34) |
| 1 or more years | 1454 | 18 | 12.4 | 0.71 (0.43–1.17) |
| Current bisphosphonate use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 13084 | 139 | 10.6 | 1.00 (ref) |
| Former | 816 | 17 | 20.8 | 0.95 (0.56–1.63) |
| Current (within 6 months) | 1074 | 6 | 5.6 | 0.49 (0.21–1.11) |
| HR for each continuous year of use | 0.91 (0.81–1.03) | |||
Adjusted for age and source study (the original three studies through which women were ascertained); Hazard Ratio (HR), Confidence Interval (CI)
Never use defined as no report of use or one reported instance of use (one month); Ever use defined as greater than one reported instance of use
As other studies have suggested that the protective effect of bisphosphonate use is limited to postmenopausal women, we assessed bisphosphonate effects by menopausal status (Table 4). Ever use of bisphosphonates was associated with reductions in risk of a breast cancer event in both groups, with small numbers but a greater magnitude of reduction in pre/perimenopausal women (ever use HR=0.34, 95% CI 0.12–0.94). Bisphosphonate use was associated with a significant 36% reduction in risk of any breast cancer event in ER positive patients and a non-significant 54% reduction in risk among ER-negative patients (Table 5). While the number of pre-/perimenopausal ER- negative patients was small (n=50), it is potentially striking that there were no distant recurrences in the 9 bisphosphonate users in this subgroup as compared to 12 recurrences (29%) in the 41 non-users.
Table 4.
Association of post-diagnosis bisphosphonate use with risk of any breast cancer event (locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence or second primary breast cancer) stratified by menopausal status at diagnosis.
| Pre/Peri-menopausal | Post-menopausal | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Person-years at risk | Any Event | Rate per 1000 p-y | HR (95% CI) 1 | Person-years at risk | Any Event | Rate per 1000 p-y | HR (95% CI) 1 | |
| Bisphosphonate Use | ||||||||
| Never BP use2 | 2553 | 90 | 35.3 | 1.00 (ref) | 11155 | 351 | 31.5 | 1.00 (ref) |
| Ever BP use | 280 | 4 | 14.3 | 0.34 (0.12–0.94) | 1697 | 38 | 22.4 | 0.71 (0.51–1.00) |
| Duration of bisphosphonate use | ||||||||
| Never BP use2 | 2553 | 90 | 35.3 | 1.00 (ref) | 11155 | 351 | 31.5 | 1.00 (ref) |
| >1 month to < 1 year | 42 | 1 | 23.8 | 0.59 (0.08–4.28) | 409 | 11 | 26.9 | 0.85 (0.47–1.55) |
| 1 or more years | 237 | 3 | 12.7 | 0.29 (0.09–0.95) | 1288 | 27 | 21.0 | 0.67 (0.45–1.00) |
| Current bisphosphonate use | ||||||||
| Never BP use2 | 2553 | 90 | 35.3 | 1.00 (ref) | 11155 | 351 | 31.5 | 1.00 (ref) |
| Former | 107 | 2 | 18.7 | 0.35 (0.08–1.54) | 741 | 21 | 28.3 | 0.87 (0.55–1.39) |
| Current (within 6 months) | 172 | 2 | 11.6 | 0.34 (0.08–1.38) | 956 | 17 | 17.8 | 0.59 (0.36–0.96) |
| HR for each continuous year of use | 0.76 (0.56–1.02) | 0.89 (0.79–0.99) | ||||||
Adjusted for age and source study (the original three studies through which women were ascertained); Hazard Ratio (HR), Confidence Interval (CI)
Never use defined as no report of use or one reported instance of use (one month); Ever use defined as greater than one reported instance of use
Table 5.
Association of post-diagnosis bisphosphonate use with risk of any breast cancer event (locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence or second primary breast cancer) stratified by ER status.
| ER-negative | ER-positive | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Person-years at risk | Any Event | Rate per 1000 p-y | HR (95% CI) 1 | Person-years at risk | Any Event | Rate per 1000 p-y | HR (95% CI) 1 | |
| Bisphosphonate Use | ||||||||
| Never BP use2 | 1599 | 82 | 51.3 | 1.00 (ref) | 11805 | 353 | 29.9 | 1.00 (ref) |
| Ever BP use | 250 | 4 | 16.0 | 0.46 (0.16–1.27) | 1684 | 36 | 21.4 | 0.64 (0.45–0.90) |
| Duration of bisphosphonate use | ||||||||
| Never BP use2 | 1599 | 82 | 51.3 | 1.00 (ref) | 11805 | 353 | 29.9 | 1.00 (ref) |
| >1 month to < 1 year | 45 | 1 | 22.2 | 0.41 (0.06–2.94) | 398 | 11 | 27.6 | 0.86 (0.47–1.57) |
| 1 or more years | 205 | 3 | 14.6 | 0.48 (0.15–1.55) | 1286 | 25 | 19.4 | 0.57 (0.38–0.86) |
| Current bisphosphonate use | ||||||||
| Never BP use2 | 1599 | 82 | 51.3 | 1.00 (ref) | 11805 | 353 | 29.9 | 1.00 (ref) |
| Former | 100 | 2 | 20.0 | 0.82 (0.19–3.59) | 733 | 20 | 27.3 | 0.74 (0.46–1.19) |
| Current (within 6 months) | 150 | 2 | 13.3 | 0.33 (0.08–1.34) | 951 | 16 | 16.8 | 0.55 (0.33–0.90) |
| HR for each continuous year of use | 0.73 (0.46–1.15) | 0.86 (0.77–0.97) | ||||||
Adjusted for age and source study (the original three studies through which women were ascertained); Hazard Ratio (HR), Confidence Interval (CI)
Never use defined as no report of use or one reported instance of use (one month); Ever use defined as greater than one reported instance of use
Our analysis of effect modification by factors in Table 1 yielded a suggestive pattern of larger reductions in risk of recurrence in relation to bisphosphonate use in women with poorer-prognosis tumors (regional stage, higher grade, ER-negative, and PR-negative disease). However, differences were only statistically significant for grade (well/moderate differentiated HR=0.98, poor/undifferentiated HR=0.34; p for interaction=0.004). We also examined the effect of bisphosphonates by the interval events first occurred after initial diagnosis. Results were similar over time (for 1+ years use, HR for event in first 5 years = 0.62, 95% CI 0.39–0.98; HR for event at 5–<10 years = 0.66, 95 % CI 0.43–1.02; HR for event at 10+ years = 0.50, 95% CI 0.25–0.97)
The use of a bisphosphonate for one year or more was associated with a significantly decreased risk of breast cancer mortality (HR=0.40, 95% CI 0.23–0.69; Table 6). Restricting the analysis to the first 7 years of use, for which our data were most robust, did not alter this result (HR=0.40, 95% CI 0.22–0.73).
Table 6.
Association of post-diagnosis bisphosphonate use with risk of breast cancer mortality.
| Person-years at risk | Died from Breast Cancer | Rate per 1000 p-y | HR (95% CI) 1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bisphosphonate Use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 20665 | 288 | 13.9 | 1.00 (ref) |
| Ever BP use | 3289 | 20 | 6.1 | 0.48 (0.30–0.75) |
| Duration of bisphosphonate use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 20665 | 288 | 13.9 | 1.00 (ref) |
| >1 month to < 1 year | 657 | 7 | 10.7 | 0.76 (0.36–1.61) |
| 1 or more years | 2632 | 13 | 4.9 | 0.40 (0.23–0.69) |
| HR for each continuous year of use | 0.75 (0.62–0.90) | |||
| Duration by timing of first bisphosphonate use | ||||
| Never BP use2 | 20665 | 288 | 13.9 | 1.00 (ref) |
| >1 month to < 1 year | 657 | 7 | 10.7 | 0.76 (0.36–1.61) |
| 1 or more years, 1st use 3 or more years post-dx | 1459 | 9 | 6.2 | 0.53 (0.27–1.05) |
| 1 or more years, 1st use within 3 years post-dx | 1173 | 4 | 3.4 | 0.25 (0.09–0.67) |
Adjusted for age and source study (the original three studies through which women were ascertained); Hazard Ratio (HR), Confidence Interval (CI)
Never use defined as no report of use or one reported instance of use (one month); Ever use defined as greater than one reported instance of use
DISCUSSION
In our study, post-diagnosis use of a bisphosphonate was associated with sizable (30–50%) reduced risks of subsequent breast cancer events (locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence or second primary breast cancer) and breast cancer mortality. Reduced risks in relation to bisphosphonates were seen in both pre/peri and postmenopausal women, and in women with both ER positive and ER negative disease. Additionally, we saw suggestion of a stronger effect with longer duration of bisphosphonate use and with an earlier start after diagnosis.
The data from clinical trials of BP administered as oncologic therapy have been inconsistent but suggest in the aggregate, as summarized in a recent patient-level meta-analysis (19), statistically significant 10–20% reductions in risk of recurrence and death among postmenopausal women and an absence of benefit in pre-menopausal women. However, taken together, results from our study and two other observational studies suggest a somewhat more nuanced picture, including larger magnitude (i.e., 30–50%) reductions in risk of adverse breast cancer outcomes (22, 23) and beneficial effects in both post-menopausal and non-postmenopausal or younger women (22). It is worth noting that a fourth observational study which combined data from two study sites found no overall benefits of bisphosphonates, although there was some suggestion of non-statistically significant risk reductions at one of the two sites (24).
Follow-up length was different between the observational and clinical trial data. For example, the median follow-up in the aforementioned meta-analysis was 5.6 person years while the median follow-up in our study was twice as long. (22, 23). It is also worth noting that the observational studies had the opportunity to assess several oral bisphosphonates (i.e. alendronate and risedronate) which have not been included in the clinical trials. A major difference between observational studies of bisphosphonate use and randomized clinical trials is the indication for use; in the observational studies, bisphosphonate prescription was completely or largely (depending on the study) targeted toward women with known loss of bone density whereas in the randomized trials, women received a bisphosphonate regardless of their bone density. We hypothesize that the beneficial effect of bisphosphonates on breast cancer recurrence and mortality risk is present in women with low bone density, regardless of menopausal status.
Another interesting finding in our study was a suggestive, though not statistically significant, reduced risk in women with ER negative breast cancer and those with high grade disease. The EBCTCG meta-analysis (19) and other studies (17, 18, 27) have shown similar findings. The possibility of a reduction in recurrence risk with bisphosphonate use in women with ER negative breast cancer, for whom there is currently no treatment other than chemotherapy, is intriguing and warrants further study.
Notable features of bisphosphonates include high binding rates and long-term absorption in bone and relatively limited short-term systemic bioavailability, (28) properties which would suggest that benefits might be more pronounced for bone versus other locations. Our results do suggest stronger risk reductions for bone metastases as first metastatic events but there were also sizable risk reductions for first metastases outside of bone and for breast cancer mortality. Further mechanistic research is needed to determine if potential benefits for non-bone first metastases derive from direct effects of bisphosphonates or from disrupted pathways of metastatic spread that might otherwise start in bone (29).
A limitation of our study was the fact that we relied on medical record abstraction to obtain information on bisphosphonate which may have been incomplete. We conducted sensitivity analyses excluding women with less complete chart reviews and results were unchanged. We would not expect incomplete reviews to differ by recurrence status, and in fact might expect those with recurrences to be more likely to mention earlier use of medications at subsequent provider visits. Given our results were in the opposite direction, recall or misclassification bias seems less likely. Nonetheless, to the extent that the association between bisphosphonates and recurrence differed in included vs. excluded women, our results could be biased or less generalizable. In addition, medical records do not provide information about actual medication use. Pharmacy records would have been helpful as a complementary data source for assessing adherence and more precisely measuring duration but were not available. There is also a concern that observational data are subject potentially to other sources of confounding or bias. For example, it is possible that patients who received bisphosphonates are at lower risk of breast cancer recurrence, or differ with regard to comorbidities. Although the numbers were small, our results did not substantially differ when we limited analyses to those with a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis, and covariate adjustment for such a diagnosis did not alter risk estimates. While BP users did appear to be less likely to have co-morbidities, there was no attenuation of hazard ratios following additional adjustment for Charleson Comorbity Index or smoking status. This population was mainly treated with tamoxifen, which could be considered both a potential strength and a weakness. On the positive side, results are not confounded by the expected bone loss caused by aromatase inhibitors and treatments were largely homogenous across the study period. On the negative side, as AIs are now considered the standard of care in postmenopausal women, the study conditions do not reflect the entirety of current practice.
Observational data can complement clinical trials in numerous ways. Our study has many strengths, and makes a unique contribution to the current literature on bisphosphonate use in breast cancer patients. First, the long median duration of follow-up allowed us to assess both early and late recurrences, which is of particularly crucial importance for patients with hormone receptor positive disease. In this study, our data suggest that the effect of bisphosphonates does not diminish over time, and therefore protection against both early and late recurrences is observed.
Second, our study provides timely data on a bisphosphonate which is widely used for the treatment of osteoporosis but which has received little attention in relation to breast cancer progression. Both the recent ASCO/CCO Clinical Guideline on adjuvant bisphosphonates (30) and the EBCTCG meta-analysis (19) noted the complete lack of randomized clinical trial data on the effect of alendronate on breast cancer recurrence risk. Alendronate and risendronate belong to the class of aminobisphosphonates, which are thought to be more potent than non-nitrogen containing bisphosphonates such as clodronate, and similar in potency to intravenous zoledronic acid. Our data suggest that oral aminobisphosphonates are effective for reducing recurrence risk in women with breast cancer, and thus could represent a convenient and a more cost effective option for this population.
Notably and in contrast to the clinical trials, participants in this study were prescribed bisphosphonates due to bone loss. We hypothesize that the reason our results differ from the trials, both in stronger magnitudes of risk reduction and beneficial effects in postmenopausal and non-postmenopausal women, is that the bone microenvironment created by low bone density results in a higher risk of recurrence, and this risk is abrogated by BP use. Thus, in randomized trials in which women were assigned to BP use regardless of bone density, the effects were more modest and only clear in postmenopausal women, in whom osteopenia and osteoporosis are most prevalent.
In this cohort study of women with breast cancer, we observed a sizable reduction in the risk of breast cancer events (distant recurrence, locoregional recurrence or second primary breast cancer) among users of oral bisphosphonates. There was a stronger inverse association for use that started within three years of diagnosis versus later, and we observed reductions in risk for both early and late recurrences of breast cancer. Importantly, women who used bisphosphonates also had an improvement in breast cancer specific survival compared to never users. Our results support the findings of randomized adjuvant studies, which showed a lower risk of recurrence in postmenopausal women receiving bisphosphonates, and suggest that premenopausal women with low bone density may benefit from this treatment as well. Finally, our data support the potential effectiveness of aminobisphosphonates such as alendronate and risendronate for the prevention of recurrence and mortality in women with breast cancer.
Acknowledgments
Financial support: This research was supported by the National Institute of Health Grant R01 CA098858, and included salary support for the following authors: David R. Doody, Li Hsu, Peggy Porter, and Kathleen E. Malone.
The authors would like to thank the study participants for their invaluable contributions to this research, Cecilia O’Brien for excellent study coordination, and the data collection staff for their high quality work.
Footnotes
Disclosure: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- 1.Black DM, Cummings SR, Karpf DB, Cauley JA, Thompson DE, Nevitt MC, et al. Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. Lancet (London, England) 1996;348(9041):1535–41. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(96)07088-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Harris ST, Watts NB, Genant HK, McKeever CD, Hangartner T, Keller M, et al. Effects of risedronate treatment on vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. Vertebral Efficacy With Risedronate Therapy (VERT) Study Group. Jama. 1999;282(14):1344–52. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.14.1344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.McClung MR, Geusens P, Miller PD, Zippel H, Bensen WG, Roux C, et al. Effect of risedronate on the risk of hip fracture in elderly women. Hip Intervention Program Study Group. The New England journal of medicine. 2001;344(5):333–40. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200102013440503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Black DM, Delmas PD, Eastell R, Reid IR, Boonen S, Cauley JA, et al. Once-yearly zoledronic acid for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The New England journal of medicine. 2007;356(18):1809–22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa067312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Crandall CJ, Newberry SJ, Diamant A, Lim YW, Gellad WF, Booth MJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments to prevent fractures: an updated systematic review. Annals of internal medicine. 2014;161(10):711–23. doi: 10.7326/M14-0317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Boissier S, Magnetto S, Frappart L, Cuzin B, Ebetino FH, Delmas PD, et al. Bisphosphonates inhibit prostate and breast carcinoma cell adhesion to unmineralized and mineralized bone extracellular matrices. Cancer Res. 1997;57(18):3890–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hiraga T, Williams PJ, Ueda A, Tamura D, Yoneda T. Zoledronic acid inhibits visceral metastases in the 4T1/luc mouse breast cancer model. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(13):4559–67. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-03-0325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Melani C, Sangaletti S, Barazzetta FM, Werb Z, Colombo MP. Amino-biphosphonate-mediated MMP-9 inhibition breaks the tumor-bone marrow axis responsible for myeloid-derived suppressor cell expansion and macrophage infiltration in tumor stroma. Cancer Res. 2007;67(23):11438–46. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-1882. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Wood J, Bonjean K, Ruetz S, Bellahcene A, Devy L, Foidart JM, et al. Novel antiangiogenic effects of the bisphosphonate compound zoledronic acid. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2002;302(3):1055–61. doi: 10.1124/jpet.102.035295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Yamada J, Tsuno NH, Kitayama J, Tsuchiya T, Yoneyama S, Asakage M, et al. Anti-angiogenic property of zoledronic acid by inhibition of endothelial progenitor cell differentiation. J Surg Res. 2009;151(1):115–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2008.01.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Yuasa T, Kimura S, Ashihara E, Habuchi T, Maekawa T. Zoledronic acid - a multiplicity of anti-cancer action. Curr Med Chem. 2007;14(20):2126–35. doi: 10.2174/092986707781389600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Haider MT, Holen I, Dear TN, Hunter K, Brown HK. Modifying the osteoblastic niche with zoledronic acid in vivo-potential implications for breast cancer bone metastasis. Bone. 2014;66:240–50. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2014.06.023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ottewell PD, Wang N, Brown HK, Reeves KJ, Fowles CA, Croucher PI, et al. Zoledronic acid has differential antitumor activity in the pre- and postmenopausal bone microenvironment in vivo. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(11):2922–32. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Schippinger W, Luschin-Ebengreuth G, Postlberger S, Menzel C, et al. Endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal breast cancer. The New England journal of medicine. 2009;360(7):679–91. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0806285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Stoeger H, Luschin-Ebengreuth G, Knauer M, Moik M, et al. Zoledronic acid combined with adjuvant endocrine therapy of tamoxifen versus anastrozol plus ovarian function suppression in premenopausal early breast cancer: final analysis of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 12. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(2):313–20. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Paterson AH, Anderson SJ, Lembersky BC, Fehrenbacher L, Falkson CI, King KM, et al. Oral clodronate for adjuvant treatment of operable breast cancer (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocol B-34): a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2012;13(7):734–42. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70226-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Coleman R, Cameron D, Dodwell D, Bell R, Wilson C, Rathbone E, et al. Adjuvant zoledronic acid in patients with early breast cancer: final efficacy analysis of the AZURE (BIG 01/04) randomised open-label phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2014;15(9):997–1006. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70302-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Coleman RE, Marshall H, Cameron D, Dodwell D, Burkinshaw R, Keane M, et al. Breast-cancer adjuvant therapy with zoledronic acid. The New England journal of medicine. 2011;365(15):1396–405. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1105195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Coleman R, Powles T, Paterson A, Gnant M, Anderson S, Diel I, et al. Adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in early breast cancer: meta-analyses of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet (London, England) 2015;386(10001):1353–61. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60908-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ben-Aharon I, Vidal L, Rizel S, Yerushalmi R, Shpilberg O, Sulkes A, et al. Bisphosphonates in the adjuvant setting of breast cancer therapy--effect on survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e70044. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Coleman RGM, Paterson A, Powles T, von Minckwitz G, Pritchard K, Bergh J, Bliss J, Gralow J, Anderson S, Evans V, Pan H, Bradley R, Davies C, Gray R. Effects of bisphosphonate treatment on recurrence and cause-specific mortality in women with early breast cancer: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; Abstract S4-072014. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Kremer R, Gagnon B, Meguerditchian AN, Nadeau L, Mayo N. Effect of oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis on development of skeletal metastases in women with breast cancer: results from a pharmaco-epidemiological study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(11) doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Monsees GM, Malone KE, Tang MT, Newcomb PA, Li CI. Bisphosphonate use after estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer and risk of contralateral breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(23):1752–60. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kwan ML, Shi JM, Habel LA, Song J, Chung JW, Avila CC, et al. Effectiveness of bisphosphonate use and risk of contralateral breast cancer and recurrence in women with early-stage breast cancer treated with tamoxifen. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156(2):379–89. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-3763-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Reding KW, Doody DR, McTiernan A, Hsu L, Davis S, Daling JR, et al. Age-related variation in the relationship between menopausal hormone therapy and the risk of dying from breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;126(3):749–61. doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-1174-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Weiss LK, Burkman RT, Cushing-Haugen KL, Voigt LF, Simon MS, Daling JR, et al. Hormone replacement therapy regimens and breast cancer risk(1) Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100(6):1148–58. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02502-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.von Minckwitz G, Mobus V, Schneeweiss A, Huober J, Thomssen C, Untch M, et al. German adjuvant intergroup node-positive study: a phase III trial to compare oral ibandronate versus observation in patients with high-risk early breast cancer. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2013;31(28):3531–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.47.2167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Van Acker HH, Anguille S, Willemen Y, Smits EL, Van Tendeloo VF. Bisphosphonates for cancer treatment: Mechanisms of action and lessons from clinical trials. Pharmacology & therapeutics. 2016;158:24–40. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2015.11.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Newton PK, Mason J, Venkatappa N, Jochelson MS, Hurt B, Nieva J, et al. Spatiotemporal progression of metastatic breast cancer: a Markov chain model highlighting the role of early metastatic sites. npj Breast Cancer. 2015;1:15018. doi: 10.1038/npjbcancer.2015.18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Dhesy-Thind S, Fletcher GG, Blanchette PS, Clemons MJ, Dillmon MS, Frank ES, et al. Use of Adjuvant Bisphosphonates and Other Bone-Modifying Agents in Breast Cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario and American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. Journal of Clinical Oncology. doi: 10.1200/jco.2016.70.7257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]