Table 2.
Evaluation parameters at the end of the treatment.
| Parameters | Disease status | Groups |
Comparison between groups | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DB | ZA | |||
| Intervention | Denosumab | Zoledronic acid | ||
| Sample size | 125 | 125 | p-value | |
| Clinical benefits | aPain reduction | 38 (30) | 35 (28) | 0.476 |
| Improved mobility | 28 (23) | 22 (18) | ||
| Improved functional activity | 26 (21) | 24 (19) | ||
| Slight or no significant clinical improvement | 33 (26) | 44 (35) | ||
| Disease status | bDisease progression | 1 (1) | 2 (2) | 0.18 |
| cStable disease | 69 (55) | 73 (58) | ||
| dFractional response | 41 (33) | 45 (36) | ||
| eComplete response | 14 (11)f | 5 (4) | ||
Data are numbers (percentage). Radiological imaging was used for assessing disease status. All radiological imaging parameters were evaluated by the same experienced radiologist.
All physical examination parameters were evaluated by the same experienced physiotherapist.
Chi-square independence tests were used for the statistical analysis. p < 0.05 was considered significant.
Evaluation as per RECIST v1.1 guideline.
a
Visual analogue scale (VAS) score: 0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable.
b
New malignancy appeared.
c
Persistence of targeted lesions.
d
Decrease of ≥30% in tumor size.
e
Disappearance of all targeted lesions.
f
Significant at p = 0.002.