Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21051658›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2010

Optimizing clinical benefits of bisphosphonates in cancer patients with bone metastases.

Matti Aapro, Fred Saad, Luis Costa

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Denosumab versus bisphosphonates for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Chemical and Radiation-Associated Jaw Lesions.Dental clinics of North America · 2016
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Bone metastases: Causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities.EJC supplements : EJC : official journal of EORTC, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer ... [et al.] · 2013
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Matti AaproIMO Clinique de Genolier, CH 1272 Genolier, Switzerland. maapro@genolier.net
Fred Saad
Luis Costa
Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal · CAClinique de Genolier · CHHospital de Santa Maria · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bisphosphonates are important treatments for bone metastases. Considerations for optimizing the clinical benefits of bisphosphonates include efficacy, compliance, and safety. Several bisphosphonates are approved for clinical use; however, few have demonstrated broad efficacy in the oncology setting and been compared directly in clinical trials. Among patients with bone metastases from breast cancer, the efficacy of approved bisphosphonates was evaluated in a Cochrane review, showing a reduction in the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) ranging from 8% to 41% compared with placebo. Between-trial comparisons are confounded by inconsistencies in trial design, SRE definition, and endpoint selection. Zoledronic acid has demonstrated clinical benefits beyond those of pamidronate in a head-to-head trial that included patients with breast cancer or multiple myeloma. Compliance and adherence also have effects on treatment efficacy. In a comparison study, the adherence rates with oral bisphosphonates were found to be significantly lower compared with those of intravenous bisphosphonates. The safety profiles of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates differ. Oral bisphosphonates are associated with gastrointestinal side effects, whereas intravenous bisphosphonates have dose- and infusion rate-dependent effects on renal function. Osteonecrosis of the jaw is an uncommon but serious event in patients receiving monthly intravenous bisphosphonates or denosumab. The incidence of this event can be reduced with careful oral hygiene. A positive benefit-risk ratio for bisphosphonates has been established, and ongoing clinical trials will determine whether individualized therapy is possible.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBone NeoplasmsBreast NeoplasmsDenosumabDiphosphonatesFemaleHumansImidazolesInfusions, IntravenousJawMaleOsteonecrosisPamidronateProstatic NeoplasmsAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedDenosumabDiphosphonatesImidazolesPamidronateRANK LigandZoledronic Acid

Identifiers

PMID21051658
PMCPMC3227909
OpenAlexW2130730771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.