ReviewCureus2021
Review of Bone Modifying Agents in Metastatic Breast Cancer.
Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Novel Approaches to Monitor Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism of Gemcitabine-Ibandronate Conjugate in Mice and Dogs.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Incidence, Risk Factors, and Survival of Bone Metastases and Skeletal-Related Events in Melanoma Patients: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of 29 Studies.Journal of bone oncology · 2024Review
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Denosumab in the Prevention of Skeletal-Related Events Among Patients With Breast Cancer With Bone Metastasis in India.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
- Multidisciplinary Treatment for Breast Cancer-related Multiple Bone Metastases during Pregnancy Using Bone Metastasis Cancer Boards: A Case Report.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 2024Article
- How has the field of metastatic breast cancer in bones evolved over the past 22 years?Journal of bone oncology · 2023Article
- Review
- CANCER PAIN AND THERAPY.Acta clinica Croatica · 2022Review
- Switching from Zoledronic Acid to Denosumab for Bone Modification Therapy in Patients with Malignant Tumors and Renal Insufficiency: A Retrospective Case Series and Literature Review.Case reports in oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone is the most common site for distant metastases in breast cancer and can cause significant morbidity and mortality. Bone modifying agents (BMAs) that include bisphosphonates (BPAs) and denosumab help in decreasing and delaying skeletal-related events (SREs) associated with metastatic breast cancer. BPAs approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in bone metastases (BM) in the United States are pamidronate and zolendronic acid, while clodronate and ibandronate are licensed for use in other countries. Current American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines recommend denosumab 120 mg subcutaneously every four weeks, or zolendronic acid 4 mg every four weeks or every 12 weeks, or intravenous pamidronate 90 mg every four weeks. Current guidelines do not recommend one BMA over another, however, zolendronic acid and denosumab were the most commonly used BMAs in population-based studies. Side effects of BMAs include acute phase reactions, hypocalcemia, nephrotoxicity, osteonecrosis of jaw, etc. While other side effects are common with both BPAs and denosumab, the latter has less nephrotoxic potential and is preferred for use in patients with renal failure. Current ASCO guidelines recommend continuing BMAs indefinitely, however, in clinical practice, this decision needs to be individualized, especially since there is no data on the impact of long-term use of BMAs. Further studies would need to be developed to develop an algorithm of SRE risk assessment and to determine which patients would benefit from BMAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.