SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Efficacy, safety and economy of denosumab and zoledronic acid in the treatment of bone metastases of solid tumors and multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To conduct a comprehensive comparison of the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors and multiple myeloma. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and major Chinese databases was performed for studies published up to 30 September 2025. Eligible evidence included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and pharmacoeconomic analyses. Random-effects models were applied for quantitative synthesis. The certainty of evidence for key outcomes was assessed using the GRADE framework. Results: Twenty-one studies were included. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that denosumab likely delays the time to first skeletal-related event (SRE) (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.79-0.93) and time to first and subsequent SREs (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76-0.97) relative to zoledronic acid. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that this benefit is pronounced in solid tumors but not observed in multiple myeloma. For survival outcomes, moderate-certainty evidence suggests little to no difference in overall survival (HR = 0.97, P = 0.49) or progression-free survival (HR = 0.99, P = 0.86). Low-certainty evidence suggests that denosumab may reduce the risk of any adverse events (OR = 0.70, P = 0.04) and nephrotoxicity (OR = 0.65, P = 0.02). Pharmacoeconomic evaluations revealed marked geographic heterogeneity: denosumab was generally cost-effective in high-income settings with higher willingness-to-pay thresholds, whereas in resource-limited regions, zoledronic acid remained the more economically favorable option. Conclusion: Denosumab probably confers superior protection against SREs in patients with solid tumors and demonstrates a potentially improved renal safety profile compared with zoledronic acid. However, its cost-effectiveness varies substantially across healthcare systems and is strongly shaped by regional pricing structures and willingness-to-pay thresholds. Clinical adoption should therefore consider tumor biology, safety characteristics, and local economic capacity. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251020691.
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.