ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Denosumab as Second-Line Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Descriptive Pilot Study From a Single Institution.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionBone metastasis in breast cancer patients can lead to poor quality of life and cause significant morbidity. First-line treatments for bone metastases include bone modifying agents that inhibit osteoclast activity to reduce bone resorption. The most commonly used bone modifying agents include zoledronic acid and denosumab. It is currently unknown whether a therapy change from zoledronic acid to denosumab would result in greater symptom control or improved disease outcomes in breast cancer patients. In this single institution retrospective cohort study, we aimed to identify the reasons why patients transitioned from zoledronic acid to denosumab and to determine whether denosumab, as a second-line therapy, led to reduced narcotic use for metastatic bone pain.Materials and MethodsBreast cancer patients with bone metastases treated at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer center from 2011-2018 with a bone modifying agent were examined. Nineteen patients who received second-line denosumab following previous exposure to zoledronic acid were identified and included in this study.ResultsThe two most common reasons patients switched from zoledronic acid to denosumab were related to side effect burden (28%) and bone metastasis progression (28%). No reduction in narcotic use due to bone pain was observed six months after starting denosumab. None of the patients developed new skeletal related events after switching to Denosumab.ConclusionOverall, denosumab as a second-line therapy appeared to be well-tolerated in our cohort, as we did not observe any treatment-related toxicity. Patients who switched to denosumab did not experience improved pain control.
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.