Treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors with bone-modifying agents: a web survey of Italian oncologists investigating patterns of practice drug prescription and prevention of side effects

• Published in: Supportive care in cancer 2024-03, Vol.32 (3), p.202-202, Article 202
• Main Authors: Fusco, Vittorio, Di Maio, Massimo, Valsecchi, Anna Amela, Santini, Daniele, Tucci, Marcello, De Giorgi, Ugo, Bossi, Paolo, Ibrahim, Toni, Cavanna, Luigi, Lanzetta, Gaetano, Rossi, Maura, Rossetti, Giorgia, Airoldi, Mario, Comandone, Alessandro, Cinieri, Saverio
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bisphosphonates; Bone cancer; Bone Density Conservation Agents - adverse effects; Bone Neoplasms - secondary; Breast cancer; Breast Neoplasms - drug therapy; Denosumab - therapeutic use; Diphosphonates - adverse effects; Drug Prescriptions; Humans; Italy; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Metastasis; Monoclonal antibodies; Nursing; Nursing Research; Oncology; Pain Medicine; Prostate cancer; Prostatic Neoplasms - drug therapy; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology; Rehabilitation Medicine; Tumors
• ISSN: 0941-4355; 1433-7339
• DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08392-8

Purpose Optimal use of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors is uncertain in some aspects: the drug choice; the planned treatment duration and long-term therapy; the prevention and management of possible side effects, including renal toxicity, hypocalcaemia, and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). Methods Italian oncologists were invited to fulfil a 24-question web survey about prescription of BMAs for bone metastases of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and other solid tumors. Prevention and management of side effects were also investigated. Results Answers of 191 oncologists were collected. BMAs are usually prescribed at the time of diagnosis of bone metastases by 87.0% (breast cancer) and 76.1% (solid tumors except breast and prostate cancers) of oncologists; the decision is more articulated for prostate cancer (endocrine-sensitive versus castration-resistant). The creatinine level (32.3%), the availability of patient venous access (15.8%), and the type of primary neoplasm (13.6%) are the most reported factors involved in choice between bisphosphonates and denosumab. Zoledronic acid every 3 months was considered as a valid alternative to monthly administration by 94% of Italian oncologists. Oncologists reported a good confidence with measures aimed to prevent MRONJ, whereas uncertainness about prevention and management of hypocalcemia was registered. Conclusion Italian oncologists showed a high attitude in prescribing bisphosphonates or denosumab at the time of diagnosis of bone metastases, with a large application of preventive measures of side effects. Further studies are needed to investigate some controversial aspects, such as optimal drug treatment duration and long-term drug schedules.