denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

70
YOUR LOGO Bifosfonatos Vs. Denosumab para el manejo de enfermedad metastásica ósea Mauricio Lema Medina MD Clínica de Oncología Astorga / Clínica SOMA - Medellín, Colombia Barranquilla, 29.10.2

Upload: mauricio-lema

Post on 10-Jan-2017

137 views

Category:

Health & Medicine


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Bifosfonatos Vs. Denosumab para el manejo de enfermedad metastásica

ósea

Mauricio Lema Medina MD

Clínica de Oncología Astorga / Clínica SOMA - Medellín, Colombia

Barranquilla, 29.10.2016

Page 2: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Bifosfonatos Vs. Denosumab para el manejo de enfermedad metastásica

ósea Mauricio Lema Medina

Page 3: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

@onconerd

Page 4: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Conflict of interest: I own a (smaller than I would like) part of an infusional center. Therefore, non-IV

agents put me out-of-business

Mauricio Lema Medina

Page 5: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

The Majority of Patients With Advanced Breast and Prostate Cancer Are Likely to Get Bone Metastases

Page 6: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

SREs Are Clinically Significant and Serious Consequences of Bone Metastases

Page 7: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

SREs Are Both a Common and Frequent Problem for Patients With Advanced Cancer Untreated for

Bone Metastases

1. Lipton A, et al. Cancer. 2000;88:1082-1090. 2. Saad F, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:879-882. 3. Rosen LS, et al. Cancer. 2004;100:2613-2621. 4. Saad F, et al. Clin Prostate Cancer. 2005;4:31-37

Page 8: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

With Improvements in Survival, Patients Are More Likely to Experience an SRE

1. Lipton A, et al. Cancer 2000;88:1082-1090. 2. Miller K, et al. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2666-2676. 3. Saad F, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1458-1468. 4. Kantoff PW, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363;411-422. 5. Rosen LS, et al. Cancer. 2004;100:2613-2621. 6. Sandler A, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2542-2550.

Page 9: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

RANK Ligand Is an Essential Mediator of the Vicious Cycle of Bone Destruction

Roodman, GD. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1655-1664.

Page 10: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Denosumab: From Bench to Bedside

OPG = osteoprotegerin.1. ClinicalTrials.gov. Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Accessed Nov 20, 2010. 2. Anderson DM, et al. Nature. 1997;390:175-179. 3. Simonet WS, et al. Cell. 1997;89:309-319. 4. Lacey DL, et al. Cell. 1998;93:165-176. 5. Yasuda H, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95:3597-3602. 6. Bekker, PJ, et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:1059-1066.

Page 11: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Denosumab

Denosumab: Targets and Inhibits RANK Ligand to Break the Vicious Cycle of Bone Destruction and

Prevents SREs

Roodman, GD. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1655-1664.

Page 12: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Is denosumab MORE effective than bisphosphonates in

(relevant outcomes of bone metastases) in solid tumors?

Page 13: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Is denosumab SAFER than bisphosphonates metastatic

bone disease in solid tumors?

Page 14: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Is denosumab COST-EFFECTIVE when compared to (active)

bisphosphonates in solid tumors?

Page 15: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Three Identically Designed Head-to-Head Studies Comparing Denosumab vs Zoledronic Acid Enables

a Prespecified Intregated Analysis

*Daily supplementation of calcium 500 mg and vitamin D 400 IU recommended. 1. XGEVATM (denosumab) prescribing information, Amgen. 2. Data on file, Amgen. 3. Lipton A, et al. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(suppl 8):382. Abstract 1249 and poster.

J Clin Oncol 28:5132-5139. © 2010J Clin Oncol 29:1125-1132. © 2011

Lancet 2011; 377: 813–22

Page 16: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Three Identically Designed Head-to-Head Studies Comparing Denosumab vs Zoledronic Acid Enables

a Prespecified Intregated Analysis

SREs in this study were defined as either pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, radiation to bone, or spinal cord compression. 1. XGEVATM (denosumab) prescribing information, Amgen. 2. Data on file, Amgen. 3. Lipton A, et al. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(suppl 8):382. Abstract 1249 and poster.

Page 17: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

J Clin Oncol 28:5132-5139. © 2010

J Clin Oncol 29:1125-1132. © 2011

Lancet 2011; 377: 813–22

Page 18: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

J Clin Oncol 28:5132-5139. © 2010

Page 19: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

SRE Rate: Denosumab vs ZA in Breast Cancer Patients With Bone Metastases

Stopeck AT, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:5132-5139.

Denosumab0

1.2SR

Es p

er P

atie

nt p

er Y

r

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

1.0

ZA

0.580.45

-22% (P = .004)

Page 20: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Time to First On-Study SRE: Extended Analysis

Zoledronic acid 1020 831 675 584 498 429 356 265 186 111 38 4Denosumab 1026 834 692 597 510 444 384 280 193 101 38 9

Patients at Risk, n

KM Estimate ofMedian Mos

DenosumabZoledronic acid

32.727.4

HR: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71-0.95; P = .0096, superiority)

Study Mo

0

1.0

Subj

ects

With

out S

RE

(%)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 3330

0.8

Stopeck A, et al. SABCS 2010. Abstract P6-14-01.

Page 21: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Time to First and Subsequent On-Study SRE* (Multiple Event Analysis)

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 300

0.5

1.0

1.5

Cum

ulat

ive

Mea

n N

umbe

r of S

RE

Mos

Total No. of Events

DenosumabZoledronic acid

474608

Rate ratio: 0.77 (95% CI: 0.66-0.89;P = .001†)

*Events that occurred at least 21 days apart. †Adjusted for multiplicity.Stopeck AT, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:5132-5139.

Page 22: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

n = number of patients randomizedLipton A, et al. ASCO 2010. Abstract 9015.

Pooled Analysis: Time to First On-Study SRE by Previous SRE History

HR: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.70-0.96;P = .015)

HR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.72-0.97;P = .021)

HR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74-0.92; P < .001)Pr

opor

tion

of P

atie

nts

With

out O

n-St

udy

SRE

0 6 12 18 24 30

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

With Previous SREZoledronic acid (n = 819)Denosumab (n = 818)

0 6 12 18 24 30

Without Previous SREZoledronic acid (n = 1091)Denosumab (n = 1094)

0 6 12 18 24 30

OverallZoledronic acid (n = 1910)Denosumab (n = 1912)

Study MoRisk Set, n

ZADmab

819818

01

425411

266266

145144

3648

19101912

44

10521084

692716

382402

114127

10911094

43

627673

426450

237258

7879

Page 23: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Skeletal Complication Risk: Incremental Benefits in Breast Cancer

No bisphosphonate 64% risk at 2 yrs Pamidronate

~ 20% risk reduction

64% 51% 34%

Zoledronic acid Additional ~ 20%

risk reduction

27%

Denosumab Additional 18% risk reduction

Lipton A, et al. Cancer. 2000;88:3033-3037. Rosen LS, et al. Cancer. 2003;100:36-43. Stopeck A, et al. ECCO/ESMO 2009. Abstract 2LBA. Stopeck AT, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:5132-5139.

Page 24: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Between-Group Differences in AEs With Unadjusted P < .05

Favors denosumab Favors zoledronic acid

HypocalcemiaToothache

Renal failure acuteBlood urea increased

BronchospasmHyperthermia

Skin hyperpigmentationMetastases to spine

HypercalcemiaEdema

Alanine aminotransferase increasedLumbar vertebral fracture

DyspepsiaRenal failure

PainChills

AnemiaArthralgiaBone pain

Pyrexia

Risk Difference -10 10-5 50

Zoledronic Acid,n (%) (n = 1013)

Denosumab, n (%) (n = 1020)

247 (24.4)170 (16.7)238 (23.5)186 (18.2)291 (28.7)250 (24.5)232 (22.9)192 (18.8)

58 (5.7)29 (2.8)97 (9.6)72 (7.1)25 (2.5)2 (0.2)74 (7.3)52 (5.1)56 (5.5)35 (3.4)47 (4.6)28 (2.7)40 (3.9)22 (2.2)35 (3.5)17 (1.7)21 (2.1)9 (0.9)19 (1.9)7 (0.7)15 (1.5)4 (0.4)10 (1.0)2 (0.2)

8 (0.8)0 (0.0)7 (0.7)1 (0.1)

37 (3.7)57 (5.6)34 (3.4)56 (5.5)

Stopeck AT, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:5132-5139.

Page 25: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

*P = .2861 †No cases of hypocalcemia were grade 5 (fatal). ‡In the first 3 days after initial treatment.

Stopeck A, et al. SABCS 2010. Abstract P6-14-01.

Adverse Events: From Extended Analysis

Event, n (%) Zoledronic Acid(n = 1013)

Denosumab(n = 1020)

All adverse events 987 (97.4) 961 (96.2)Serious adverse events 509 (50.2) 489 (47.9)Adverse events related to renal toxicity 95 (9.4) 55 (5.4)Osteonecrosis of the jaw* 18 (1.8) 26 (2.5)Hypocalcemia (any) 37 (3.7) 62 (6.1) Hypocalcemia of grade 3 or 4† 12 (1.2) 18 (1.8)

Acute-phase reactions‡ 286 (28.2) 109 (10.7)

Page 26: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

ONJ Associated With Bone-Targeted Therapy in Patients With Bone Metastases

Saad F, et al. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:1341-1347.

Denosumab(n = 52)

1.8%

Zoledronic acid(n = 37)

1.3%

Positively adjudicatedfor ONJ(n = 89)

Potential ONJ(n = 276)

All patients (N = 5723)

Integrated analysis of pivotal denosumab SRE prevention trials

No significant difference between groups (P = .13)

Page 27: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Denosumab vs Zoledronic Acid Pivotal Phase III SRE Prevention Trials

1. Stopeck AT, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:5132-5139. 2. Fizazi K, et al. Lancet. 2011;377:813-822. 3. Henry DH, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1125-1132.

Supplemental calcium and vitamin D

Denosumab 120 mg SC q4w+

Placebo IV q4w†

Zoledronic Acid 4 mg IV q4w†

+ Placebo SC q4w

Study 136[1]

Breast cancer(N = 2049)

Study 103[2]

Prostate cancer(N = 1904)

Study 244[3]

Other solid tumors/MM(N = 1779)

RANDOMIZATION

In total, > 5700 patients with bone metastases

Page 28: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Prespecified Integrated Analysis: Baseline Demographics

ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.1. Data on file, Amgen. 2. Lipton A, et al. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(suppl 8):382. Abstract 1249 and poster.

Page 29: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Denosumab Was Superior to Zoledronic Acid: 17% Risk Reduction in First SRE

P value for superiority.1. Data on file, Amgen. 2. Lipton A, et al. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(suppl 8):382. Abstract 1249 and poster.

Denosumab 120 mg Q4W (n= 2862)Zoledronic acid 4 mg Q4W (n= 2861)

Page 30: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Superior Efficacy Across Multiple Solid Tumor Types: Reduction in Risk of First SRE

*P value for superiority. †Excluding breast and prostate.1. XGEVATM (denosumab) prescribing information, Amgen. 2. Stopeck AT, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:5132-5139. 3. Fizazi K, et al. Lancet. 2011;377:813-822. 4. Henry D, et al. J Clin Oncol. [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.3304.

Denosumab 120 mg Q4W (n= 2862)Zoledronic acid 4 mg Q4W (n= 2861)

Page 31: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Proven Efficacy in Multiple Solid Tumor Types: Reduction in Risk in the Subanalysis of Other Solid Tumors

Henry D, et al. Presentation at: ASCO Annual Meeting. June 4-8, 2010; Chicago, IL

Denosumab

Zoledronic Acid

Excluding Multiple Myeloma (10% of the patients)

Page 32: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Increased Time to First SRE

1. Denosumab prescribing information, Amgen. 2. Lipton A, et al. Cancer 2000;88:1082-1090. 3. Saad F, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1458-1468.

Denosumab Zoledronic None Denosumab Zoledronic None

Page 33: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Increased Time to First SRE

1. Henry D, et al. Presentation at: ASCO Annual Meeting. June 4 8, 2010; Chicago, ILL. 2 Rosen LS, et al. Cancer. 2004;100:2613-‐2621.

Denosumab Zoledronic None

Page 34: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Denosumab Was Superior to Zoledronic Acid: 18% Risk Reduction in First and Subsequent SREs

1. Henry D, et al. Presentation at: ASCO Annual Meeting. June 4 8, 2010; Chicago, ILL. 2 Rosen LS, et al. Cancer. 2004;100:2613-‐2621.

DenosumabZoledronic Acid

Page 35: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Denosumab Was Superior to Zoledronic Acid: 18% Risk Reduction in First and Subsequent SREs

*P value for superiority. †Excluding breast and prostate. Study Month1. Denosumab prescribing information, Amgen. 2. Stopeck A, et al. Presentation at: ECCO/ESMO Multidisciplinary Congress. Sept 20-24, 2009; Berlin, Germany. 3. Stopeck AT, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:5132- 5139. 4. Fizazi K, et al. Lancet. 2011;377:813-822. 5. Henry D, et al. J Clin Oncol. [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.3304.

DenosumabZoledronic Acid

Page 36: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Overal Survival

*Excluding breast and prostate.1. Stopeck AT, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:5132-5139. 2. Fizazi K, et al. Lancet. 2011;377:813-822. 3. Henry D, et al. J Clin Oncol. [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.3304. 4. XGEVATM (denosumab) prescribing information, Amgen.

DenosumabZoledronic Acid

Page 37: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Denosumab: Superior Efficacy

*Excluding breast and prostate.1. Data on file, Amgen. 2. XGEVATM (denosumab) prescribing information, Amgen. 3. Henry D, et al. Presentation at: ASCO Annual Meeting. June 4-8, 2010; Chicago, ILL. 4. Stopeck A, et al. Presentation at: ECCO/ESMO. Sept 20-24, 2009; Berlin, Germany. Abstract 2LBA. 5. Fizazi K, et al. Lancet. 2011;377:813-822. 6. Henry D, et al. J Clin Oncol. [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.3304. 7. Lipton A, et al. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(suppl 8):382. Abstract 1249 and poster.

Page 38: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Is denosumab SAFER than bisphosphonates metastatic

bone disease in solid tumors?

Page 39: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Denosumab does not require dose adjustments, regardless of renal function

1. Lewiecki EM. Biologics. 2008;2:645-653. 2. Bekker PJ, et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:1059-1066. 3. Mould DR, Green B. BioDrugs. 2010;24:23-39. 4. Data on file, Amgen. 5. Zometa® Prescribing Information, Novartis.

Zoledronic Acid Denosumab

Page 40: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Most Common Adverse Reactions Ocurring in More than 25% of Patients

*Laboratory-derived and below the central laboratory lower limit of normal (2.2–2.8 mg/dL [0.71–0.9 mmol/L] for phosphorus).

Zoledronic AcidDenosumab

Page 41: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Hypocalcemia

1. Data on file, Amgen. 2. XGEVA (denosumab) prescribing information, Amgen.

Zoledronic Acid Denosumab

Adverse events of hypocalcemia were predominantly transient and generally not associated with clinical consequences.Most adverse events of hypocalcemia were single events that resolved with oral calcium or no action taken.

Page 42: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (ONJ)

Denosumab: 1.8%Zoledronic acid: 1.3% (NS)

Page 43: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Acute-Phase Reactions

Denosumab: 8.7%Zoledronic acid: 20.2%

Acute phase reaction events occurred within the first 3 days of

treatment, and the most common were pyrexia, fatigue, bone

pain, arthralgia, and chills.

Page 44: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Sun L, Am J Clin Oncol 2013;36:399–403

Page 45: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Sun L, Am J Clin Oncol 2013;36:399–403

Time to First SRE Time to Multiple SREs

Overall survival Disease progression

Page 46: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Sun L, Am J Clin Oncol 2013;36:399–403

This meta-analysis indicates that denosumab is more effective than ZA in reducing morbidity for patients with bone metastases. In addition, the risk of relative serious AEs was not significantly

increased in patients receiving denosumab compared with those given ZA

Page 47: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Is denosumab COST-EFFECTIVE when compared to (active)

bisphosphonates in solid tumors?

Page 48: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Carter JA, Botteman MF. Health-economic review of zoledronic acid for the management of skeletal-related events in bone-metastatic prostate cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;12:425–437

Page 49: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Can we SELECT who will reap a greater benefit from

denosumab?

Page 50: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Lipton A. Eur Journal of Cancer 53 (2016) 75-83

Page 51: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Lipton A. Eur Journal of Cancer 53 (2016) 75-83

Page 52: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Lipton A. Eur Journal of Cancer 53 (2016) 75-83

Favors denosumab

Page 53: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Lipton A. Eur Journal of Cancer 53 (2016) 75-83

Favors denosumab

Page 54: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Lipton A. Eur Journal of Cancer 53 (2016) 75-83

Favors denosumab

Page 55: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Denosumab prior to bone events in solid tumors

Page 56: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Smith MR, Lancet 2012; 379: 39–46

High-Risk Non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PSA greater or equal than 8 or PSA doubling time

less than 10 months)

R

Denosumab

Placebo

Composite endpoint determined by time to fi rst occurrenceof bone metastasis (symptomatic or asymptomatic) or death from any cause

n=716

n=716

120 mg q4wk

Page 57: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Smith MR, Lancet 2012; 379: 39–46

Page 58: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Smith MR, Lancet 2012; 379: 39–46

Bone-Metastasis-Free Survival

Page 59: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Smith MR, Lancet 2012; 379: 39–46

Time to bone metastases

Page 60: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Smith MR, Lancet 2012; 379: 39–46

Time to symptomatic bone metastases

Page 61: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Smith MR, Lancet 2012; 379: 39–46

Time to symptomatic bone metastases

Page 62: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Smith MR, Lancet 2012; 379: 39–46

Page 63: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Gnant M, Lancet Oncol 2015

Post-menopausal women with HR+ Early-Stage Breast

Cancer and receiving AIR

Denosumab

Placebo

Time from randomization to first fracture

n=1711

n=1709

60 mg Q6m

Page 64: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Gnant M, Lancet Oncol 2015

Page 65: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Gnant M, Lancet Oncol 2015

Page 66: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Is denosumab MORE effective than bisphosphonates in

(relevant outcomes of bone metastases) in solid tumors?

Yes

Page 67: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Is denosumab SAFER than bisphosphonates metastatic

bone disease in solid tumors?

Probably, at least in patients with renal

impairment

Page 68: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Is denosumab COST-EFFECTIVE when compared to (active)

bisphosphonates in solid tumors?

Maybe

Page 69: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

Should YOU use it routinely in your patients with solid

tumors ?

Page 70: Denosumab vs bisfosfonato en metástasis óseas

@onconerd