Could targeting bone delay cancer progression? Potential mechanisms of action of bisphosphonates

Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

Could targeting bone delay cancer progression? Potential mechanisms of action of bisphosphonates Rebecca Aft a,∗ , Jose-Ricardo Perez b , Noopur Raje c , Vera Hirsh d , Fred Saad e a

Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA b Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Florham Park, NJ, USA c Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA d McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada e CRCHUM-Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Accepted 25 May 2011

Contents 1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mechanisms of metastasis from solid tumors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Seeding of metastases from cancer cells in circulation: role of the bone microenvironment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. The bone marrow as a sanctuary for cancer cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Prognostic value of disseminated tumor cells in bone marrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mechanism of action of bisphosphonates: effects on the “seed”, the “soil”, or both? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Chemistry of bisphosphonates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Inhibiting osteolysis modifies the bone microenvironment and may impede tumor progression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. Bisphosphonate effects on the bone microenvironment may inhibit metastasis: clinical evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. Prevention of breast cancer by bisphosphonates: is this further evidence for “soil” effects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Effects of bisphosphonates on disseminated/circulating tumor cells and the premetastatic niche in the bone marrow . . . . . . 3.4. Other potential anticancer effects of bisphosphonates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for the future of bisphosphonates as potential anticancer agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Modifying the bone microenvironment may be critical for preventing metastasis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Ongoing clinical trials of bisphosphonates may offer additional mechanistic insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conflict of interest statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

234 234 235 236 238 238 238 238 239 241 241 242 242 244 244 244 245 245 245 245 248

Abstract Although dissemination may occur early in the course of many cancers, the development of overt metastases depends upon a variety of factors inherent to the cancer cells and the tissue(s) they colonize. The time lag between initial dissemination and established metastases could be several years, during which period the bone marrow may provide an unwitting sanctuary for disseminated tumor cells (DTCs). Survival in a dormant state within the bone marrow may help DTCs weather the effects of anticancer therapies and seed posttreatment relapses. The importance of the bone marrow for facilitating DTC survival may vary depending on the type of cancer and mechanisms of tumor cell dissemination. By altering the bone microenvironment, bisphosphonates may reduce DTC viability. Moreover, some bisphosphonates have

∗

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 314 747 0063; fax: +1 314 454 5509. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Aft).

1040-8428/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2011.05.009

234

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

demonstrated multiple anticancer activities. These multiple mechanisms may help explain the improvement in disease outcomes with the use of zoledronic acid in malignancies like breast cancer and multiple myeloma. © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Bisphosphonates; Bone metastases; Breast cancer; Disseminated tumor cells; Multiple myeloma; Zoledronic acid

1. Introduction The incidence of cancer is increasing worldwide, with more than 12.5 million new cases and 7.5 million cancerrelated deaths each year [1,2]. In the United States alone, the incidence of new cases of cancer is expected to exceed 1.5 million this year, and more than 550,000 cancer-related deaths are estimated [3]. Lung cancer remains the most common cancer worldwide, as well as a leading cause of cancer-related death, with an estimated 1.6 million new cases and nearly 1.4 million deaths annually [2]. In contrast, although breast and prostate cancers account for 1.38 million and 0.9 million new cases each year, these malignancies were associated with substantially lower mortality rates (0.5 million and 0.26 million deaths, respectively) [2]. In addition to the differences in cancer aggressiveness, the favorable survival for breast and prostate cancers is driven by advances in screening, early detection, and treatment, especially in developed countries. Although more than one-third of patients with solid tumors succumb to their disease, survival rates are excellent for patients whose cancer is diagnosed at an early stage. For example, after a diagnosis of breast cancer, the 5-year survival rates in the United States are approximately 98% for women diagnosed with localized disease, versus 84% for women with regionally advanced disease, and only 23% for those with distant metastases [3]. Preventing metastatic disease development from solid tumors appears to hold the key to improving survival, and understanding the mechanisms involved in metastasis can lead to the identification of additional therapeutic targets. Indeed, factors that influence the development and sites of metastasis from solid tumors have been an area of intensive research for over a century. Cancer progresses via multiple pathways including locoregional expansion, via the lymphatic system, or through hematogenous spread. Regional lymph nodes are frequently the first site of detectable locoregional spread from solid tumors, and highly perfused organs such as the liver, lungs, and skeleton are frequent sites of distant metastases through hematogenous spread of cancer cells, followed by arrest in capillary beds and subsequent metastatic growth [4]. However, not all tumors follow the same patterns of dissemination, and many tumors demonstrate distinct patterns of metastasis to specific organs. For example, breast and prostate cancers have a marked predilection for metastasis to bone, with nearly three-quarters of all patients with advanced disease developing bone metastases [5]. Even within each cancer type, genotypic subtypes exhibit distinct patterns of metastasis—for example, brain metastases are more common in HER-2-positive compared with HER-2-negative breast

cancers [6]. These observations suggest that although a simple anatomical or mechanical theory of cancer spread may account for regional metastases, the process of metastasis to distant organs is remarkably site-specific [4]. The concept of site-specific metastasis from solid tumors was first introduced by the surgeon Stephen Paget in 1889. Based on the frequency of specific organ involvement with different cancers, he proposed the “seed and soil” hypothesis, wherein certain cancer cells (seeds) have a special affinity for specific organ milieus (soil), resulting in a non-random distribution of cancer metastases in organs best suited to supporting their growth [7]. Thus, although the genotype and phenotype of a tumor are likely to be major determinants of metastatic efficiency, a receptive microenvironment is a prerequisite for establishment of metastatic outgrowth. In addition to explaining the frequency of metastasis to specific organs, the “seed and soil” concept may also provide insights into avenues for targeting tumor cells and potentially eliminating them before they are able to establish overt metastases. In the case of cancers with a predilection for metastasis to the skeleton, modifying the bone microenvironment (the soil) to render it less conducive to the survival and growth of tumor cells can offer an additional means to limit metastatic spread. Indeed, recent clinical trials demonstrating reduced rates of breast cancer recurrence and improved response rates in multiple myeloma with the use of bisphosphonates support this concept [8–10]. In this review, we will examine tumortype-specific differences in metastatic patterns and how these might correlate with the effectiveness of targeting bone to delay disease recurrence.

2. Mechanisms of metastasis from solid tumors Hematogenous spread and metastasis formation by solid tumors is a multistep process (Fig. 1) [11]. Tumor-induced angiogenesis is necessary for tumor growth beyond a size of approximately 2 mm3 at the primary site, beyond which the cancer cells cannot be supported by simple diffusion of nutrients, oxygen, and waste products [11,12]. Angiogenesis is followed by local invasion and intravasation through the sub-endothelial basement membrane, leading to hematogenous spread of cancer cells [11,12]. Dissemination can occur early in the process of tumor development. However, in a typical solid tumor comprising approximately 1010 –1011 cells, fewer than 10 million (<0.1%) of these cells generally reach the interior of blood vessels and become disseminated (Fig. 1) [11]. Of these, fewer than 100 cancer cells typically form overt metastases in distant organs [11]. Therefore, metasta-

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

235

Fig. 1. Metastasis is a multi-step process. Reprinted from Timar et al. [11].

sis is a highly inefficient process, and a variety of factors can influence the cascade of events between hematogenous dissemination of cancer cells from the primary tumor and final metastasis formation in distant organs. These include factors such as viability and dormancy of the disseminated cells, immune responses against these cells, and genetic and environmental factors that may facilitate their outgrowth into clonal metastases [4,11–13]. 2.1. Seeding of metastases from cancer cells in circulation: role of the bone microenvironment Cancer is often considered a disease of “selfseeding”—cancer cells released into circulation from the primary tumor may recolonize their tissues of origin in a process mediated by tumor-derived cytokines and extracellular enzymes such as matrix metalloproteinases [14], as well as evolve into metastatic foci. Because of the vast surface area and high vascular supply to the skeleton, disseminated cells from primary tumors typically transit through capillary beds in bone regardless of the site of the primary tumor. During their passage through bone, cancer cells can lodge and survive in the bone marrow for prolonged periods of time, possibly acquire increased metastatic competency, and eventually form metastases (Fig. 2) [15]. Although the factors determining which cancer cells take up residence in bone marrow are yet to be fully elucidated, it is becoming evident that genetic predisposition, rather than proximity and physical arrest (in circulation), is responsible for this phenomenon [16–18]. Osteomimetism, or the ability of cancer cells to express genes and proteins typically associated with bone cells, is thought to account for the remarkable ability of breast and prostate cancer cells to transit into, as well as survive and proliferate within, the bone microenvironment [16–18]. Moreover, the release of bone-derived growth factors and

cytokines into the microenvironment can attract cancer cells to the bone surface and facilitate their growth and propagation [12], and elevated levels of bone turnover may provide a rich source of these growth factors [19]. In a mouse model of prostate cancer, androgen-deprived (orchiectomized) mice experienced increased bone turnover and accompanying bone loss, together with increased rates of metastasis to bone compared with sham-treated mice; antiresorptive treatment reduced the rate of prostate cancer metastasis to bone in this model [20], providing further support for this hypothesis. Once in the bone microenvironment, cancer cells may secrete factors that can increase rates of bone resorption, thereby setting up a vicious cycle of tumor growth and bone damage (Fig. 2) [12,15]. Multiple myeloma is characterized by malignant plasma cells colonizing bone marrow early in the disease course, and forming osteolytic lesions as the disease progresses. Myeloma cells secrete factors that interact with bone marrowderived growth factors and signaling intermediates, thereby altering the balance of the bone microenvironment and rendering it highly conducive to proliferation of malignant cells [21]. The molecular interactions between myeloma cells and bone are quite similar to the vicious cycle observed in bone metastases from solid tumors [12]; proliferation-stimulating and antiapoptotic effects of bone-derived growth factors and cytokines support myeloma cell survival and growth, which in turn produce high levels of cytokines (e.g., interleukins 6, 1␤, and 3; tumor necrosis factor-alpha; hepatocyte growth factor; osteopontin; and macrophage inflammatory proteins 1-alpha and 1-beta), which stimulate osteolysis [21]. Myeloma cells also disturb the normal balance between osteolysis and osteogenesis through their effects on production of receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand (RANKL), which stimulates osteoclast development, and osteoprotegerin, the decoy receptor for RANKL that blocks its function,

236

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

Fig. 2. Interactions between tumor and bone marrow are complex. Abbreviations: BM, bone marrow; BMDC, bone marrow-derived cell; CEP, circulating endothelial progenitor; CTC, circulating tumor cell; DTC, disseminated tumor cell; EMT, epithelial–mesenchymal transition; MMP, matrix metalloproteinase. Adapted in part from Coghlin and Murray [15].

by osteoblasts and other stromal cells. Myeloma cells in bone create an imbalance favoring RANKL versus osteoprotegerin, resulting in localized promotion of bone resorption by osteoclasts to levels that exceed the compensatory bone formation by osteoblasts [21]. 2.2. The bone marrow as a sanctuary for cancer cells The last decade has seen an increased focus on understanding how disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) in the bone marrow, and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in peripheral blood, may correlate with and contribute to clinical outcomes in patients with solid tumors. Because of its unique properties, the bone microenvironment can provide a supportive niche for cancer cell survival and tumor growth [22,23]. The concept of a niche was first proposed to describe the highly specific and physiologically discrete sites where hematopoietic cells reside in the bone marrow. Osteoblasts and endothelial cells are the predominant contributors to the cellular components of the endosteal and vascular niches within the bone marrow, which together provide the microenvironment for maintaining hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) [23]. Moreover, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs, the progenitors of

osteoblasts) may also reside in niches that are in close proximity to the HSC niche, and interactions between HSCs and MSCs may regulate each other’s activities (Fig. 3) [23]. In recent models examining survival of metastatic cancer cells in the bone microenvironment, DTCs are thought to reside in niches created by the overlap of HSC, MSC, endosteal, and vascular niches necessary for normal bone marrow function [23]. Such residence of DTCs within the bone marrow niche results in parasitic behavior wherein DTCs (molecular parasites) commandeer normal host (bone marrow) functions to support their own survival. The inherent genetic instability of cancer cells, coupled with the osteomimetic potential of cells from some malignancies, allows DTCs to adhere within bone marrow niches and exploit the specialized cellular and molecular interactions developed for maintenance of HSCs [22,23]. It is becoming evident that the interaction between the bone marrow and the tumor is complex, with exchange of components that promote the growth of the tumor and contribute to DTC survival. For example, bone marrow stromal cells express ligands that bind cell-surface receptors on DTCs [24,25], and bone marrow-derived cells from the HSC and MSC lineages can contribute to angiogenesis and tumor growth through a variety of mechanisms [26]. Bone

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

237

Fig. 3. The bone marrow niche can protect disseminated tumor cells from systemic anticancer therapies. Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd.: [23], copyright 2008.

marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells (also termed circulating endothelial progenitors or CEPs) have been implicated in pathologic angiogenesis in cancer and other diseases [27]. Osteoclast activity also results in the secretion of bone-derived factors that can promote tumor growth and angiogenesis [28,29]. Mesenchymal stem cells in the bone marrow have been shown to increase cancer cell motility and invasion by secreting the chemokine RANTES (regulated on activation, normal T-cell expressed and secreted) [30]. Furthermore, macrophages in the bone marrow secrete proangiogenic cytokines [31], and increases in macrophage numbers in the tumor stroma are associated with poorer prognosis [32]. The combination of growth factors and cell–cell interactions in bone marrow niches help protect HSCs against immune surveillance [22,23]. Exploitation of this HSC niche by DTCs can, in turn, help protect them from the cytotoxic and proapoptotic effects of systemic anticancer therapies, as well as from anticancer immune surveillance, thereby helping them survive during adjuvant therapy for early stage cancer. It is now evident that CTCs and DTCs are typically dormant or quiescent cells [33,34], which can be activated by external signals to grow into overt tumors [33]. In animal models of cancer, dormant CTCs and DTCs isolated from metastasis-free organs are able to regain tumorigenic properties in response to the appropriate external signals [35]. It is thought that DTCs (or CTCs) may function as cancer stem cells (CSCs) or metastasis-initiating cells,

which form the seeds of subsequent metastases. The signals activating quiescent DTCs to form clonal metastases are poorly understood; however, it is becoming evident that interactions between cell surface receptors on tumor cells (e.g., the urokinase receptor, which can influence mitogenic and stress-activated signaling pathways via its crosstalk with integrins) and the microenvironment may be critical determinants in the switch between dormancy and proliferation [33]. Moreover, recent research suggests that multidirectional interactions between cancer and the microenvironment may influence this switch: cancer cells (DTCs) exhibit epithelial plasticity, a phenomenon wherein epithelial cancer cells can transition between epithelial and mesenchymal phenotypes in response to external stimuli as well as to intracellular signals [36]. Epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) is associated with the acquisition of stem-cell-like properties and could further contribute to escape from immune surveillance and resistance to systemic anticancer therapies, further reinforcing the potential role of DTCs as CSCs for seeding posttreatment relapses [36]. Furthermore, bone marrow DTCs from patients with high-risk breast cancer have been reported to more frequently express EMT and CSC-like molecular markers compared with patients who had lower-risk disease [37,38]. Bone marrow MSCs have also been shown to regulate CSCs through cytokine networks—for example, MSCs regulated breast CSC proliferation and bone metastasis formation in a preclinical mouse

238

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

model through a cytokine loop involving interleukin-6 [39]. Thus, interactions between CSCs/DTCs and the bone microenvironment may play a key role in modulating CSC survival, dormancy, and proliferation into overt metastases. 2.3. Prognostic value of disseminated tumor cells in bone marrow Detection of DTCs in bone marrow is associated with poor clinical outcomes in patients with breast and prostate cancers. In a pooled analysis of 4703 patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer in 9 international treatment centers, DTCs were detected in 31% of patients [40]. In this study, the presence of DTCs at initial diagnosis was associated with reduced disease-free survival (DFS; hazard ratio [HR] = 2.13; p < .001 versus no DTC) and distant DFS (HR = 2.33; p < .001 versus no DTC) [40]. In addition, the presence of DTCs at primary diagnosis was associated with more than 2-fold increased risk of death after 62 months’ median follow-up (Fig. 4; p < .001) [40]. Similar associations between persistent DTCs and breast cancer-specific survival were also observed in a separate pooled analysis of 726 women with breast cancer [41,42]. In the prostate cancer setting, DTCs have again been consistently associated with poor clinical outcomes in multiple trials (Table 1) [43–52]. In contrast, associations between DTC status in bone marrow and disease outcomes in the lung cancer setting have been inconsistent (Table 1) [43–49], suggesting a less critical role for the bone marrow in harboring dormant tumor cells in lung cancer compared with breast or prostate cancers.

3. Mechanism of action of bisphosphonates: effects on the “seed”, the “soil”, or both? 3.1. Chemistry of bisphosphonates Bisphosphonates are bone-targeted antiresorptive agents containing a P–C–P backbone with 2 covalently bound side chains that vary among different bisphosphonates [53]. These side chains determine the affinities of bisphosphonates for farnesyl diphosphate synthase (FPP synthase; a key enzyme in the mevalonate pathway of posttranslational protein modification), as well as the antiresorptive potency of the compound. Bisphosphonates with nitrogen-containing side chains are several orders of magnitude more potent than non-nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates in preclinical antiresorptive assays [53–56]. All bisphosphonates induce apoptosis in osteoclasts, albeit by different mechanisms [57,58]. Non-nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (e.g., clodronate) are metabolized into nonhydrolyzable, cytotoxic analogues of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), whose intracellular accumulation results in inhibition of essential metabolic pathways, resulting in cell death [57]. In contrast, nitrogencontaining bisphosphonates (e.g., ibandronate and zoledronic acid) inhibit FPP synthase, thereby blocking prenylation of

Fig. 4. The presence of disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) in bone marrow is associated with reduced survival in women with breast cancer. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio. Reprinted from Braun et al. [40]. © 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

G-proteins, which impedes signal transduction and triggers osteoclast apoptosis [58,59]. Additionally, inhibition of the mevalonate pathway by nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates results in impaired prenylation, subcellular localization, and consequently reduced function of signaling molecules such as the Ras family proteins, which are involved in a range of cellular functions in osteoclasts as well as in cancer cells [54,56]. 3.2. Inhibiting osteolysis modifies the bone microenvironment and may impede tumor progression In the “seed and soil” theory of metastasis, the bone microenvironment could be considered the fertile “soil” that supports the growth of cancer cells (“seeds”). Bisphosphonates, by virtue of their antiresorptive activity, can disrupt the vicious cycle between cancer cells and osteoclasts within bone, thereby blocking the release of bone matrix-derived growth factors into the microenvironment surrounding the cancer cells (i.e., making the “soil” less fertile) [12]. The antiresorptive effects of bisphosphonates are best recognized in the setting of malignant bone disease, wherein bisphosphonate treatment is the standard of care for preventing skeletal morbidity and palliating bone pain [60]. These benefits from bisphosphonate therapy may also translate into indirect survival benefits for patients—successful administration of multiple lines of systemic anticancer therapy in the advanced cancer setting is dependent on preserving the patient’s performance status, and using bisphosphonates to prevent skeletal morbidity can help in this endeavor. Moreover, the antiresorptive effect of bisphosphonates might also translate into delayed disease progression and improved survival in advanced cancers, as well as prevention of bone metastases when used during adjuvant therapy for early stage disease; however, further clinical investigations are needed to determine the risk–benefit profiles of bisphosphonates in all malignancies. Additionally, as discussed in Section 2.2, interactions between cancer cells and bone-derived factors can

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

239

Table 1 Correlations between CTC/DTC levels and clinical outcomes in BC, PC, and NSCLC. Tumor type/study Breast cancer Braun et al. [40] Janni et al. [42] Bidard et al. [50] Bidard et al. [51] Cristofanilli et al. [52] Prostate cancer Berg et al. [43] Garcia et al. [45] Kollermann et al. [46] Morgan et al. [47] NSCLC Passlick et al. [48] Sugio et al. [49] Brunsvig et al. [44]

N 4703 726 621 138 177

Result DTC status correlated with DFS, distant DFS, and OS DTC status correlated with BC-specific survival DTC status correlated with risk of locoregional relapse DTC status correlated with risk of bone metastasis; CTC status correlated with OS CTC status correlated with PFS and OS

131 41 193 98

DTC status correlated with long-term risk of DM CTC status correlated with OS DTC status before neoadjuvant endocrine therapy predicted PSA relapse after RP DTC status post-RP predicted recurrence in patients with no evidence of disease post-RP

139 58 196

DTC status predicted OS in node-negative disease, based on 12 representative patients only DTC status predicted OS in patients with complete surgical resection of primary tumor No correlation between DTC status and outcomes

Abbreviations: BC, breast cancer; CTC, circulating tumor cell; DFS, disease-free survival; DTC, disseminated tumor cell; DM, distant metastases; NSCLC, non small-cell lung cancer; OS, overall survival; PC, prostate cancer; PFS, progression-free survival; RP, radical prostatectomy.

influence DTC survival and dormancy, thereby potentially affecting seeding of distant metastases. Therefore, by inhibiting the release of bone-derived factors that might facilitate these processes, bisphosphonates may contribute to reducing the risk of skeletal as well as extraskeletal metastases. In patients with bone metastases from solid tumors or bone lesions from multiple myeloma, elevated levels of bone resorption have been associated with increased risks of skeletal morbidity and death [61–63]. Retrospective analyses of the phase III trial database of zoledronic acid, a nitrogencontaining bisphosphonate, revealed that rapid normalization of elevated bone resorption is associated with improved survival compared with persistently elevated levels of osteolysis [64]. Interestingly, elevated levels of osteolysis have been associated with increased risk of relapse in bone in the NCIC CTG MA.14 trial in postmenopausal women receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy (tamoxifen) for early stage breast cancer [65]. Similar to preclinical findings in animal models of prostate cancer [20], these data suggest that bone-derived growth factors released as a result of excessive osteolysis play a key role not only in supporting established metastases but also in facilitating development of metastases earlier in the disease course. Use of bisphosphonates to normalize levels of osteolysis would therefore be expected to help inhibit bone metastases. Consistent with this hypothesis, zoledronic acid treatment was found to significantly reduce the risk of death in patients with bone metastases from lung cancer and elevated levels of osteolysis [66]; moreover, the survival benefit was most pronounced in patients whose osteolysis levels normalized within 3 months of treatment [64,66]. 3.2.1. Bisphosphonate effects on the bone microenvironment may inhibit metastasis: clinical evidence The first clinical evidence for using bisphosphonates for the prevention of bone metastases was provided by trials of adjuvant clodronate in early breast cancer (Table 2) [67–69].

Although promising, the outcomes from these studies were inconsistent, and a large clinical trial (NSABP B-34) is ongoing to further evaluate the potential anticancer effects of adjuvant clodronate. Adjuvant clodronate has also been evaluated in 2 clinical trials conducted by the Medical Research Council (MRC) in the United Kingdom in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer [70]. In these trials, 3 years of treatment with clodronate improved overall survival in men with metastatic disease (Table 2), but up to 5 years of clodronate treatment had no effect on survival in men with nonmetastatic disease [70]. The survival benefit limited to the metastatic setting argues in favor of a “soil” effect of the bisphosphonate—by virtue of its antiresorptive effect, clodronate might have (at least partially) blocked the high levels of osteolysis induced by androgen deprivation therapy, thereby rendering the bone microenvironment less conducive to progression of metastases from prostate cancer. In contrast, the lack of a survival benefit in nonmetastatic disease might reflect little or no effect of clodronate on the cancer “seeds”. Additional support for the ability of bisphosphonates to prevent bone metastases by altering the bone marrow microenvironment derives from recent phase III clinical trials in early breast cancer and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In the ABCSG-12 (N = 1803 premenopausal women) and ZO-FAST (N = 1065 postmenopausal women) trials in women receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy for early breast cancer, the addition of zoledronic acid significantly improved DFS (by 35% and 41%, respectively, versus endocrine therapy alone) and produced a trend toward lower rates of disease recurrence in bone (Table 2) [8,9]. These effects of zoledronic acid, observed at a dose and schedule shown to prevent bone loss during endocrine therapy [8,71,72], suggest that the bisphosphonate prevents increased osteolysis and alters the bone microenvironment to make it less conducive for colonization and proliferation of cancer cells. This effect of zoledronic acid could potentially also

240

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

Table 2 Clinical evidence for the anticancer activity of bisphosphonates. Agent/study

Setting (N; follow-up)

Result

Clodronate Diel et al. [67]

Adj BC (302; 8.5 years)

Powles et al. [68]

Adj BC (1069; 5.6 years)

Saarto et al. [69]

Adj BC (299; 10 years)

MRC PR04 [70] MRC PR05 [70] Zoledronic acid ABCSG-12 [9]

Non-met HSPC (508; 10 years) Met HSPC (311; 10 years)

↑ OS (40.7% versus 20.4% PBO; p = .04) Rates of bone mets ↓ at 36- and 55-months follow-up ↓ Rates of bone mets (51 versus 73 patients PBO; HR = 0.692; p = .043) ↑ OS (HR = 0.768; p = .048) Similar rates of bone mets (p = .35) ↑ Non-bone mets (50% versus 36% PBO; p = .005) ↓ DFS (45% versus 58%; p = .01) Similar rates of recurrence and OS ↑ OS (HR = 0.77; p = .032)

ZO-FAST [8]

Postmenopausal Adj BC (1065; 36 months)

MRC Myeloma IX [10]

Newly diagnosed MM (1960; 3.7 years) Stage II/III BC (3360; 59 months)

AZURE [74]

Premenopausal Adj BC (1803; 48 months)

↑ DFS (HR = 0.64; p = .01) ↓ Bone mets (16 versus 23 for no-ZOL) ↓ Locoregional mets (10 versus 20) ↓ Contralateral BC (6 versus 10) ↓ All distant mets (29 versus 41) ↑ DFS (HR = 0.59; p = .0314) ↓ Bone mets (9 versus 17 for late-ZOL) ↓ Local mets (2 versus 10) ↓ All distant mets (20 versus 30) ↑ OS (HR = 0.84; p = .0118) ↑ PFS (HR = 0.88; p = .0179) Similar DFS in ITT population >5 years postmenopausal (n = 1041): ↑ DFS (HR = 0.76; p < .05) >5 years postmenopausal or age >60 years (n = 1101): ↑ DFS (HR = 0.71; p = .017)

Abbreviations: Adj, adjuvant; BC, breast cancer; DFS, disease-free survival; HR, hazard ratio; ITT, intent-to-treat; mets, metastases; MM, multiple myeloma; OS, overall survival; PBO, placebo.

reduce the persistence of DTCs in this setting, which would be consistent with reduced rates of cancer recurrence at multiple sites (Table 2) [8,9]. However, DTC studies were not performed in the ABCSG-12 and ZO-FAST trials. Nonetheless, this possibility is further supported by the durability of the anticancer effect of zoledronic acid in the ABCSG-12 trial, wherein zoledronic acid treatment for 3 years was associated with a lower proportion of bone relapses up to 2 years after completion of therapy [73]. Our understanding of the mechanism of action responsible for the potential anticancer activity of bisphosphonates continues to evolve based on clinical trial data. In the AZURE trial, women with stage II/III breast cancer (N = 3360) received standard therapy alone or standard therapy plus zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3–4 weeks × 6; 4 mg every 3 months × 8; 4 mg every 6 months × 5). In this study the primary endpoint, DFS, did not reach statistical significance; however, there was a trend toward improved overall survival (OS) for zoledronic acid compared with placebo in the overall population (HR = 0.85; p = .07) [74]. Data from subgroup analyses may provide further insight into the anticancer potential of bisphosphonates. Protocol-defined secondary endpoints in AZURE included subgroup analyses based on minimization criteria (including menopausal status), and demonstrated significant heterogeneity in the effect of ZOL on disease recurrence in postmenopausal versus pre- and perimenopausal women (p = .02 for heterogeneity) [74]. Using prospectively defined criteria, zoledronic acid

was found to significantly improve DFS (HR = 0.76; p < .05) and OS (HR = 0.71; p = .017) in patients who were at least 5 years postmenopausal or older than 60 years at study entry (n = 1101). Additionally, zoledronic acid reduced each type of DFS event and reduced recurrences both in and outside of bone (HR and p value were not reported) compared with placebo in this subset [74]. These findings may suggest that zoledronic acid has the greatest potential for anticancer benefits in a low-estrogen environment (i.e., in this trial patients who have been menopausal for >5 years). At first, this may seem inconsistent with data showing significant DFS benefits from zoledronic acid in premenopausal women in ABCSG12. However, ovarian ablation with goserelin therapy plus either anastrozole or tamoxifen resulted in amenorrhea in all patients in ABCSG-12, and residual estrogen levels in these patients were likely similar to those in the AZURE postmenopausal population. Because estrogen levels were not routinely monitored in either the AZURE or the ABCSG-12 trial, this hypothesis needs further experimental validation. Nonetheless, the combined data from these large studies in patients with breast cancer suggest that zoledronic acid may have anticancer activity in postmenopausal women in the adjuvant cancer setting. In the MRC Myeloma IX trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (N = 1960 evaluable patients), the addition of zoledronic acid to standard antimyeloma therapy delayed disease progression by approximately 2 months and produced on overall survival benefit of over 5 months

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

compared with the non-nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate clodronate [10]. Because myeloma cells colonize the bone marrow, resulting in malignant bone lesions in almost all patients with advanced disease, the delayed disease progression and improved survival with zoledronic acid may again be attributable to the bone microenvironment being modified to be less supportive for myeloma cell proliferation. 3.2.2. Prevention of breast cancer by bisphosphonates: is this further evidence for “soil” effects? In addition to the effects of zoledronic acid and clodronate on breast cancer recurrence in patients receiving adjuvant therapy for early stage disease, recent case–control and population-based studies show that oral bisphosphonates used for the treatment of osteoporosis may prevent the development of invasive breast cancer [75–77]. Although it is impossible to control these retrospective analyses for all factors influencing bone turnover and breast cancer risk, and the mechanisms underlying this breast cancer prevention effect of bisphosphonates are unknown, the effects are maintained in multivariate analyses controlling for established cancer risk factors (e.g., parity, diet, hormone replacement therapy, and smoking) [75–77]. These observations therefore suggest that bisphosphonate treatment may modulate the tissue microenvironment (potentially in bone, and perhaps indirectly in the breast), thereby resulting in reduced incidence of invasive breast cancer. It is intriguing that in one of these studies, the incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ was actually higher in bisphosphonate users versus nonusers, although the incidence of invasive breast cancer was markedly reduced in women who used bisphosphonates [75]. This suggests that bisphosphonates do not affect initial cellular transformation within the breast, but potentially alter downstream steps required for progression to invasive carcinoma, again indicating a possible “soil” effect (albeit not in bone) rather than a “seed” effect. Indeed, other (nonbone) effects, including immunomodulation and antiangiogenesis, are possible. Pilot trials in patients with breast cancer and other malignancies demonstrate reductions in circulating levels of angiogenic factors after bisphosphonate treatment [78,79], and preclinical and early clinical evidence support modulation of the immune system by nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates to increase anticancer immune surveillance [80–83]. These studies provide insight into potential mechanisms by which bisphosphonates may alter microenvironments in addition to bone, thereby preventing tumor cell invasion and migration. 3.3. Effects of bisphosphonates on disseminated/circulating tumor cells and the premetastatic niche in the bone marrow Bisphosphonates have a prolonged half-life in the skeleton [56], making them ideally suited in their potential role to target the quiescent or minimally proliferative DTCs surviving in the bone microenvironment. Notably, in preclinical and translational studies, bisphosphonates have been shown

241

to affect practically every component of the premetastatic niche in the bone marrow. In addition to their well-established activity for inducing osteoclast apoptosis, bisphosphonates have also been reported to reduce proliferation of circulating endothelial cells, induce apoptosis in CEPs [84], and decrease proliferation and expression of key adhesion molecules in bone marrow stromal cells [25]. Bisphosphonates can also reduce MSC migration and inhibit their production of RANTES, thereby indirectly inhibiting breast cancer cell motility and invasion [30]. Preclinical data also support a potential role for bisphosphonates in modulating antitumor immune responses through improving the ability of dendritic cells to stimulate innate and adaptive immune responses [85] and through sensitizing CSCs to the cytotoxic effects of gamma-delta T cells [86]. At low doses, bisphosphonates can also inhibit differentiation of circulating endothelial cells and CEPs [84], as well as modulate osteoblast RANKL and osteoprotegerin expression, thereby indirectly influencing osteoclast activity [87]. Furthermore, the potential anticancer effects of bisphosphonates might be cell-cycle independent [88]. In 4 separate trials in patients receiving adjuvant therapy for high-risk breast cancer, the addition of zoledronic acid reduced DTC number and persistence and increased DTC clearance from bone marrow, compared with adjuvant therapy alone (Table 3) [88–91]. In these studies, fewer patients with DTCs at baseline had persistent DTCs detectable after 3–24 months on treatment [88–91]. This effect of zoledronic acid is especially important in view of studies showing that DTC persistence during therapy is strongly correlated with the risk of early relapse in breast cancer [41,42]. It is, however, unclear whether DTC effects of zoledronic acid are direct cytotoxic/proapoptotic effects on the “seed” (i.e., the DTC), or whether they are mediated indirectly by altering the “soil” (i.e., the bone marrow microenvironment) to be less conducive to DTC survival. Although the relationship between DTCs and bone metastases is relatively straightforward, it is important to note that the role of DTCs in metastasis is not limited to bone—CTCs and DTCs play a role in the development of all types of metastases (including re-seeding the tissue of origin of the primary tumor) (Fig. 2) [14,15]. Therefore, the effects of zoledronic acid on DTCs may also contribute to reduced disease recurrences in extraskeletal sites, as observed in the ABCSG-12 and ZO-FAST trials (Table 2) [8,9]. In these studies, the addition of zoledronic acid to endocrine therapy helped prevent locoregional recurrences, contralateral breast cancers, and skin, brain, and visceral metastases, in addition to preventing bone metastases (Table 2) [8,9]. Moreover, the improved response rates with zoledronic acid in the MRC Myeloma IX trial may be analogous to its effects on DTCs—because complete responses (CRs) and very good partial responses (VGPRs) in multiple myeloma are defined as absence of myeloma cells in bone marrow biopsies, zoledronic acid may have exerted direct anticancer effects on the myeloma cells, as well as indirect effects on the bone microenvironment, to elicit additional CRs and VGPRs in this study [10].

242

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

Table 3 Effect of ZOL on DTC levels in clinical trials. Study Aft et al. [89] Lin et al. [90] Rack et al. [88] Solomayer et al. [91]

Patients, N 120 45 172 76

ZOL dose

Effect of ZOL on DTCs

4 mg q 3 weeks × 1 year 4 mg q 1 month × 2 years 4 mg q 1 month × 6 months 4 mg q 1 month × 2 years

↓ % pts DTC+ at 3 months (p = .054) versus no ZOL ZOL ↓ DTCs at 24 months (p = .01) versus baseline ↓ % pts DTC+ at 6 months (p = .099) versus no ZOL ↓ % pts DTC+ at 12 months (p = .009) versus no ZOL

Abbreviations: DTC, disseminated tumor cell; ZOL, zoledronic acid.

3.4. Other potential anticancer effects of bisphosphonates A large body of preclinical evidence supports the potential of bisphosphonates to inhibit tumor growth and metastasis in a variety of malignancies [92–100]. Both indirect and direct anticancer mechanisms of action have been observed in preclinical studies of bisphosphonates. Some indirect mechanisms, such as effects on angiogenesis and modulation of the immune system by nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates, have already been discussed. Other indirect effects include inhibition of bone-derived growth factors [101,102], inhibition of matrix metalloproteinase production and macrophage infiltration in tumor stroma (thereby decreasing angiogenesis and increasing tumor necrosis) [31,103], and uptake of bisphosphonates by monocytes (suggesting that tumors could be exposed to bisphosphonates via infiltrating neutrophils) [104]. In addition to indirect anticancer mechanisms, direct mechanisms of action also have been observed in preclinical studies of bisphosphonates. Some direct anticancer mechanisms include direct inhibition of cell proliferation and viability, induction of apoptosis, impaired angiogenesis, interference with cancer cell invasion and adhesion, and cytotoxic or proapoptotic synergy with anticancer therapies [93–100,105–113]. It is also possible that enhanced anticancer activity in combination therapies involving bisphosphonates might result from alterations in distribution and uptake of these agents. For example, in a recent series of experiments evaluating the effects of sequential treatment with doxorubicin and zoledronic acid in a mouse model of breast cancer, Ottewell et al. showed that treatment with the chemotherapeutic agent followed by zoledronic acid resulted in accumulation of unprenylated Rap1A (a surrogate marker for zoledronic acid) in mammary tumors, an effect not observed in animals receiving bisphosphonate alone [98]. Although a large proportion of the preclinical evidence for anticancer activities of bisphosphonates stems from studies in animal models of breast or prostate cancer (the classic, bone-tropic solid tumors) [95–98,111,112], it should be noted that bisphosphonates (especially zoledronic acid) have also demonstrated promising anticancer activity in preclinical mouse models of multiple myeloma and aggressive solid tumors such as lung cancer [24,107,114–118]. In the clinical setting, data from the neoadjuvant subset of the ongoing AZURE trial, as well as a smaller phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without zole-

dronic acid [89], demonstrate a potential direct anticancer effect of zoledronic acid in breast cancer. In 205 women who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the AZURE trial, the addition of zoledronic acid reduced the mean residual invasive tumor size by approximately 44% compared with chemotherapy alone (15.5 mm versus 27.4 mm; p = .006) [119]. Additionally, patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy with zoledronic acid had an approximately 2-fold higher rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (11.7% versus 6.9%) [119]. Similar improvements were observed in a phase II trial in 120 women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy—pCR rates were higher in patients receiving zoledronic acid (28%) versus standard treatment alone (10%) in the subset of women with ER− /HER-2− tumors [89]. However, after a median follow-up of 61.9 months, the OS (p = .92) and DFS (p = .88) in the overall population were similar in the zoledronic acid and no zoledronic acid treatment groups [120]. Although there was no survival benefit with zoledronic acid in the overall population, zoledronic acid may improve OS and DFS in patients with ER− /HER-2− tumors, the subset that also showed the largest improvement in pCR rates with the addition of zoledronic acid to neoadjuvant chemotherapy [89].

4. Implications for the future of bisphosphonates as potential anticancer agents The promising results with zoledronic acid for the prevention of disease recurrence in breast cancer and multiple myeloma are yet to be duplicated on a similar scale in other cancer types or with other bisphosphonates. Ongoing phase III clinical trials are evaluating the anticancer potential of zoledronic acid in patients with prostate cancer and nonsmall cell lung cancer (without skeletal involvement), and the results are awaited. Similarly, a large number of ongoing clinical trials are evaluating the effects of other bisphosphonates (clodronate and ibandronate) in the adjuvant therapy setting for breast cancer [121]. Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody against RANKL, was recently approved in the United States for the reduction of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors, but not in patients with multiple myeloma [122]. The specificity of denosumab for primate RANKL has resulted in considerable challenges for evaluating the effects of this novel agent in preclinical models (predominantly mouse). Therefore, preclinical data suggesting possible effects of denosumab on the course of

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

243

Table 4 Effect of ZOL (4 mg q 3–4 weeks) on clinical outcomes in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. Study Zaghloul et al. [129]

Patients, N 40

Setting

Result

Bladder cancer

↑ 1-year OS rate (36 ± 11% versus 0% PBO; p = .004) ↓ SRE incidence (54% versus PBO; p = .001) ↑ OS (median 578 d versus 384 d for no-ZOL; p < .001) ↑ TTP (median 265 d versus 150 d; p < .001) ↑ OS (median 34 versus 19 weeks for no-ZOL; p = .01)

Zarogoulidis et al. [130]

144

Lung cancer

Calderone et al. [131]

168

Lung cancer

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; PBO, placebo; SRE, skeletal-related event; TTP, time to progression (of disease).

cancer are based on extrapolation from studies evaluating the role of the RANKL pathway in cancer progression rather than any direct evidence for the role of denosumab [123–125]. Currently, denosumab is being evaluated for its potential to prevent disease recurrence in early stage breast and prostate cancers. The potential of denosumab in multiple myeloma is uncertain at present—in a phase III head-to-head trial versus zoledronic acid (N = 1776), the 2 agents demonstrated similar levels of activity for reducing the risk of skeletal morbidity [126]. However, denosumab was associated with higher rates of on-study mortality compared with zoledronic acid (26% versus 14%, respectively; HR = 2.26; 95% CI: 1.13, 4.50) in the subset of patients with multiple myeloma (n = 180) [122,126]. Further studies are therefore needed to establish the safety and evaluate the therapeutic potential of denosumab in multiple myeloma. In a pilot trial in patients with advanced solid tumors without bone metastases (N = 40), the addition of zoledronic acid to standard antineoplastic therapy resulted in delayed development of bone metastases (only 5% of patients in the control group were bone-metastases-free at 18 months’ follow-up,

versus 20% in the group receiving zoledronic acid; p = .0002) [127]. In contrast, in a phase II trial in patients with advanced lung cancer (n = 98; re-randomized to receive zoledronic acid or not if they responded to treatment with 6 cycles of chemotherapy + zoledronic acid), additional treatment with zoledronic acid post-chemotherapy had no significant effect on disease progression [128]. However, small clinical trials and retrospective database analyses in patients with bone metastases from lung cancer or bladder cancer demonstrate improved survival and delayed disease progression with zoledronic acid treatment (Table 4) [129–132]. Taken together with cancer-type-specific differences in the importance of DTCs in bone marrow for disease progression and relapse (Table 1) [40,42–52], these results suggest that the greatest likelihood of an anticancer benefit with bisphosphonates is in malignancies where the bone marrow plays a central role in facilitating the prolonged survival of DTCs, as well as the subsequent activation of proliferation of these cells to form metastases (Fig. 5). In contrast, in the bone metastatic cancer setting, cancer-bone interactions are already established. Therefore, the use of antiresorptives not only helps disrupt the

Fig. 5. Zoledronic acid (ZOL) might inhibit metastasis of solid tumors to bone and other organs.

244

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

vicious cycle of cancer cell proliferation and bone destruction, but also may exert anticancer effects on the cancer cells in bone (depending on the specific agent used and its properties). An added advantage of bisphosphonates stems from the fact that they have now been used for well over a decade in a broad variety of patients—although most clinical trials of bisphosphonates (whether in the bone metastasis setting or in early stage cancer) were not designed specifically for geriatric populations, they have necessarily included substantial proportions of older patients because of increased cancer prevalence in the elderly. Moreover, age, in itself, is not a contraindication for bisphosphonate treatment—the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) recommends the use of bisphosphonates to reduce the risk of SREs in elderly patients with bone metastases [133]. As a result, there is considerable clinical experience with bisphosphonates in older patients, and their tolerability is established; moreover, it is likely that the observed clinical anticancer benefits would translate well in this expanding population [134]. Consistent with this possibility, the largest benefit observed with zoledronic acid treatment in the AZURE trial was in older patients (Table 2) [74], further supporting the likelihood of clinical benefit regardless of a patient’s age. Overall, the available data suggest that bisphosphonates may be most useful for the prevention of cancer recurrence and/or progression in settings where their effects on cancer cells and bone combine to reduce disease burden beyond the reduction achieved by action on either component alone.

5. Conclusions 5.1. Modifying the bone microenvironment may be critical for preventing metastasis Dissemination of cancer cells from a solid tumor is typically an early event. However, the process of metastasis requires the successful completion of a number of steps, any one of which can be rate limiting. As a result, the metastatic process is highly inefficient, and only a tiny proportion of the cells disseminated from the site of primary malignancy will ultimately form metastases. The ability to form metastases is acquired as a result of selective pressures, including interactions with and adaptations to the microenvironment, escaping immunosurveillance, and forming the necessary cell–cell interactions at the metastatic site. An important feature of DTCs and CTCs is their ability to remain dormant or quiescent for a prolonged period (allowing them to evade the cytotoxic and proapoptotic effects of anticancer therapy) before reactivation and metastasis formation in a supportive environment. The skeleton plays a key role in supporting metastasis of a variety of cancer types—as a main site of metastasis, as a sanctuary for DTCs during therapy, and as a source of growth factors and supportive cells. Bisphosphonates have a high affinity for bone, and therefore they provide a potential targeted therapy option to reduce DTC

levels and bone marrow-derived components, and to prevent bone metastases. Translational studies in women with high-risk early breast cancer have demonstrated the ability of zoledronic acid to reduce DTC persistence and increase DTC clearance from bone marrow. Additionally, in 2 large phase III clinical trials, combining zoledronic acid with adjuvant endocrine therapy reduced breast cancer recurrence in bone and other sites. Similar anticancer effects of zoledronic acid have also been observed in patients with multiple myeloma. Preclinical evidence and pilot clinical trials suggest that bisphosphonates do not only inhibit cancer cell proliferation in combination with cytotoxic agents, but also may alter the tumor microenvironment (including altering levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors). Ongoing trials are further evaluating the effects of bisphosphonates on cancer progression and recurrence in a variety of malignancies. 5.2. Ongoing clinical trials of bisphosphonates may offer additional mechanistic insights In addition to conventional clinical endpoints such as rates of disease progression and OS, ongoing trials of bisphosphonates also include novel analyses designed to provide insights into underlying mechanisms of action (e.g., biomarker analyses and different treatment schedules). For example, a clinical trial of zoledronic acid in women with metastatic breast cancer (Z-ACT1) will evaluate the effects of zoledronic acid on disease progression in women receiving first- or second-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer without bone metastases. This trial randomizes women to standard therapy (including chemo- and hormonal therapy at the discretion of the treating physician) with or without zoledronic acid (4 mg monthly for 18 months). Accrual of 150 patients per arm is planned. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival; secondary endpoints include the proportion of patients with at least 5 CTCs per 7.5 mL blood during the first 6 months, time to progression, time to bone metastasis, overall survival, changes in bone marker levels and correlation with CTC changes, and pain levels. Outcomes from this trial will provide insights into the potential effects of zoledronic acid on CTCs in a population where the prognostic value of CTCs is established. Moreover, correlations between bone marker levels and CTC levels will provide insight into the potential mechanisms by which increased osteolysis might contribute to cancer progression even before overt bone metastases develop. In summary, bisphosphonates have promising anticancer activity, especially in the adjuvant setting for malignancies in which the skeleton plays a central role in tumor dissemination and metastasis. Ongoing studies are further evaluating the potential adjuvant role of various bisphosphonates. As these trials mature over the next few years, the role of bisphosphonates in oncology will be better defined, and is expected to evolve beyond their current use as supportive care agents in patients with bone metastases.

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

Conflict of interest statement R. Aft has received honoraria from Novartis. J.-R. Perez is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. N. Raje is a consultant and has participated in advisory boards for Novartis, Amgen, and Celgene, and has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Acetylon. V. Hirsh has participated in advisory boards for Novartis and Amgen. F. Saad has received research funding, attended advisory board meetings, and received honoraria for speaking on behalf of Novartis Oncology.

[11]

[12] [13]

[14] [15] [16]

Reviewers Daniele Santini, M.D., Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University Campus Bio-Medico, Medical Oncology, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 200, I-00128 Rome, Italy. Penelope D. Ottewell, M.D., School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Sheffield, Academic Unit of Clinical Oncology, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, United Kingdom.

[17] [18]

[19]

[20]

Acknowledgments Financial support for medical editorial assistance was provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. We thank Shalini Murthy, PhD, ProEd Communications, Inc.® , for her medical editorial assistance with this manuscript.

[21] [22]

References [1] Garcia M, Jemal A, Ward EM, et al. Global cancer facts & figures, 2007. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2007. [2] Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010;127:2893–917. [3] American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures, 2010. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2010. [4] Fidler IJ. The pathogenesis of cancer metastasis: the ‘seed and soil’ hypothesis revisited. Nat Rev Cancer 2003;3:453–8. [5] Coleman RE. Adjuvant bisphosphonates in breast cancer: are we witnessing the emergence of a new therapeutic strategy? Eur J Cancer 2009;45:1909–15. [6] Musolino A, Ciccolallo L, Panebianco M, et al. Multifactorial central nervous system recurrence susceptibility in patients with HER2positive breast cancer: epidemiological and clinical data from a population-based cancer registry study. Cancer 2011;117:1837–46. [7] Paget S. The distribution of secondary growths in cancer of the breast. Lancet 1889;133:571–3. [8] Eidtmann H, de Boer R, Bundred N, et al. Efficacy of zoledronic acid in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant letrozole: 36-month results of the ZO-FAST study. Ann Oncol 2010;21:2188–94. [9] Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Schippinger W, et al. Endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2009;360:679–91. [10] Morgan GJ, Davies FE, Gregory WM, et al. First-line treatment with zoledronic acid as compared with clodronic acid in multiple

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

245

myeloma (MRC Myeloma IX): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010;376:1989–99. Timar J, Csuka O, Orosz Z, Jeney A, Kopper L. Molecular pathology of tumor metastasis. I. Predictive pathology. Pathol Oncol Res 2001;7:217–30. Mundy GR. Metastasis to bone: causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer 2002;2:584–93. Eyles J, Puaux AL, Wang X, et al. Tumor cells disseminate early, but immunosurveillance limits metastatic outgrowth, in a mouse model of melanoma. J Clin Invest 2010;120:2030–9. Kim MY, Oskarsson T, Acharyya S, et al. Tumor self-seeding by circulating cancer cells. Cell 2009;139:1315–26. Coghlin C, Murray GI. Current and emerging concepts in tumour metastasis. J Pathol 2010;222:1–15. Bellahcene A, Bachelier R, Detry C, Lidereau R, Clezardin P, Castronovo V. Transcriptome analysis reveals an osteoblast-like phenotype for human osteotropic breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007;101:135–48. Rucci N, Teti A. Osteomimicry: how tumor cells try to deceive the bone. Front Biosci (Schol Ed) 2010;2:907–15. Zayzafoon M, Abdulkadir SA, McDonald JM. Notch signaling and ERK activation are important for the osteomimetic properties of prostate cancer bone metastatic cell lines. J Biol Chem 2004;279:3662–70. Lipton A. Pathophysiology of bone metastases: how this knowledge may lead to therapeutic intervention. J Support Oncol 2004;2:205–13 [discussion 13–4, 16–7, 19–20]. Padalecki SS. Prostate cancer metastases to bone: role of high bone turnover induced by androgen deprivation. Annual Report ADA407345. Fort Belvoir, VA: Defense Technical Information Center; 2002. p. 1–21. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD= ADA407345&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf [accessed 8.11.2010]. Terpos E, Dimopoulos MA. Myeloma bone disease: pathophysiology and management. Ann Oncol 2005;16:1223–31. Meads MB, Hazlehurst LA, Dalton WS. The bone marrow microenvironment as a tumor sanctuary and contributor to drug resistance. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:2519–26. Shiozawa Y, Havens AM, Pienta KJ, Taichman RS. The bone marrow niche: habitat to hematopoietic and mesenchymal stem cells, and unwitting host to molecular parasites. Leukemia 2008;22:941–50. Corso A, Ferretti E, Lazzarino M. Zoledronic acid exerts its antitumor effect in multiple myeloma interfering with the bone marrow microenvironment. Hematology 2005;10:215–24. Corso A, Ferretti E, Lunghi M, et al. Zoledronic acid downregulates adhesion molecules of bone marrow stromal cells in multiple myeloma: a possible mechanism for its antitumor effect. Cancer 2005;104:118–25. Shaked Y, Voest EE. Bone marrow derived cells in tumor angiogenesis and growth: are they the good, the bad or the evil? Biochim Biophys Acta 2009;1796:1–4. Li Calzi S, Neu MB, Shaw LC, Kielczewski JL, Moldovan NI, Grant MB. EPCs and pathological angiogenesis: when good cells go bad. Microvasc Res 2010;79:207–16. Kimura T, Kuwata T, Ashimine S, et al. Targeting of bone-derived insulin-like growth factor-II by a human neutralizing antibody suppresses the growth of prostate cancer cells in a human bone environment. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:121–9. Araki K, Sangai T, Miyamoto S, et al. Inhibition of bone-derived insulin-like growth factors by a ligand-specific antibody suppresses the growth of human multiple myeloma in the human adult bone explanted in NOD/SCID mouse. Int J Cancer 2006;118: 2602–8. Normanno N, Gallo M, Lamura L, De Luca A. Effect of zoledronic acid acts on the interaction between mesenchymal stem cells and breast cancer cells within the bone microenvironment. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(Suppl.) [abstract 10602].

246

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

[31] Coscia M, Quaglino E, Iezzi M, et al. Zoledronic acid repolarizes tumour-associated macrophages and inhibits mammary carcinogenesis by targeting the mevalonate pathway. J Cell Mol Med 2010;14:2803–15. [32] Welsh TJ, Green RH, Richardson D, Waller DA, O’Byrne KJ, Bradding P. Macrophage and mast-cell invasion of tumor cell islets confers a marked survival advantage in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8959–67. [33] Allgayer H, Aguirre-Ghiso JA. The urokinase receptor (u-PAR)—a link between tumor cell dormancy and minimal residual disease in bone marrow? APMIS 2008;116:602–14. [34] Muller V, Stahmann N, Riethdorf S, et al. Circulating tumor cells in breast cancer: correlation to bone marrow micrometastases, heterogeneous response to systemic therapy and low proliferative activity. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:3678–85. [35] Suzuki M, Mose ES, Montel V, Tarin D. Dormant cancer cells retrieved from metastasis-free organs regain tumorigenic and metastatic potency. Am J Pathol 2006;169:673–81. [36] van der Pluijm G. Epithelial plasticity, cancer stem cells and bone metastasis formation. Bone 2011;48:37–43. [37] Reuben JM, Lee BN, Gao H, et al. Primary breast cancer patients with high risk clinicopathologic features have high percentages of bone marrow epithelial cells with ALDH activity and CD44(+)CD24(lo) cancer stem cell phenotype. Eur J Cancer 2011, doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2011.01.011. February 18 [Epub ahead of print]. [38] Watson MA, Ylagan LR, Trinkaus KM, et al. Isolation and molecular profiling of bone marrow micrometastases identifies TWIST1 as a marker of early tumor relapse in breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:5001–9. [39] Liu S, Ginestier C, Ou SJ, et al. Breast cancer stem cells are regulated by mesenchymal stem cells through cytokine networks. Cancer Res 2011;71:614–24. [40] Braun S, Vogl FD, Naume B, et al. A pooled analysis of bone marrow micrometastasis in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353: 793–802. [41] Schindlbeck C, Kampik T, Janni W, et al. Prognostic relevance of disseminated tumor cells in the bone marrow and biological factors of 265 primary breast carcinomas. Breast Cancer Res 2005;7:R1174–85. [42] Janni W, Wiedswang G, Fehm T, et al. Persistence of disseminated tumor cells (DTC) in bone marrow (BM) during follow-up predicts increased risk of relapse—up-date of the pooled European data. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006;100(Suppl. 1):S11 [abstract 18]. [43] Berg A, Berner A, Lilleby W, et al. Impact of disseminated tumor cells in bone marrow at diagnosis in patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated by definitive radiotherapy. Int J Cancer 2007;120:1603–9. [44] Brunsvig PF, Flatmark K, Aamdal S, et al. Bone marrow micrometastases in advanced stage non-small cell lung carcinoma patients. Lung Cancer 2008;61:170–6. [45] Garcia JA, Rosenberg JE, Weinberg V, et al. Evaluation and significance of circulating epithelial cells in patients with hormonerefractory prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007;99:519–24. [46] Kollermann J, Weikert S, Schostak M, et al. Prognostic significance of disseminated tumor cells in the bone marrow of prostate cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant hormone treatment. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:4928–33. [47] Morgan TM, Lange PH, Porter MP, et al. Disseminated tumor cells in prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy and without evidence of disease predicts biochemical recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:677–83. [48] Passlick B, Kubuschok B, Izbicki JR, Thetter O, Pantel K. Isolated tumor cells in bone marrow predicts reduced survival in lymph nodenegative non-small-cell lung cancer. Pneumologie 2000;54:355–60. [49] Sugio K, Kase S, Sakada T, et al. Micrometastasis in the bone marrow of patients with lung cancer associated with a reduced expression of Ecadherin and beta-catenin: risk assessment by immunohistochemistry. Surgery 2002;131:S226–31.

[50] Bidard FC, Kirova YM, Vincent-Salomon A, et al. Disseminated tumor cells and the risk of locoregional recurrence in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009;20:1836–41. [51] Bidard FC, Vincent-Salomon A, Sigal-Zafrani B, et al. Prognosis of women with stage IV breast cancer depends on detection of circulating tumor cells rather than disseminated tumor cells. Ann Oncol 2008;19:496–500. [52] Cristofanilli M, Hayes DF, Budd GT, et al. Circulating tumor cells: a novel prognostic factor for newly diagnosed metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:1420–30. [53] Green JR. Chemical and biological prerequisites for novel bisphosphonate molecules: results of comparative preclinical studies. Semin Oncol 2001;28:4–10. [54] Kavanagh KL, Guo K, Dunford JE, et al. The molecular mechanism of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates as antiosteoporosis drugs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006;103:7829–34. [55] Rondeau JM, Bitsch F, Bourgier E, et al. Structural basis for the exceptional in vivo efficacy of bisphosphonate drugs. ChemMedChem 2006;1:267–73. [56] Russell RG. Bisphosphonates: mode of action and pharmacology. Pediatrics 2007;119(Suppl. 2):S150–62. [57] Frith JC, Monkkonen J, Blackburn GM, Russell RG, Rogers MJ. Clodronate and liposome-encapsulated clodronate are metabolized to a toxic ATP analog, adenosine 5 -(beta, gamma-dichloromethylene) triphosphate, by mammalian cells in vitro. J Bone Miner Res 1997;12:1358–67. [58] Luckman SP, Hughes DE, Coxon FP, Graham R, Russell G, Rogers MJ. Nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates inhibit the mevalonate pathway and prevent post-translational prenylation of GTP-binding proteins, including Ras. J Bone Miner Res 1998;13:581–9. [59] Monkkonen H, Auriola S, Lehenkari P, et al. A new endogenous ATP analog (ApppI) inhibits the mitochondrial adenine nucleotide translocase (ANT) and is responsible for the apoptosis induced by nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates. Br J Pharmacol 2006;147:437–45. [60] Lipton A. Treatment of bone metastases and bone pain with bisphosphonates. Support Cancer Ther 2007;4:92–100. [61] Coleman RE, Major P, Lipton A, et al. Predictive value of bone resorption and formation markers in cancer patients with bone metastases receiving the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4925–35. [62] Brown JE, Cook RJ, Major P, et al. Bone turnover markers as predictors of skeletal complications in prostate cancer, lung cancer, and other solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:59–69. [63] Terpos E, Berenson J, Cook RJ, Lipton A, Coleman RE. Prognostic variables for survival and skeletal complications in patients with multiple myeloma osteolytic bone disease. Leukemia 2010;24: 1043–9. [64] Lipton A, Cook R, Saad F, et al. Normalization of bone markers is associated with improved survival in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors and elevated bone resorption receiving zoledronic acid. Cancer 2008;113:193–201. [65] Lipton A, Chapman JW, Demers L, et al.Elevated bone resorption predicts shorter recurrence-free survival for bone metastasis in breast cancer. Presented at Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 11th International Conference. 2009 [abstract 244]. [66] Hirsh V, Major PP, Lipton A, et al. Zoledronic acid and survival in patients with metastatic bone disease from lung cancer and elevated markers of osteoclast activity. J Thorac Oncol 2008;3:228–36. [67] Diel IJ, Jaschke A, Solomayer EF, et al. Adjuvant oral clodronate improves the overall survival of primary breast cancer patients with micrometastases to the bone marrow: a long-term follow-up. Ann Oncol 2008;19:2007–11. [68] Powles T, Paterson A, McCloskey E, et al. Reduction in bone relapse and improved survival with oral clodronate for adjuvant treatment of operable breast cancer [ISRCTN83688026]. Breast Cancer Res 2006;8:R13.

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248 [69] Saarto T, Vehmanen L, Virkkunen P, Blomqvist C. Ten-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of adjuvant clodronate treatment in node-positive breast cancer patients. Acta Oncol 2004;43: 650–6. [70] Dearnaley DP, Mason MD, Parmar MK, Sanders K, Sydes MR. Adjuvant therapy with oral sodium clodronate in locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer: long-term overall survival results from the MRC PR04 and PR05 randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:872–6. [71] Brufsky AM, Bosserman LD, Caradonna RR, et al. Zoledronic acid effectively prevents aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant letrozole: Z-FAST study 36-month follow-up results. Clin Breast Cancer 2009;9:77–85. [72] Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Luschin-Ebengreuth G, et al. Adjuvant endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: 5-year follow-up of the ABCSG-12 bone-mineral density substudy. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:840–9. [73] Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Stoeger H, et al. Mature results from ABCSG-12: adjuvant ovarian suppression combined with tamoxifen or anastrozole, alone or in combination with zoledronic acid, in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(Suppl.):75s [abstract 533]. [74] Coleman RE, Thorpe HC, Cameron D, et al. Adjuvant treatment with zoledronic acid in stage II/III breast cancer. The AZURE trial (BIG 01/04). In: Presented at 33rd Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. 2010 [abstract S4–5]. [75] Chlebowski RT, Chen Z, Cauley JA, et al. Oral bisphosphonate use and breast cancer incidence in postmenopausal women. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3582–90. [76] Newcomb PA, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton JM. Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis treatment are associated with reduced breast cancer risk. Br J Cancer 2010;102:799–802. [77] Rennert G, Pinchev M, Rennert HS. Use of bisphosphonates and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3577–81. [78] Santini D, Vincenzi B, Galluzzo S, et al. Repeated intermittent lowdose therapy with zoledronic acid induces an early, sustained, and long-lasting decrease of peripheral vascular endothelial growth factor levels in cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:4482–6. [79] Vincenzi B, Santini D, Dicuonzo G, et al. Zoledronic acid-related angiogenesis modifications and survival in advanced breast cancer patients. J Interferon Cytokine Res 2005;25:144–51. [80] Dieli F, Vermijlen D, Fulfaro F, et al. Targeting human gammadelta T cells with zoledronate and interleukin-2 for immunotherapy of hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Cancer Res 2007;67:7450–7. [81] Kunzmann V, Bauer E, Feurle J, Weissinger F, Tony HP, Wilhelm M. Stimulation of gammadelta T cells by aminobisphosphonates and induction of antiplasma cell activity in multiple myeloma. Blood 2000;96:384–92. [82] Roelofs AJ, Thompson K, Gordon S, Rogers MJ. Molecular mechanisms of action of bisphosphonates: current status. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12:6222s–30s. [83] Benzaid I, Mönkkönen H, Stresing V, et al. Zoledronate-induced IPP/ApppI (phosphoantigen) accumulation in human breast cancer cells correlates with V␥9V␦2 T cell-mediated cancer cell death in vitro and in vivo. Bone 2010;46(Suppl. 1):S43 [abstract 93]. [84] Yamada J, Tsuno NH, Kitayama J, et al. Anti-angiogenic property of zoledronic acid by inhibition of endothelial progenitor cell differentiation. J Surg Res 2009;151:115–20. [85] Fiore F, Castella B, Nuschak B, et al. Enhanced ability of dendritic cells to stimulate innate and adaptive immunity on short-term incubation with zoledronic acid. Blood 2007;110:921–7. [86] Todaro M, D’Asaro M, Caccamo N, et al. Efficient killing of human colon cancer stem cells by gammadelta T lymphocytes. J Immunol 2009;182:7287–96. [87] Pan B, Farrugia AN, To LB, et al. The nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, influences RANKL expression in human

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]

[101]

[102] [103]

[104]

[105]

[106]

247

osteoblast-like cells by activating TNF-alpha converting enzyme (TACE). J Bone Miner Res 2004;19:147–54. Rack B, Juckstock J, Genss EM, et al. Effect of zoledronate on persisting isolated tumour cells in patients with early breast cancer. Anticancer Res 2010;30:1807–13. Aft R, Naughton M, Trinkaus K, et al. Effect of zoledronic acid on disseminated tumour cells in women with locally advanced breast cancer: an open label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:421–8. Lin AY, Park JW, Scott J, et al. Zoledronic acid as adjuvant therapy for women with early stage breast cancer and disseminated tumor cells in bone marrow. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(Suppl.):20s [abstract 559]. Solomayer E, Gebauer G, Hirnle P, et al. Influence of zoledronic acid on disseminated tumor cells (DTC) in primary breast cancer patients. Cancer Res 2009;69(Suppl. 2):170s–1s [abstract 2048]. Corey E, Brown LG, Quinn JE, et al. Zoledronic acid exhibits inhibitory effects on osteoblastic and osteolytic metastases of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:295–306. Daubine F, Le Gall C, Gasser J, Green J, Clezardin P. Antitumor effects of clinical dosing regimens of bisphosphonates in experimental breast cancer bone metastasis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:322–30. Kimura S, Kuroda J, Segawa H, et al. Antiproliferative efficacy of the third-generation bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, combined with other anticancer drugs in leukemic cell lines. Int J Hematol 2004;79:37–43. Ottewell PD, Deux B, Monkkonen H, et al. Differential effect of doxorubicin and zoledronic acid on intraosseous versus extraosseous breast tumor growth in vivo. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:4658–66. Ottewell PD, Lefley DV, Cross SS, Evans CA, Coleman RE, Holen I. Sustained inhibition of tumor growth and prolonged survival following sequential administration of doxorubicin and zoledronic acid in a breast cancer model. Int J Cancer 2010;126:522–32. Ottewell PD, Monkkonen H, Jones M, Lefley DV, Coleman RE, Holen I. Antitumor effects of doxorubicin followed by zoledronic acid in a mouse model of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100: 1167–78. Ottewell PD, Woodward JK, Lefley DV, Evans CA, Coleman RE, Holen I. Anticancer mechanisms of doxorubicin and zoledronic acid in breast cancer tumor growth in bone. Mol Cancer Ther 2009;8:2821–32. Winter MC, Holen I, Coleman RE. Exploring the anti-tumour activity of bisphosphonates in early breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 2008;34:453–75. Yuasa T, Kimura S, Ashihara E, Habuchi T, Maekawa T. Zoledronic acid—a multiplicity of anti-cancer action. Curr Med Chem 2007;14:2126–35. McAllister SS, Gifford AM, Greiner AL, et al. Systemic endocrine instigation of indolent tumor growth requires osteopontin. Cell 2008;133:994–1005. McAllister SS, Weinberg RA. Tumor–host interactions: a far-reaching relationship. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4022–8. Melani C, Sangaletti S, Barazzetta FM, Werb Z, Colombo MP. Aminobiphosphonate-mediated MMP-9 inhibition breaks the tumor–bone marrow axis responsible for myeloid-derived suppressor cell expansion and macrophage infiltration in tumor stroma. Cancer Res 2007;67:11438–46. Roelofs AJ, Coxon FP, Ebetino FH, et al. Fluorescent risedronate analogues reveal bisphosphonate uptake by bone marrow monocytes and localization around osteocytes in vivo. J Bone Miner Res 2010;25:606–16. Clezardin P, Ebetino FH, Fournier PG. Bisphosphonates and cancerinduced bone disease: beyond their antiresorptive activity. Cancer Res 2005;65:4971–4. Coxon JP, Oades GM, Kirby RS, Colston KW. Zoledronic acid induces apoptosis and inhibits adhesion to mineralized matrix in prostate cancer cells via inhibition of protein prenylation. BJU Int 2004;94:164–70.

248

R. Aft et al. / Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 82 (2012) 233–248

[107] Croucher PI, De Hendrik R, Perry MJ, et al. Zoledronic acid treatment of 5T2MM-bearing mice inhibits the development of myeloma bone disease: evidence for decreased osteolysis, tumor burden and angiogenesis, and increased survival. J Bone Miner Res 2003;18:482–92. [108] Denoyelle C, Hong L, Vannier JP, Soria J, Soria C. New insights into the actions of bisphosphonate zoledronic acid in breast cancer cells by dual RhoA-dependent and -independent effects. Br J Cancer 2003;88:1631–40. [109] Jagdev SP, Coleman RE, Shipman CM, Rostami HA, Croucher PI. The bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, induces apoptosis of breast cancer cells: evidence for synergy with paclitaxel. Br J Cancer 2001;84:1126–34. [110] Kuroda J, Kimura S, Segawa H, et al. The third-generation bisphosphonate zoledronate synergistically augments the anti-Ph+ leukemia activity of imatinib mesylate. Blood 2003;102:2229–35. [111] Neville-Webbe HL, Coleman RE, Holen I. Combined effects of the bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid and the aromatase inhibitor letrozole on breast cancer cells in vitro: evidence of synergistic interaction. Br J Cancer 2010;102:1010–7. [112] Neville-Webbe HL, Rostami-Hodjegan A, Evans CA, Coleman RE, Holen I. Sequence- and schedule-dependent enhancement of zoledronic acid induced apoptosis by doxorubicin in breast and prostate cancer cells. Int J Cancer 2005;113:364–71. [113] Michailidou M, Brown HK, Lefley DV, et al. Microvascular endothelial cell responses in vitro and in vivo: modulation by zoledronic acid and paclitaxel? J Vasc Res 2010;47:481–93. [114] Li YY, Chang JW, Chou WC, et al. Zoledronic acid is unable to induce apoptosis, but slows tumor growth and prolongs survival for non-small-cell lung cancers. Lung Cancer 2008;59:180–91. [115] Lu S, Zhang J, Zhou Z, et al. Synergistic inhibitory activity of zoledronate and paclitaxel on bone metastasis in nude mice. Oncol Rep 2008;20:581–7. [116] Lawson MA, Ashcroft J, Croucher PI. Bisphosphonate therapy in the treatment of multiple myeloma. Curr Pharm Des 2010;16:3028–36. [117] Guenther A, Gordon S, Tiemann M, et al. The bisphosphonate zoledronic acid has antimyeloma activity in vivo by inhibition of protein prenylation. Int J Cancer 2010;126:239–46. [118] Guise TA. Antitumor effects of bisphosphonates: promising preclinical evidence. Cancer Treat Rev 2008;34(Suppl. 1):S19–24. [119] Coleman RE, Winter MC, Cameron D, et al. The effects of adding zoledronic acid to neoadjuvant chemotherapy on tumour response: exploratory evidence for direct anti-tumour activity in breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2010;102:1099–105. [120] Aft R, Naughton M, Trinkaus K, Weilbacher K. Effect of zoledronic acid on disease-free survival and overall survival in women with clinical stage II/III undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Cancer Res 2010;70(Suppl. 1):458s–9s [abstract P6-14-04]. [121] Lipton A. Should bisphosphonates be utilized in the adjuvant setting for breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;122:627–36. [122] XgevaTM [package insert]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Amgen, Inc.; 2010. [123] Canon J, Bryant R, Roudier M, et al. Inhibition of RANKL increases the anti-tumor effect of the EGFR inhibitor panitumumab in a murine model of bone metastasis. Bone 2010;46:1613–9. [124] Odero-Marah VA, Wang R, Chu G, et al. Receptor activator of NFkappaB Ligand (RANKL) expression is associated with epithelial to mesenchymal transition in human prostate cancer cells. Cell Res 2008;18:858–70. [125] Wilson TJ, Nannuru KC, Futakuchi M, Sadanandam A, Singh RK. Cathepsin G enhances mammary tumor-induced osteolysis by generating soluble receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand. Cancer Res 2008;68:5803–11. [126] Henry DH, Costa L, Goldwasser F, et al. Randomized, double-blind study of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in the treatment of bone

[127]

[128]

[129]

[130]

[131]

[132]

[133]

[134]

metastases in patients with advanced cancer (excluding breast and prostate cancer) or multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1125–32. Mystakidou K, Katsouda E, Parpa E, Kelekis A, Galanos A, Vlahos L. Randomized, open label, prospective study on the effect of zoledronic acid on the prevention of bone metastases in patients with recurrent solid tumors that did not present with bone metastases at baseline. Med Oncol 2005;22:195–201. Pandya KJ, Gajra A, Warsi GM, Argonza-Aviles E, Ericson SG, Wozniak AJ. Multicenter, randomized, phase 2 study of zoledronic acid in combination with docetaxel and carboplatin in patients with unresectable stage IIIB or stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2010;67:330–8. Zaghloul MS, Boutrus R, El-Hossieny H, Kader YA, El-Attar I, Nazmy M. A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of zoledronic acid in bony metastatic bladder cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2010;15:382–9. Zarogoulidis K, Boutsikou E, Zarogoulidis P, et al. The impact of zoledronic acid therapy in survival of lung cancer patients with bone metastasis. Int J Cancer 2009;125:1705–9. Calderone RG, Nimako K, Leary AN, Popat S, Kipps E, O’Brien MN. Use of zoledronic acid in lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2010;5(Suppl. 1):S99–100 [abstract 253P]. Karamanos N, Zarogoulidis K, Boutsikou E, Zarogoulidis P, Kontakiotis T. Prolonged survival and time to disease progression with zoledronic acid in patients with bone metastases from non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(Suppl.) [abstract e18077]. Body JJ, Coleman R, Clezardin P, Ripamonti C, Rizzoli R, Aapro M. International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) clinical practice recommendations for the use of bisphosphonates in elderly patients. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:852–8. Santini D, Fratto ME, Galluzzo S, Vincenzi B, Tonini G. Are bisphosphonates the suitable anticancer drugs for the elderly? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2009;69:83–94.

Biography Rebecca L. Aft, M.D., Ph.D., is associate professor of surgery in the Division of General Surgery Cancer at Washington University in St. Louis, MO. After obtaining her Ph.D. from the McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, WI, Dr. Aft earned her M.D. from the medical school at Washington University in St. Louis. She completed a residency in surgery at Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and then joined the faculty at Washington University; Dr. Aft is currently on staff at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and the John Cochran Veterans Administration Hospital in St. Louis. Dr. Aft’s current research interest is in assessing the effect of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates on the clearance of disseminated tumor cells from the bone marrow in women undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer and delineating genes and regulatory pathways associated with disseminated tumor cells. She has been an investigator in several clinical studies on disseminated breast cancer cells and early stage breast cancer. Dr. Aft’s areas of clinical interest include breast oncology, melanoma, and general surgery.