Validity of bone marker measurements for monitoring response to bisphosphonate therapy with zoledronic acid in metastatic breast cancer

  • Authors:
    • Bahriye Aktas
    • Sabine Kasimir-Bauer
    • Nils Lehmann
    • Rainer Kimmig
    • Mitra Tewes
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: April 22, 2013     https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2013.2409
  • Pages: 441-447
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Bone is the most common site of metastasis in breast cancer. Detection relies on imaging technology which is costly and can only be performed to a certain degree. Bone markers are non-invasive, inexpensive and may potentially serve as predictive and prognostic surrogate endpoints in detecting bone metastases and response to bisphosphonates. This study analyzed the value of the serum bone turnover markers PINP and ICTP for bone metastases in metastatic breast cancer patients receiving zoledronic acid. The results were compared with the serum levels of CEA and CA 15-3, and analyzed with respect to the number of bone metastases as well as clinical response. Forty patients with confirmed bone metastases who received chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy and zoledronic acid i.v. q4 weeks participated in the present study. blood (5 ml) was collected at the start of the study and q3 months for a period of one year for the analysis of PINP, ICTP, CEA and CA 15-3 using radioimmunoassays and ELISA, respectively. Imaging of bone metastases was performed at the same time points. In 29 out of 40 patients, more than 3 bone metastases were confirmed by imaging and 11 out of 40 patients presented with 3 or less. At the start of the study, the median value for ICTP was 6 µg/l and for PINP 58.7 µg/l. At the end of the study the median values were 4.5 µg/l for ICTP and 21 µg/l for PINP. When patients were stratified into responders and non-responders, a decrease in both PINP (P<0.0001) and ICTP (P=0.048) was observed for the responders, while the level of ICTP (P=0.02) increased for the non-responders. Serum PINP and ICTP concentrations were significantly different when patients were stratified into groups of those having more than 3 bone metastases and 3 or less, respectively (P<0.05). CEA and CA 15-3 levels did not differ with respect to the number of bone metastases, while the tumor marker levels determined at the end of the study significantly distinguished responders from non-responders (P=0.002 and P=0.004). In conclusion, in contrast to serum tumor markers, the determination of PINP and ICTP allows inferences to the number of bone metastases and appears to be a useful tool for prediction and monitoring metastatic breast cancer patients undergoing bisphosphonate therapy with zoledronic acid for the treatment of bone metastases.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

July 2013
Volume 30 Issue 1

Print ISSN: 1021-335X
Online ISSN:1791-2431

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Aktas B, Kasimir-Bauer S, Lehmann N, Kimmig R and Tewes M: Validity of bone marker measurements for monitoring response to bisphosphonate therapy with zoledronic acid in metastatic breast cancer. Oncol Rep 30: 441-447, 2013
APA
Aktas, B., Kasimir-Bauer, S., Lehmann, N., Kimmig, R., & Tewes, M. (2013). Validity of bone marker measurements for monitoring response to bisphosphonate therapy with zoledronic acid in metastatic breast cancer. Oncology Reports, 30, 441-447. https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2013.2409
MLA
Aktas, B., Kasimir-Bauer, S., Lehmann, N., Kimmig, R., Tewes, M."Validity of bone marker measurements for monitoring response to bisphosphonate therapy with zoledronic acid in metastatic breast cancer". Oncology Reports 30.1 (2013): 441-447.
Chicago
Aktas, B., Kasimir-Bauer, S., Lehmann, N., Kimmig, R., Tewes, M."Validity of bone marker measurements for monitoring response to bisphosphonate therapy with zoledronic acid in metastatic breast cancer". Oncology Reports 30, no. 1 (2013): 441-447. https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2013.2409