Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of Bisphosphonates and Denosumab on Risk of Vertebral Fractures in Prostate Cancer Patients Under Androgen Deprivation Therapies: A Real-World Prospective Study

Piasentier A, Birtolo MF, Turci B, Vena W, Fanti A, Morenghi E, Gentile LM, Balzarini L et al.

Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, 2026

153 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This prospective study investigated the real-world effectiveness of bisphosphonates and denosumab in reducing vertebral fracture (VF) risk induced by androgen deprivation therapies (ADTs).

METHODS: Two hundred twenty-six consecutive men (mean age 74.8 ± 6.9 years) undergoing ADT were evaluated for morphometric VFs at baseline and after 26.1 ± 10.7 months of follow-up (range 18-64). Following enrollment, 153 patients commenced bisphosphonates (98 cases) or denosumab (55 cases), while 73 patients (32.3%) received only vitamin D and calcium supplementation. As an additional control group, we enrolled 62 consecutive men (mean age 74.9 ± 7.2 years) under chronic ADTs who had been neither evaluated nor treated for skeletal fragility before study entry.

RESULTS: Incident VFs were found in 16 of 226 (7.1%) patients enrolled in the prospective study and in 18 of 62 (29.0%) control subjects (P < .001). The risk of VFs was significantly lower in patients treated with bone-active drugs as compared to those treated with vitamin D (hazard ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.73; P = .01), without significant difference between denosumab and bisphosphonate treatment (P = .423), although denosumab-treated patients had lower bone mineral density, higher serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen values, and more prevalent VFs. Noteworthy, incident VFs were significantly lower in patients receiving vitamin D with calcium as compared to those subjects under chronic ADT who had never been…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 153 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free