Evidence Hub

Effectiveness and safety of bone protective interventions to mitigate bone loss and skeletal fractures experienced by patients with non-metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Quinn MJ, Williams B, Crotti TN, Bowen JM

Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2026

11 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) and skeletal fractures are potential consequences of anticancer therapies used in the treatment of non-metastatic breast cancer (BC). This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to synthesise the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of bone protective interventions in the mitigation of CTIBL and skeletal fractures. Multiple databases including MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane, clinical trial registries and grey literature were systematically searched for experimental and observational studies, investigating the use of bisphosphonates, denosumab, calcium or vitamin D supplementation. Outcomes of interest were change in bone mineral density (BMD), the incidence of skeletal fractures, change in bone turnover markers, the incidence of adverse events (AEs), the presence of aromatase inhibitor musculoskeletal symptoms and quality of life. A total of 88 studies were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis, with sample sizes ranging from 11 to 4819 participants. For change in BMD outcomes able to be meta-analysed, bisphosphonates demonstrated a significant benefit compared to controls (pooled mean difference estimate; lumbar spine: 4.17, p = 0.0; total hip: 1.81, p = 0.034; femoral neck: 2.35, p = 0.001). Incidence of skeletal fractures significantly decreased with bisphosphonates compared to controls (pooled relative risk estimate; 0.77, p < 0.001). Denosumab demonstrated similar effects on BMD and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 11 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