Evidence Hub

Targeted "bone-seeking" radiopharmaceuticals for palliative treatment of bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

D'angelo G, Sciuto R, Salvatori M, Sperduti I, Mantini G, Maini CL, Mariani G

The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR), [and] Section of the Society of..., 2012

Abstract

AIM: The aim of the study was to assess the state of the art of the use of bone-seeking radiopharmaceuticals for palliation therapy of pain from bone metastases.

METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted about therapy with 89Sr-chloride and 153Sm-EDTMP between 2001-2011. The primary outcomes were efficacy and toxicity. Descriptive and quantitative data were extracted from each study, calculating event rates and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pooled analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed.

RESULTS: Fifty-seven studies contributed to the systematic review. Forty-six studies used radiopharmaceuticals as a single agent, 15 investigated therapeutic combinations. Most of the studies included patients with prostate cancer. The overall efficacy of bone-seeking radiopharmaceuticals as single agents was 70%, whereas it was 74% when used in combination with other therapies. Complete response was reported in 27% of patients. Efficacy resulted to be 70% for prostate cancer and 79% for breast cancer. The overall toxicity of radiopharmaceuticals was 15%: the toxicity was 11% selecting only studies reporting on the use of radiopharmaceuticals as a single agent. No significant difference was found between bone-seeking radiopharmaceuticals and other oncological treatments regarding efficacy or toxicity. Reports of objective response outcomes suggest that bone-seeking radiopharmaceuticals have some cytotoxic activity, either alone or combination with…

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.

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