1. Introduction
Multiple myeloma (MM), a plasma cell cancer, is the second most common hematological malignancy [ 1 , 2 ], characterized by the proliferation and expansion of monoclonal plasma cells in the bone marrow. Osteolytic lesions are a hallmark finding in patients with MM, and as many as 80% of patients have osteolytic bone disease at the time of diagnosis [ 3 ]. The increased degradation of bone causes a high risk of skeletal-related events (SRE], such as pathological fractures and spinal cord compression, and greatly contributes to morbidity [ 4 ]. The burden of symptoms in patients with MM has a high impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mainly due to reduced physical function and bone pain. Compared to other hematological malignancies, the disease is associated with a higher risk for patients to end up receiving disability pensions [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Moreover, SRE in patients with MM is associated with inferior overall survival [ 8 ]. Thus, managing bone disease in patients with MM is important. In addition to antineoplastic treatment, the treatment of myeloma bone disease may involve radiotherapy, antiresorptives, and percutaneous orthopedic interventions such as vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, as well as major surgery. The aim of this manuscript is to review the literature and practices of antiresorptive treatments, their adverse effects, and the management of these, along with current standards and new developments in vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, including examples of bone reconstructive surgery. Antineoplastic treatment and radiotherapy are not within the scope of this review; instead, we focus on potential novel targets in the bone marrow microenvironment.
2. Antiresorptive Treatments
In a healthy individual, bone homeostasis is maintained through the continuous resorption of old bone, which is followed by the coupled refilling (formation) of new bone within the bone resorption cavity. Myeloma bone disease arises in patients with MM due to uncoupled bone remodeling with upregulated osteoclast and downregulated osteoblast activity [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. The receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB (RANK), a transmembrane receptor expressed in several bone cells as well as in hematopoietic osteoclast precursor cells, activates upon binding with RANK-Ligand (RANKL) and facilitates pre-osteoclast recruitment and osteoclast activation and survival [ 12 ]. Myeloma plasma cells increase RANKL expression and decrease osteoprotegerin (OPG) expression. OPG is a decoy receptor that inhibits bone resorption by binding to RANKL and prevents it from binding to its receptor, RANK [ 13 ]. The increased RANKL to OPG ratio favors the activation of osteoclasts [ 14 ]. The cornerstone in the treatment of MBD is antiresorptive (AR) medication, which inhibits osteoclast activity. Amino-bisphosphonates, zoledronic acid (ZA), and pamidronate (PA), specifically, have for several years been the standard in the treatment of MBD [ 15 ]. ZA has the highest relative potency of all bisphosphonates, which is a hundred times higher than that of PA [ 16 ]. Either one is recommended as a first choice for all patients with active MM, with or without radiological findings of MBD [ 17 ], because micro-architectural changes can be present at the earliest stages of the disease [ 18 ]. ZA is preferred, partly because of its more convenient administration time, as well as its superiority over PA regarding mortality rate reduction [ 19 , 20 ]. ZA has shown a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit [ 21 ], is not inferior to PA in reducing SREs or bone pain [ 22 ], and is superior in treating malignancy-related hypercalcemia [ 23 ].
After the discovery of the RANKL pathway, denosumab (Dmab), a human immunoglobulin G2 anti-RANKL antibody, was developed. It inhibits RANKL and is the preferred choice when bisphosphonates are contraindicated (e.g., renal impairment). It is speculated that Dmab could be a viable replacement for bisphosphonates in the treatment of MBD. A large double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial comparing Dmab to ZA that included 1718 patients, however, found no difference in the median time to the first on-study skeletal-related event and showed no significant difference in incidence for serious adverse events, such as medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) [ 24 ]. An exploratory end-point was later published from the same study. It found that treatment with Dmab resulted in an increased median PFS by 10.7 months, but only in patients intent on undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation and patients with CrCl > 60 mL/min [ 25 ]. Future prospective studies are needed to validate this finding. As of 2021, The International Myeloma Working Group recommends ZA over Dmab until more data are available [ 17 ]. So far, Dmab has been shown to be as effective as ZA in preventing MBD, but it comes at a higher cost. Furthermore, the later discontinuation of Dmab may be more troublesome than the discontinuation of ZA as bone resorption may rebound. This phenomenon will be discussed in detail in a later section. A study is currently investigating if Dmab can effectively delay the time for high-risk smoldering myeloma to transform into MM requiring active treatment ( clinicaltrials.gov : NCT03792763 , accessed on 1 November 2023), and data are awaited. The recent approval of romosozumab (anti-sclerostin antibody) for the treatment of osteoporotic patients is a promising development that may translate into treatment for patients with MM. It is supported by pre-clinical observations that sclerostin inhibition prevents fractures and pathological bone loss in patients with MM [ 26 , 27 , 28 ].
3. Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw and Multiple Myeloma
The jaws are rarely symptomatically affected directly by the cancer as much as the spine and hip bones. However, the high-dose AR treatment involves a risk of developing MRONJ. One nationwide population-based cohort study in Denmark found the incidence of MRONJ to be around 2% in patients treated with high-dose AR [ 29 ]. Other studies have found ZA MRONJ incidence to be from 2.6% to 4% [ 20 , 30 ]. Importantly, however, is that the incidence of MRONJ rises with higher cumulative doses of, or treatment duration with, AR therapy [ 31 ]. One systematic review and meta-analysis including a total of 42.003 patients with different malignancies showed that with 4 mg of ZA every 3 or 4 weeks, MRONJ incidence was 2.0% versus 1% when ZA was given every third month. MRONJ incidence with 120 mg Dmab given every month was 2.09%, whereas it was zero when 60 mg was given every 6 months [ 32 ]. However, in the currently recommended treatment regimes in MM, 120 mg Dmab or 4 mg ZA both given every four weeks, a large randomized phase 3 study including only MM patients found the risk of developing MRONJ to be similar between the two treatments [ 24 ].
The precise mechanism behind MRONJ development is not fully understood, but the development is closely associated with dental extraction or pressure damage from oral prostheses [ 33 ]. Theories involve micro-trauma or infection in the bone, triggering an impaired bone healing process, which leads to inflammation with compromised blood supply and subsequent bone necrosis. Recent studies indicate that infection probably is the major determinant of MRONJ [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ] and, thus, eliminating local infection may prevent the development of MRONJ. Dental extraction and minor oral surgeries can safely be performed with minimal risk of MRONJ when performed in combination with prophylactic antibiotic therapy [ 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Additional risk factors include smoking and diabetes as these also compromise healing and increase susceptibility to oral infections after treatment. Prevention and risk reduction of developing MRONJ include appropriate dental treatment before initiating antiresorptive therapy, close monitoring during treatment, and regular dental evaluations to prevent developing dental infections following AR initiation [ 41 ].
Temporary discontinuation of AR treatment before upcoming oral surgery, known as a drug holiday, has been considered as a strategy to minimize the risk of MRONJ. However, a large meta-analysis including a total of 6808 patients found no significant difference in the development of MRONJ between the drug holiday group ( n = 4847) and the control group ( n = 1961) [ 42 ]. One RCT included 23 patients undergoing surgical tooth extraction and randomly allocated patients to a drug holiday from 1 month prior to 3 months post-surgery, with the majority of patients receiving Dmab. It also found no evidence of drug holidays preventing MRONJ. They did, however, report a decline in the patient-reported health state in those on a drug holiday compared to those in the drug-continuation arm [ 43 ].
Diagnosing MRONJ is based on radiological and clinical findings, including exposed necrotic bone and fistulas to underlying necrotic bone, with symptoms such as jaw pain, non-healing ulcers, and soft tissue swelling. Radiological imaging can help distinguish MRONJ from other oral pathologies and help stage the amount of necrosis for subsequent treatment planning. Conservative treatment was previously recommended for patients with MM who developed MRONJ [ 44 ] as this was believed to slow or stop the progression of osteonecrosis. This may include antibiotic therapy, local oral hygiene maintenance with chlorhexidine, the removal of sequestered bone, or minor debridement of the site [ 44 ]. However, a recent study shows that despite conservative treatment, MRONJ still progresses in 80% of patients with stage I MRONJ [ 45 ]. Thus, the European task force on MRONJ now recommends surgical treatment, when possible, but conservative treatment may still be indicated in frail, elderly patients or in a palliative setting [ 33 ].
Recommended surgical treatment ( Figure 1 ) consists of resection of the osteonecrotic tissue and primary closure of the gingiva. The procedure is planned from a 3D cone beam or multislice CT scan. Surgical treatment is performed in combination with antibiotic therapy (amoxicillin with clavulanic acid, 3 g/day, a minimum of one day before and 6–9 days after surgery) [ 46 ]. An incision is made that extends from the perforation of the osteonecrosis in both mesial and distal directions on the alveolar ridge. The gingiva is carefully elevated to access the osteonecrotic tissue and the bone is resected with a drill to the planned extension and depth. The remaining bone should display vital bleeding points. Biopsies can be taken from the vital bone and from the resected necrotic bone to confirm the diagnosis of MRONJ, eliminate an additional cancer diagnosis, and confirm vital bone in the margins of the resection. Finally, the gingiva is mobilized and sutured to a tension-free primary closure. In case the gingiva cannot close the defect, a cutaneous flap must be raised to close it. Surgical treatment has been shown to successfully remove necrosis and infection in more than 60 to 85% of treatments [ 47 ]. To increase the chance of successful surgical treatment, adjuncts to surgery, such as teriparatide [ 48 , 49 ] platelet-rich fibrin/plasma [ 50 ], and growth factors [ 51 ], have shown promising results, but require further investigation. Additionally, fluorescence-guided surgery also shows an increase in success rates by ensuring that all the infected and necrotic bone is removed [ 52 , 53 ]. Overall, the level of evidence for optimal treatment is low for all treatment protocols, building on few randomized controlled trials [ 37 ]. The preferable and most effective measure seems to be the prevention of MRONJ by preventing infection and inflammation in the bone by dental examination at 3-month intervals [ 39 ].
4. Antiresorptive Agents and Duration of Treatment
Before the emergence of MRONJ, AR treatment usually continued indefinitely. However, since incidences of both MRONJ and atypical femur fractures [ 54 , 55 ] increase with the dose and duration of AR treatment, guidelines have been updated to reflect this and reduce its usage. Since the original studies with ZA and PA had a follow-up of approximately 2 years, this is what most guidelines recommend [ 19 , 56 ]. The British Myeloma IX study, however, found that the increased protective effect of ZA compared to the inferior clodronate remained significant beyond 2 years of treatment. Likewise, a Mexican study found a 20% reduction in SRE in patients with MM receiving ZA for 4 years compared to only 2 years [ 57 ]. A recent presentation at IMW 2023 presented data from the Magnolia trial, a randomized study comparing 2 vs. 4 years of treatment with ZA in patients with MM, found that the risk of progressive bone disease (PBD) was significantly lower in the 4-year ZOL arm, with a hazard ratio of 0.38, without an increased significant risk of MRONJ [ 58 ]. To mitigate the risk of side effects with prolonged AR treatment, some guidelines suggest that the treating physician can consider decreasing the dosing frequency after 12 months of treatment to every 3 months for patients obtaining VGPR or better [ 15 ]. This is mainly based on the Myloma IX study, which found that the positive effect of ZA over clodronate on PBD disappeared in patients that had obtained CR + 100 days after autologous stem cell transplantation [ 59 ]. However, clinical studies have also demonstrated that patients obtaining a deep response post-transplant have a very low risk of future PBD [ 60 ]. Two studies including mainly patients with other malignant diseases than MM found treatment with ZA every 12 weeks versus every 4 weeks to be non-inferior; in these studies, the 12-week schedule was initiated at diagnosis [ 61 , 62 ]. Whether or not these data justify the de-escalation of AR based on response depth still has not been tested prospectively. We know from the Magnolia trial that 24% of all cases of PBD were indeed observed in patients who had obtained CR in their latest line of treatment [ 63 ]. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that stopping ZA after 12 months of treatment results in a shorter suppression of bone resorption, reflected by lower levels of bone resorption markers, compared to 24 months of treatment [ 64 ]. It thus seems that 48 months of treatment with AR is superior to only 24 months of treatment. Whether dosing can be reduced to every 12 weeks, or if patients with a certain depth of response may tolerate less treatment, remains to be tested prospectively. A future alternative approach to determine which patients can safely descale or pause AR treatment could perhaps be taking measurements of circulating microRNA. MicroRNAs have recently been shown to play an important role in osteoblasto- as well as osteoclastogenesis [ 65 ]. In addition, the same microRNAs are able to accurately predict the presence of osteolytic bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma [ 66 ].
Importantly, however, discontinuation of ZA and Dmab have very different effects on bone remodeling. Discontinuation of ZA results in a gradual declining effect, while discontinuation of Dmab may result in a devastating resorptive rebound phenomenon, probably due to an underlying upregulation of RANKL. Studies including patients with other diseases than MM have shown that terminating treatment with Dmab, or even a brief temporary discontinuation, may result in severe bone resorptive rebound, leading to an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures [ 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ]. A direct transition from Dmab to ZA has shown to diminish, but not prevent, this rebound phenomenon [ 71 ], and this approach may not be viable in patients on Dmab with reduced renal function. A practical approach in these patients could be to not discontinue treatment with Dmab but only reduce the intensity to every 12 weeks. Another proposed way to counter this problem is a combined short-term regimen with teriparatide and Dmab [ 72 ]. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA), however, has placed a black box warning on teriparatide for patients with skeletal malignancies as it increases the risk of osteosarcoma in rats.
If AR treatment is completely discontinued, we know from the Azabache trial that it should be re-initiated at biochemical progression [ 73 ].
5. Vertobroplasty and Kyphoplasty
Vertebral compression fractures are a common complication of myeloma bone disease, resulting in severe pain and functional impairment. Surgical interventions, such as vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, have emerged as effective treatment options for pain relief and the restoration of vertebral height in these patients [ 74 , 75 ]. Vertebral augmentation, vertebroplasty, and kyphoplasty are minimally invasive procedures performed under fluoroscopic guidance. Vertebroplasty involves the percutaneous injection of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) into the fractured vertebral body, providing stabilization. Kyphoplasty includes an additional step of balloon inflation to restore vertebral height before PMMA injection. These procedures are typically performed on an outpatient basis under local anesthesia with light sedation. The indications for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in patients with MM with vertebral compression fractures include symptomatic fractures and severe pain that is unresponsive to conservative management [ 75 ]. The protection of sagittal balance has emerged as an important indication, with increasing long-term survival rates in the MM population [ 75 ].
Several studies have reported favorable clinical outcomes following vertebral augmentation procedures in patients with MM [ 74 , 76 , 77 ]. Significant pain relief, improved mobility, and the restoration of vertebral height have been observed [ 74 , 76 , 78 ]. These interventions have shown a reduction in pain scores, decreased analgesic requirements, and improvements in quality of life [ 74 , 76 , 78 ]. Moreover, they are associated with low complication rates and minimal perioperative morbidity [ 74 , 79 , 80 , 81 ]. A Danish national clinical guideline for the treatment of malignant lesions with percutaneous vertebroplasty, published in 2020, includes a weak recommendation for the procedure [ 82 ]. However, the number of high-quality studies to uncover the full impact of the procedures is still low. Presently, a single-blinded, randomized clinical trial is being conducted to compare the outcomes of standard care alone versus standard care supplemented with vertebroplasty ( clinicaltrials.gov : NCT04533217 , accessed on 1 November 2023) [ 83 ]. Wedge osteotomy can be considered in cases where severe kyphotic deformity affects the patient’s activities of daily living. It allows for the reestablishment of sagittal balance and correction of deformity ( Figure 2 ).
6. Targeting the Microenviroment
Myeloma bone disease is characterized by the development of focal “punch-out” lesions, which are the result of a highly active bone resorption with an uncoupling of the subsequent bone formation. The uncoupled bone formation is likely a consequence of myeloma cell-induced disruption of the bone remodeling compartment (BRC) canopies ( Figure 3 ), which reflect a bone marrow envelope that is lifted above remodeling sites [ 84 ]. The canopies/envelope consist of elongated osteoprogenitor cells that physically separate the bone surface cells, including remodeling events from the bone marrow cavity [ 10 , 85 ], considered to be a local reservoir of osteoprogenitor cells [ 84 , 86 ]. This local reservoir is critical for the transition from bone erosion to formation, requiring the recruitment of a critical density of osteoprogenitor cells to the eroded surfaces formed by bone-resorbing osteoclasts. It has previously been shown that the number of osteolytic lesions in patients with MM is directly correlated to the uncoupling of bone resorption and bone formation and that this uncoupling occurs primarily upon MM disruption of the canopies [ 10 ]. The mechanisms of canopy disruption are not fully understood, but it may be mediated by cancer-induced apoptosis of the canopy cells [ 11 ], as myeloma cells have been shown to induce apoptosis in osteoblastic cells via tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) and Fas-Ligand (FasL) [ 87 , 88 ].
Upon gaining proximity to the bone surface cells, the MM cells upregulate osteoclast activity and differentiation along with osteoblast hypoactivity, altering the tightly coupled process of bone remodeling. The bidirectional effect of myeloma on bone cells is mediated by a myriad of osteoclast-activating factors, such as RANKL, macrophage inflammatory protein alpha (MIP-1 alpha), interleukin-1 (IL-1), interleukin-3 (IL-3), and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) [ 89 , 90 , 91 ], and osteoblast-inhibiting factors like dickkopf WNT signaling pathway inhibitor 1 (DKK1), sclerostin, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), interleukin-7 (IL-7), and TNF-α [ 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 ]. MM cells additionally express syndecan-1, which binds OPG, resulting in its endocytosis and degradation, further contributing to osteoclastogenesis [ 97 ]. In addition to the autocrine effect of myeloma cells on osteoclasts and osteoblasts, their modulation of the proximal bone marrow microenvironment also results in the further release of RANKL, macrophage colony-stimulating factor (MCSF), interleukin-6 (IL6), and TNF-α from bone marrow stromal cells [ 98 , 99 , 100 ] or osteoblast inhibitory factors like sclerostin from osteocytes [ 26 , 28 , 101 , 102 , 103 ], among others. Increased bone resorption leads to the release of growth factors from the bone matrix, which, in turn, promote cancer cell growth, leading to a reciprocal interaction known as the “vicious cycle”.
In addition to their direct and indirect effects on bone cells, myeloma cells modify other bone marrow microenvironment components that consequently support their engraftment, growth, and survival. Co-culture experiments demonstrate that MM cells inhibit adipocyte differentiation, promote adipocyte lipolysis, and uptake fatty acids from proximal adipocytes [ 104 , 105 ]. In turn, myeloma-modified adipocytes support cancer growth and survival, demonstrating a shift towards a pro-tumorigenic microenvironment upon cancer cell colonization.
Skeletal stem and progenitor cells (SSPCs, known as mesenchymal stem cells) also play a crucial role in MBD and are distinctly altered by the presence of MM cells in both a paracrine and an autocrine fashion. SSPCs reversely alter MM cell phenotype and function by the secretion of micro-vesicles and cytokines that stimulate MM cell proliferation and migration [ 106 , 107 , 108 ], contributing to the establishment of a pro-tumorigenic microenvironment. In turn, SSPCs differentiation capacity is hampered in MM [ 109 , 110 , 111 ], resulting in osteoblastopenia [ 112 ] and an accumulation of SSPCs in the bone marrow [ 113 ]. Furthermore, SSPC gene expression is largely altered by MM, as demonstrated by in vitro co-culture studies of SSPCs with MM cell lines [ 114 , 115 ]. Even after ex vivo expansion of SSPCs without MM cells, the gene expression profiles of SSPCs from patients with MM are distinguishable from SSPCs from patients with premalignant monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS; an asymptomatic condition that precedes MM) and healthy donors [ 114 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 ]. Deregulated transcriptional pathways include cell cycle regulation, osteoblast maturation, MM cell survival factors, and immune-modulating factors [ 117 , 119 ]. The deregulation of gene expression in SSPCs persists after anti-myeloma therapy [ 113 , 118 , 119 ], even in patients who are negative for measurable residual disease [ 119 ], suggesting a permanent modulation of the cells. This is supported by findings of genomic alterations [ 120 ] and epigenetic modifications of the SSPC genomes in MM, dependent on disease stage and inducible by MM cell co-culture [ 121 ]. While recent years’ advances in anti-myeloma therapy have improved survival in patients with MM tremendously [ 122 ], there has been no revolution in the treatment of myeloma bone disease, which still relies mainly on AR therapies.
Novel treatments targeting alterations of SSPCs could suppress the pro-tumorigenic bone marrow microenvironment while stimulating the differentiation of osteoblasts with bone-forming capacity and even anti-myeloma effects [ 123 , 124 ]. Proteasome inhibitors have been shown to exert some of their therapeutic effects, not only by their anti-tumor effect on myeloma cells but also through the off-target inhibition of the nuclear factor-kB (NF-kB) signaling pathway, which results in decreased RANKL-mediated osteoclastic differentiation [ 125 ]. Indeed, Bortezomib increases serum bone formation markers and decreases markers of bone resorption in clinical studies [ 126 , 127 ]. Another proteasome inhibitor, carfilzomib has been shown to promote increased trabecular bone volume in a mouse model of MM [ 128 ]. Furthermore, in a clinical trial with humans, carfilzomib has been shown to increase the bone formation markers osteocalcin and procollagen type I N-propeptide, independently of myeloma response to treatment [ 129 ].
The proteasome inhibitors’ improvement of the skeletal compartment is, however, overshadowed by problematic adverse toxicities, such as neuropathy and cardiac toxicity [ 130 , 131 , 132 ], and by the development of resistance in MM cells. Ixazomib, the first oral proteasome inhibitor, has proven to be more tolerable in clinical trials. In addition to its anti-tumor effect [ 133 ], it also improves osteoblast differentiation while inhibiting osteoclast differentiation in in vitro studies [ 134 , 135 ]. The effect of ixazomib on myeloma bone disease is currently being investigated in a clinical trial on patients with MM in remission ( clinaltrials.gov NCT04028115 , accessed on 1 November 2023). Recently published preliminary results from this trial [ 136 ] revealed a drug-mediated increase in trabecular bone volume mediated by decreased osteoclast activity and longer bone formation events in bone biopsies taken after just 3 months of treatment [ 136 ]. Daratumumab, a CD38 antibody that is extensively used to treat MM, has also demonstrated positive effects on bone formation. Whether this is due to a direct effect on the osteoblasts or through an indirect effect on the myeloma cells needs further exploration [ 137 ]. A quick overview of possible bone-targeting therapies can be obtained from Table 1 .
Importantly, the sum of the described MM-induced alterations to the bone marrow microenvironment drives the production of anti-apoptotic cytokines and suppresses anti-tumor responses, resulting in an environment supporting MM cells’ growth, survival, and resistance to therapy—termed “the MM niche”. This niche plays a pivotal role in the induction of MM dormancy [ 142 , 143 ], a state of quiescent growth arrest that allows MM cells to become unavailable to anti-myeloma therapy. Here, osteoblastic cells may control dormancy induction, while osteoclastic bone remodeling may promote dormancy escape and consequent disease relapse [ 144 ]. These residual MM cells accumulate mutations over time, driving later disease relapses and resulting in the incurable disease that is MM; thus, targeting myeloma bone disease may ultimately pose an effective avenue towards disease cure.
7. Conclusions and Future Perspectives
Myeloma bone disease remains a challenging condition to manage. Vertebral compression fractures are painful and immobilizing and thereby are potentially dangerous. Surgical interventions with a focus on pain relief and restoring the sagittal balance indicate a very low perioperative risk versus a great therapeutic value, but the full therapeutic impact still needs to be investigated further. AR treatment is necessary for patients with MM, but, for a small number, it can bring debilitating adverse events, such as MRONJ, that is difficult to manage. AR therapy regimes could benefit from prolonging treatment periods from two to four years in order to reduce the risk of PDB. But, since the incidence of MRONJ rises with the cumulative dosage of antiresorptive medication, the treating physician might consider reducing the dosing frequency to every 3rd month for patients who achieve VGPR or better after their anti-myeloma therapy.
In the treatment of MRONJ, conservative treatment was previously the preferred option, but, now, surgery is recommended and is successful in 60–85% of patients. Overall, the treatment protocols lack high-grade evidence, and several adjuvating therapies are being investigated. No consensus has been reached on drug holidays and whether these are beneficial in preventing MRONJ, and the preferable and most effective measure seems to be the prevention of MRONJ by preventing infection and inflammation in the bone by regular dental examinations.
A major breakthrough in myeloma bone disease treatment is still awaited, and research should continue to investigate bone anabolic treatments. Romosozumab, the anti-sclerostin antibody approved in treatments for osteoporosis, could be relevant in the treatment of myeloma bone disease. Further, proteasome inhibitors stimulating the stromal cells in the bone marrow microenvironment show promise in inducing bone healing and also potentially diminishing the risk of myeloma progression. Ixazomib, the first oral proteasome inhibitor, is currently being investigated in this respect, and preliminary data are promising.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: M.J., N.A. and T.L.; Writing—original draft preparation, M.J., N.A. and T.L.; Writing—review and editing, M.J., M.B.L., K.S., M.D.-d., A.A.K., L.A.W., M.T.G., I.B.K., C.G.N., M.Ø.A., T.L.A., N.A. and T.L.; Visualization: T.L.A., M.D.-d., K.S. and A.A.K.; Supervision: N.A and T.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Zhang N. Wu J. Wang Q. Liang Y. Li X. Chen G. Ma L. Liu X. Zhou F. Global burden of hematologic malignancies and evolution patterns over the past 30 years Blood Cancer J. 2023 13 82 10.1038/s41408-023-00853-3 37193689 PMC10188596
2. Sant M. Allemani C. Tereanu C. De Angelis R. Capocaccia R. Visser O. Marcos-Gragera R. Maynadié M. Simonetti A. Lutz J.M. Incidence of hematologic malignancies in Europe by morphologic subtype: Results of the HAEMACARE project Blood 2010 116 3724 3734 10.1182/blood-2010-05-282632 20664057
3. Kyle R.A. Gertz M.A. Witzig T.E. Lust J.A. Lacy M.Q. Dispenzieri A. Fonseca R. Rajkumar S.V. Offord J.R. Larson D.R. Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Mayo Clin Proc. 2003 78 21 33 10.4065/78.1.21 12528874
4. Terpos E. Berenson J. Cook R.J. Lipton A. Coleman R.E. Prognostic variables for survival and skeletal complications in patients with multiple myeloma osteolytic bone disease Leukemia 2010 24 1043 1049 10.1038/leu.2010.62 20376081
5. Royle K. Gregory W.M. Cairns D.A. Bell S.E. Cook G. Owen R.G. Drayson M.T. Davies F.E. Jackson G.H. Morgan G.J. Quality of life during and following sequential treatment of previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma: Findings of the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX randomised study Br. J. Haematol. 2018 182 816 829 10.1111/bjh.15459 29984830 PMC6175065
6. Nielsen L.K. Larsen R.F. Jarlbaek L. Möller S. Jespersen E. Health-related quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma participating in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program Ann. Hematol. 2021 100 2311 2323 10.1007/s00277-020-04356-0 33409622
7. Horsboel T.A. Nielsen C.V. Andersen N.T. Nielsen B. de Thurah A. Risk of disability pension for patients diagnosed with haematological malignancies: A register-based cohort study Acta Oncol. 2014 53 724 734 10.3109/0284186X.2013.875625 24456498
8. Sonmez M. Akagun T. Topbas M. Cobanoglu U. Sonmez B. Yilmaz M. Ovali E. Omay S.B. Effect of pathologic fractures on survival in multiple myeloma patients: A case control study J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2008 27 11 10.1186/1756-9966-27-11 18577267 PMC2438338
9. Capp J.-P. Bataille R. The Ins and Outs of Endosteal Niche Disruption in the Bone Marrow: Relevance for Myeloma Oncogenesis Biology 2023 12 990 10.3390/biology12070990 37508420 PMC10376322
10. Andersen T.L. Sondergaard T.E. Skorzynska K.E. Dagnaes-Hansen F. Plesner T.L. Hauge E.M. Plesner T. Delaisse J.M. A physical mechanism for coupling bone resorption and formation in adult human bone Am. J. Pathol. 2009 174 239 247 10.2353/ajpath.2009.080627 19095960 PMC2631336
11. Andersen T.L. Søe K. Sondergaard T.E. Plesner T. Delaisse J.M. Myeloma cell-induced disruption of bone remodelling compartments leads to osteolytic lesions and generation of osteoclast-myeloma hybrid cells Br. J. Haematol. 2010 148 551 561 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07980.x 19919653
12. Casimiro S. Vilhais G. Gomes I. Costa L. The Roadmap of RANKL/RANK Pathway in Cancer Cells 2021 10 1978 10.3390/cells10081978 34440747 PMC8393235
13. Boyce B.F. Xing L. Biology of RANK, RANKL, and osteoprotegerin Arthritis Res. Ther. 2007 9 (Suppl. 1) S1 10.1186/ar2165 17634140 PMC1924516
14. Depil S. Mathiot C. Leleu X. Moreau A.S. Faucompre J.-L. Hennache B. Bauters F. Bataille R. Facon T. Evaluation and prognostic value of serum osteoprotegerin in multiple myeloma Br. J. Haematol. 2005 129 706 707 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2005.05518.x 15916694
15. Terpos E. Morgan G. Dimopoulos M.A. Drake M.T. Lentzsch S. Raje N. Sezer O. García-Sanz R. Shimizu K. Turesson I. International Myeloma Working Group recommendations for the treatment of multiple myeloma-related bone disease J. Clin. Oncol. 2013 31 2347 2357 10.1200/JCO.2012.47.7901 23690408 PMC4878084
16. Drake M.T. Clarke B.L. Khosla S. Bisphosphonates: Mechanism of action and role in clinical practice Mayo Clin. Proc. 2008 83 1032 1045 10.4065/83.9.1032 18775204 PMC2667901
17. Terpos E. Zamagni E. Lentzsch S. Drake M.T. García-Sanz R. Abildgaard N. Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I. Schjesvold F. de la Rubia J. Kyriakou C. Treatment of multiple myeloma-related bone disease: Recommendations from the Bone Working Group of the International Myeloma Working Group Lancet Oncol. 2021 22 e119 e130 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30559-3 33545067
18. Stein E. Dash A. Bucovsky M. Agarwal S. Fu J. Lentzsch S. Shane E. Disrupted radial and tibial microarchitecture in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance Osteoporos. Int. 2019 30 629 635 10.1007/s00198-018-4787-z 30488275 PMC10081445
19. Rosen L.S. Gordon D. Kaminski M. Howell A. Belch A. Mackey J. Apffelstaedt J. Hussein M. Coleman R.E. Reitsma D.J. Zoledronic acid versus pamidronate in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with breast cancer or osteolytic lesions of multiple myeloma: A phase III, double-blind, comparative trial Cancer J. 2001 7 377 387 11693896
20. Sanfilippo K.M. Gage B. Luo S. Weilbaecher K. Tomasson M. Vij R. Colditz G. Carson K. Comparative effectiveness on survival of zoledronic acid versus pamidronate in multiple myeloma Leuk. Lymphoma 2015 56 615 621 10.3109/10428194.2014.924117 24844358 PMC4399231
21. Mhaskar R. Kumar A. Miladinovic B. Djulbegovic B. Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma: An updated network meta-analysis Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017 12 Cd003188 10.1002/14651858.CD003188.pub4 29253322 PMC6486151
22. Rosen L.S. Gordon D. Kaminski M. Howell A. Belch A. Mackey J. Apffelstaedt J. Hussein M.A. Coleman R.E. Reitsma D.J. Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial Cancer 2003 98 1735 1744 10.1002/cncr.11701 14534891
23. Major P. Lortholary A. Hon J. Abdi E. Mills G. Menssen H.D. Yunus F. Bell R. Body J. Quebe-Fehling E. Zoledronic acid is superior to pamidronate in the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy: A pooled analysis of two randomized, controlled clinical trials J. Clin. Oncol. 2001 19 558 567 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.2.558 11208851
24. Raje N. Terpos E. Willenbacher W. Shimizu K. García-Sanz R. Durie B. Legieć W. Krejčí M. Laribi K. Zhu L. Denosumab versus zoledronic acid in bone disease treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: An international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study Lancet Oncol. 2018 19 370 381 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30072-X 29429912
25. Terpos E. Raje N. Croucher P. Garcia-Sanz R. Leleu X. Pasteiner W. Wang Y. Glennane A. Canon J. Pawlyn C. Denosumab compared with zoledronic acid on PFS in multiple myeloma: Exploratory results of an international phase 3 study Blood Adv. 2021 5 725 736 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002378 33560384 PMC7876889
26. Delgado-Calle J. Anderson J. Cregor M.D. Hiasa M. Chirgwin J.M. Carlesso N. Yoneda T. Mohammad K.S. Plotkin L.I. Roodman G.D. Bidirectional Notch Signaling and Osteocyte-Derived Factors in the Bone Marrow Microenvironment Promote Tumor Cell Proliferation and Bone Destruction in Multiple Myeloma Cancer Res. 2016 76 1089 1100 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1703 26833121 PMC4775415
27. McDonald M.M. Reagan M.R. Youlten S.E. Mohanty S.T. Seckinger A. Terry R.L. Pettitt J.A. Simic M.K. Cheng T.L. Morse A. Inhibiting the osteocyte-specific protein sclerostin increases bone mass and fracture resistance in multiple myeloma Blood 2017 129 3452 3464 10.1182/blood-2017-03-773341 28515094 PMC5492093
28. Delgado-Calle J. Anderson J. Cregor M.D. Condon K.W. A Kuhstoss S. Plotkin L.I. Bellido T. Roodman G.D. Genetic deletion of Sost or pharmacological inhibition of sclerostin prevent multiple myeloma-induced bone disease without affecting tumor growth Leukemia 2017 31 2686 2694 10.1038/leu.2017.152 28529307 PMC5699973
29. Gadgaard N.R. Olesen T.B. Svane H.M.L. Heide-Jørgensen U. Nørholt S.E. Ehrenstein V. Osteonecrosis of the jaw among cancer patients in Denmark: Risk and prognosis Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2022 51 1424 1430 10.1016/j.ijom.2022.02.009 35279336
30. Morgan G.J. E Davies F. Gregory W.M. Cocks K. E Bell S. Szubert A.J. Navarro-Coy N. Drayson M.T. Owen R.G. Feyler S. First-line treatment with zoledronic acid as compared with clodronic acid in multiple myeloma (MRC Myeloma IX): A randomised controlled trial Lancet 2010 376 1989 1999 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62051-X 21131037 PMC3639680
31. Hoff A.O. Toth B.B. Altundag K. Johnson M.M. Warneke C.L. Hu M. Nooka A. Sayegh G. Guarneri V. Desrouleaux K. Frequency and risk factors associated with osteonecrosis of the jaw in cancer patients treated with intravenous bisphosphonates J. Bone Miner. Res. 2008 23 826 836 10.1359/jbmr.080205 18558816 PMC2677083
32. Zhang C. Shen G. Li H. Xin Y. Shi M. Zheng Y. Wang M. Liu Z. Zhao Y. Zhao F. Incidence rate of osteonecrosis of jaw after cancer treated with bisphosphonates and denosumab: A systematic review and meta-analysis Spec. Care Dent. 2023 10.1111/scd.12877 37219080
33. Schiodt M. Otto S. Fedele S. Bedogni A. Nicolatou-Galitis O. Guggenberger R. Herlofson B.B. Ristow O. Kofod T. Workshop of European task force on medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw-Current challenges Oral. Dis. 2019 25 1815 1821 10.1111/odi.13160 31325201
34. Otto S. Tröltzsch M. Jambrovic V. Panya S. Probst F. Ristow O. Ehrenfeld M. Pautke C. Tooth extraction in patients receiving oral or intravenous bisphosphonate administration: A trigger for BRONJ development? J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2015 43 847 854 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.03.039 25958767
35. Panya S. Fliefel R. Probst F. Tröltzsch M. Ehrenfeld M. Schubert S. Otto S. Role of microbiological culture and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of actinomyces in medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2017 45 357 363 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.01.006 28162845
36. Otto S. Aljohani S. Fliefel R. Ecke S. Ristow O. Burian E. Troeltzsch M. Pautke C. Ehrenfeld M. Infection as an Important Factor in Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ) Medicina 2021 57 463 10.3390/medicina57050463 34065104 PMC8151678
37. Beth-Tasdogan N.H. Mayer B. Hussein H. Zolk O. Peter J.U. Interventions for managing medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2022 7 Cd012432 35866376 10.1002/14651858.CD012432.pub3 PMC9309005
38. Montefusco V. Gay F. Spina F. Miceli R. Maniezzo M. Teresa Ambrosini M. Farina L. Piva S. Palumbo A. Boccadoro M. Antibiotic prophylaxis before dental procedures may reduce the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with multiple myeloma treated with bisphosphonates Leuk. Lymphoma 2008 49 2156 2162 10.1080/10428190802483778 19021059
39. Schubert M. Klatte I. Linek W. Müller B. Döring K. Eckelt U. Hemprich A. Berger U. Hendricks J. The saxon bisphosphonate register—Therapy and prevention of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws Oral. Oncol. 2012 48 349 354 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2011.11.004 22130456
40. Andersen S.W.M. Jensen S.S. Schiodt M. Apical surgery in cancer patients receiving high-dose antiresorptive medication-a retrospective clinical study with a mean follow-up of 13 months Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2021 25 237 246 10.1007/s10006-020-00909-9 32970228
41. Mücke T. Deppe H. Hein J. Wolff K.-D. Mitchell D.A. Kesting M.R. Retz M. Gschwend J.E. Thalgott M. Prevention of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws in patients with prostate cancer treated with zoledronic acid—A prospective study over 6 years J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2016 44 1689 1693 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.026 27555374
42. Aboalela A.A. Farook F.F. Alqahtani A.S. A Almousa M. Alanazi R.T. Almohammadi D.S. The Effect of Antiresorptive Drug Holidays on Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Cureus 2022 14 e30485 10.7759/cureus.30485 36415385 PMC9674041
43. Ottesen C. Schiodt M. Jensen S.S. Kofod T. Gotfredsen K. Tooth extractions in patients with cancer receiving high-dose antiresorptive medication: A randomized clinical feasibility trial of drug holiday versus drug continuation Oral. Surg. Oral. Med. Oral. Pathol. Oral. Radiol. 2022 133 165 173 10.1016/j.oooo.2021.06.003 34275774
44. Ruggiero S.L. Dodson T.B. Aghaloo T. Carlson E.R. Ward B.B. Kademani D. American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons’ Position Paper on Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaws-2022 Update J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2022 80 920 943 10.1016/j.joms.2022.02.008 35300956
45. Ristow O. Rückschloß T. Müller M. Berger M. Kargus S. Pautke C. Engel M. Hoffmann J. Freudlsperger C. Is the conservative non-surgical management of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw an appropriate treatment option for early stages? A long-term single-center cohort study J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2019 47 491 499 10.1016/j.jcms.2018.12.014 30642734
46. Andersen S.W.M. Mogensen D.G. Schioedt M. Kofod T. Surgical treatment of 61 consecutive patients with maxillary stage 3 medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws using a pedicled buccal fat pad Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2023 27 251 261 10.1007/s10006-022-01061-2 35362853
47. Govaerts D. Piccart F. Ockerman A. Coropciuc R. Politis C. Jacobs R. Adjuvant therapies for MRONJ: A systematic review Bone 2020 141 115676 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115676 33022455
48. Sim I.-W. Borromeo G.L. Tsao C. Hardiman R. Hofman M.S. Hjelle C.P. Siddique M. Cook G.J.R. Seymour J.F. Ebeling P.R. Teriparatide Promotes Bone Healing in Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: A Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trial J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 2971 2980 10.1200/JCO.19.02192 32614699
49. Ohbayashi Y. Iwasaki A. Nakai F. Mashiba T. Miyake M. A comparative effectiveness pilot study of teriparatide for medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: Daily versus weekly administration Osteoporos. Int. 2020 31 577 585 10.1007/s00198-019-05199-w 31768589
50. Giudice A. Barone S. Giudice C. Bennardo F. Fortunato L. Can platelet-rich fibrin improve healing after surgical treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw? A pilot study Oral. Surg. Oral. Med. Oral. Pathol. Oral. Radiol. 2018 126 390 403 10.1016/j.oooo.2018.06.007 30108028
51. Park J.H. Kim J.W. Kim S.J. Does the Addition of Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 to Platelet-Rich Fibrin Improve Healing After Treatment for Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw? J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017 75 1176 1184 10.1016/j.joms.2016.12.005 28042979
52. Ristow O. Otto S. Geiß C. Kehl V. Berger M. Troeltzsch M. Koerdt S. Hohlweg-Majert B. Freudlsperger C. Pautke C. Comparison of auto-fluorescence and tetracycline fluorescence for guided bone surgery of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: A randomized controlled feasibility study Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2017 46 157 166 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.10.008 27856150
53. Giudice A. Bennardo F. Barone S. Antonelli A. Figliuzzi M.M. Fortunato L. Can Autofluorescence Guide Surgeons in the Treatment of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw? A Prospective Feasibility Study J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2018 76 982 995 10.1016/j.joms.2017.10.024 29175416
54. Black D.M. Geiger E.J. Eastell R. Vittinghoff E. Li B.H. Ryan D.S. Dell R.M. Adams A.L. Atypical Femur Fracture Risk versus Fragility Fracture Prevention with Bisphosphonates N. Engl. J. Med. 2020 383 743 753 10.1056/NEJMoa1916525 32813950 PMC9632334
55. Ferreira P. Bates P. Daoub A. Dass D. Is bisphosphonate use a risk factor for atypical periprosthetic/peri-implant fractures?—A metanalysis of retrospective cohort studies and systematic review of the current evidence Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2023 109 103475 10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103475 36347461
56. Berenson J.R. Lichtenstein A. Porter L. Dimopoulos M.A. Bordoni R. George S. Lipton A. Keller A. Ballester O. Kovacs M.J. Efficacy of pamidronate in reducing skeletal events in patients with advanced multiple myeloma. Myeloma Aredia Study Group N. Engl. J. Med. 1996 334 488 493 10.1056/NEJM199602223340802 8559201
57. Avilès A. Nambo M.-J. Huerta-Guzmàn J. Cleto S. Neri N. Prolonged Use of Zoledronic Acid (4 Years) Did Not Improve Outcome in Multiple Myeloma Patients Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2017 17 207 210 10.1016/j.clml.2017.02.007 28284745
58. Gundesen M. Schjesvold F. Vangsted A.J. Helleberg C. Haukås E. Silkjær T. Teodorescu E. Jensen B. Slordahl T. Asmussen J. OA-10 Four years treatment with zoledronic acid is superior to two years in protection against progressive bone disease in multiple myeloma Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2023 23 S6 S7 10.1016/S2152-2650(23)01577-X
59. Larocca A. Child J.A. Cook G. Jackson G.H. Russell N. Szubert A. Gregory W.M. Brioli A. Owen R.G. Drayson M.T. The impact of response on bone-directed therapy in patients with multiple myeloma Blood 2013 122 2974 2977 10.1182/blood-2013-04-498139 23974194
60. Gavriatopoulou M. Terpos E. Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I. Malandrakis P. Eleutherakis-Papaiakovou E. Papatheodorou A. Kanellias N. Migkou M. Fotiou D. Dialoupi I. Consolidation with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) following ASCT results in high rates of minimal residual disease negativity and improves bone metabolism, in the absence of bisphosphonates, among newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma Blood Cancer J. 2020 10 25 32123158 10.1038/s41408-020-0297-2 PMC7052253
61. Himelstein A.L. Foster J.C. Khatcheressian J.L. Roberts J.D. Seisler D.K. Novotny P.J. Qin R. Go R.S. Grubbs S.S. O’Connor T. Effect of Longer-Interval vs Standard Dosing of Zoledronic Acid on Skeletal Events in Patients With Bone Metastases: A Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA 2017 317 48 58 10.1001/jama.2016.19425 28030702 PMC5321662
62. Hortobagyi G.N. Van Poznak C. Harker W.G. Gradishar W.J. Chew H. Dakhil S.R. Haley B.B. Sauter N. Mohanlal R. Zheng M. Continued Treatment Effect of Zoledronic Acid Dosing Every 12 vs 4 Weeks in Women With Breast Cancer Metastatic to Bone: The OPTIMIZE-2 Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA Oncol. 2017 3 906 912 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6316 28125763 PMC5824238
63. Gundesen M.T. Asmussen J.T. Schjesvold F. Vangsted A.J. Helleberg C. Haukås E. Silkjær T. Teodorescu E.M. Jensen B.A. Slørdahl T.S. Potential value of pre-planned imaging of bone disease in multiple myeloma Blood Cancer J. 2023 13 105 10.1038/s41408-023-00880-0 37419876 PMC10328913
64. Lund T. Abildgaard N. Delaisse J.-M. Plesner T. Effect of withdrawal of zoledronic acid treatment on bone remodelling markers in multiple myeloma Br. J. Haematol. 2010 151 92 93 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2010.08293.x 20594193
65. Papanota A.-M. Karousi P. Kontos C.K. Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I. Scorilas A. Terpos E. Multiple Myeloma Bone Disease: Implication of MicroRNAs in Its Molecular Background Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021 22 2375 10.3390/ijms22052375 33673480 PMC7956742
66. Papanota A.-M. Tsiakanikas P. Kontos C.K. Malandrakis P. Liacos C.-I. Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I. Kanellias N. Gavriatopoulou M. Kastritis E. Avgeris M. A Molecular Signature of Circulating MicroRNA Can Predict Osteolytic Bone Disease in Multiple Myeloma Cancers 2021 13 3877 10.3390/cancers13153877 34359778 PMC8345491
67. Drejer L.A. El-Masri B.M. Ejersted C. Andreasen C.M. Thomsen L.K. Thomsen J.S. Andersen T.L. Hansen S. Trabecular bone deterioration in a postmenopausal female suffering multiple spontaneous vertebral fractures due to a delayed denosumab injection—A post-treatment re-initiation bone biopsy-based case study Bone Rep. 2023 19 101703 10.1016/j.bonr.2023.101703 37576928 PMC10412862
68. Cummings S.R. Ferrari S. Eastell R. Gilchrist N. Jensen J.B. McClung M. Roux C. Törring O. Valter I. Wang A.T. Vertebral Fractures After Discontinuation of Denosumab: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Randomized Placebo-Controlled FREEDOM Trial and Its Extension J. Bone Miner. Res. 2018 33 190 198 10.1002/jbmr.3337 29105841
69. Lyu H. Yoshida K. Zhao S.S. Wei J. Zeng C. Tedeschi S.K. Leder B.Z. Lei G. Tang P. Solomon D.H. Delayed Denosumab Injections and Fracture Risk Among Patients With Osteoporosis: A Population-Based Cohort Study Ann. Intern. Med. 2020 173 516 526 10.7326/M20-0882 32716706
70. Burckhardt P. Faouzi M. Buclin T. Lamy O. Fractures After Denosumab Discontinuation: A Retrospective Study of 797 Cases J. Bone Miner. Res. 2021 36 1717 1728 10.1002/jbmr.4335 34009703 PMC8518625
71. Sølling A.S. Harsløf T. Langdahl B. Treatment with Zoledronate Subsequent to Denosumab in Osteoporosis: A Randomized Trial J. Bone Miner. Res. 2020 35 1858 1870 10.1002/jbmr.4098 32459005
72. Ramchand S.K. David N.L. Lee H. Eastell R. Tsai J.N. Leder B.Z. Efficacy of Zoledronic Acid in Maintaining Areal and Volumetric Bone Density After Combined Denosumab and Teriparatide Administration: DATA-HD Study Extension J. Bone Miner. Res. 2021 36 921 930 10.1002/jbmr.4259 33507574
73. García-Sanz R. Oriol A. Moreno M.J. de la Rubia J. Payer A.R. Hernández M.T. Palomera L. Teruel A.I. Blanchard M.J. Gironella M. Zoledronic acid as compared with observation in multiple myeloma patients at biochemical relapse: Results of the randomized AZABACHE Spanish trial Haematologica 2015 100 1207 1213 10.3324/haematol.2015.128439 26069291 PMC4800701
74. Dudeney S. Lieberman I. Reinhardt M.-K. Hussein M. Kyphoplasty in the treatment of osteolytic vertebral compression fractures as a result of multiple myeloma J. Clin. Oncol. 2002 20 2382 2387 10.1200/JCO.2002.09.097 11981012
75. Kyriakou C. Molloy S. Vrionis F. Alberico R. Bastian L. Zonder J.A. Giralt S. Raje N. Kyle R.A. Roodman D.G.D. The role of cement augmentation with percutaneous vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures in multiple myeloma: A consensus statement from the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) Blood Cancer J. 2019 9 27 10.1038/s41408-019-0187-7 30808868 PMC6391474
76. Malhotra K. Butler J.S. Yu H.M. Selvadurai S. D’sa S. Rabin N. Kyriakou C. Yong K. Molloy S. Spinal disease in myeloma: Cohort analysis at a specialist spinal surgery centre indicates benefit of early surgical augmentation or bracing BMC Cancer 2016 16 444 10.1186/s12885-016-2495-7 27401073 PMC4939590
77. Audat Z.A. Hajyousef M.H. Fawareh M.D. Alawneh K.M. Odat M.A. Barbarawi M.M. Alomari A.A. Jahmani R.A. Khatatbeh M.A. Assmairan M.A. Comparison if the addition of multilevel vertebral augmentation to conventional therapy will improve the outcome of patients with multiple myeloma Scoliosis Spinal Disord. 2016 11 47 10.1186/s13013-016-0107-6 28050604 PMC5200971
78. Berenson J. Pflugmacher R. Jarzem P. Zonder J. Schechtman K. Tillman J.B. Bastian L. Ashraf T. Vrionis F. Balloon kyphoplasty versus non-surgical fracture management for treatment of painful vertebral body compression fractures in patients with cancer: A multicentre, randomised controlled trial Lancet Oncol. 2011 12 225 235 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70008-0 21333599
79. Nas Ö.F. İnecikli M.F. Hacıkurt K. Büyükkaya R. Özkaya G. Özkalemkaş F. Ali R. Erdoğan C. Hakyemez B. Effectiveness of percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with multiple myeloma having vertebral pain Diagn. Interv. Radiol. 2016 22 263 268 10.5152/dir.2016.15201 26912107 PMC4859743
80. Klazen C.A. Lohle P.N. de Vries J. Jansen F.H. Tielbeek A.V. Blonk M.C. Venmans A. van Rooij W.J. Schoemaker M.C. Juttmann J.R. Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): An open-label randomised trial Lancet 2010 376 1085 1092 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60954-3 20701962
81. Pflugmacher R. Taylor R. Agarwal A. Melcher I. Disch A. Haas N.P. Klostermann C. Balloon kyphoplasty in the treatment of metastatic disease of the spine: A 2-year prospective evaluation Eur. Spine J. 2008 17 1042 1048 10.1007/s00586-008-0701-2 18560905 PMC2518756
82. Rousing R. Kirkegaard A.O. Nielsen M. Holtved E. Sørensen L.H. Lund T. Olesen V. Andersen M. Percutaneous vertebroplasty as treatment of malignant vertebral lesions: A systematic review and GRADE evaluation resulting in a Danish national clinical guideline Eur. Spine J. 2020 29 1573 1579 10.1007/s00586-020-06392-w 32246231
83. Wickstroem L.A. Carreon L. Lund T. Abildgaard N. Lorenzen M.D. Andersen M. Vertebroplasty in patients with multiple myeloma with vertebral compression fractures: Protocol for a single-blind randomised controlled trial BMJ Open 2021 11 e045854 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045854 34489267 PMC8422322
84. Andersen T.L. Jensen P.R. Sikjaer T.T. Rejnmark L. Ejersted C. Delaisse J.M. A Critical Role of the Bone Marrow Envelope in Human Bone Remodeling J. Bone Miner. Res. 2023 38 918 928 10.1002/jbmr.4815 37038371
85. Hauge E.M. Qvesel D. Eriksen E.F. Mosekilde L. Melsen F. Cancellous bone remodeling occurs in specialized compartments lined by cells expressing osteoblastic markers J. Bone Miner. Res. 2001 16 1575 1582 10.1359/jbmr.2001.16.9.1575 11547826
86. Kristensen H.B. Andersen T.L. Marcussen N. Rolighed L. Delaisse J.-M. Osteoblast recruitment routes in human cancellous bone remodeling Am. J. Pathol. 2014 184 778 789 10.1016/j.ajpath.2013.11.022 24412092
87. Silvestris F. Cafforio P. Tucci M. Grinello D. Dammacco F. Upregulation of osteoblast apoptosis by malignant plasma cells: A role in myeloma bone disease Br. J. Haematol. 2003 122 39 52 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2003.04374.x 12823344
88. Tinhofer I. Biedermann R. Krismer M. Crazzolara R. Greil R. A role of TRAIL in killing osteoblasts by myeloma cells FASEB J. 2006 20 759 761 10.1096/fj.05-4329fje 16436464
89. Lee J.W. Chung H.Y. Ehrlich L.A. Jelinek D.F. Callander N.S. Roodman G.D. Choi S.J. IL-3 expression by myeloma cells increases both osteoclast formation and growth of myeloma cells Blood 2004 103 2308 2315 10.1182/blood-2003-06-1992 14615378
90. Lichtenstein A. Berenson J. Norman D. Chang M.P. Carlile A. Production of cytokines by bone marrow cells obtained from patients with multiple myeloma Blood 1989 74 1266 1273 10.1182/blood.V74.4.1266.1266 2475182
91. Giuliani N. Colla S. Sala R. Moroni M. Lazzaretti M. La Monica S. Bonomini S. Hojden M. Sammarelli G. Barillè S. Human myeloma cells stimulate the receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL) in T lymphocytes: A potential role in multiple myeloma bone disease Blood 2002 100 4615 4621 10.1182/blood-2002-04-1121 12393684
92. Politou M.C. Heath D.J. Rahemtulla A. Szydlo R. Anagnostopoulos A. Dimopoulos M.A. Croucher P.I. Terpos E. Serum concentrations of Dickkopf-1 protein are increased in patients with multiple myeloma and reduced after autologous stem cell transplantation Int. J. Cancer 2006 119 1728 1731 10.1002/ijc.22033 16646053
93. Brunetti G. Oranger A. Mori G. Specchia G. Rinaldi E. Curci P. Zallone A. Rizzi R. Grano M. Colucci S. Sclerostin is overexpressed by plasma cells from multiple myeloma patients Ann. N. Y Acad. Sci. 2011 1237 19 23 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06196.x 22082361
94. Kristensen I.B. Christensen J.H. Lyng M.B. Møller M.B. Pedersen L. Rasmussen L.M. Ditzel H.J. Abildgaard N. Hepatocyte growth factor pathway upregulation in the bone marrow microenvironment in multiple myeloma is associated with lytic bone disease Br. J. Haematol. 2013 161 373 382 10.1111/bjh.12270 23431957
95. Giuliani N. Colla S. Morandi F. Lazzaretti M. Sala R. Bonomini S. Grano M. Colucci S. Svaldi M. Rizzoli V. Myeloma cells block RUNX2/CBFA1 activity in human bone marrow osteoblast progenitors and inhibit osteoblast formation and differentiation Blood 2005 106 2472 2483 10.1182/blood-2004-12-4986 15933061
96. Adamik J. Jin S. Sun Q. Zhang P. Weiss K.R. Anderson J.L. Silbermann R. Roodman G.D. Galson D.L. EZH2 or HDAC1 Inhibition Reverses Multiple Myeloma-Induced Epigenetic Suppression of Osteoblast Differentiation Mol. Cancer Res. 2017 15 405 417 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-16-0242-T 28119431 PMC5524543
97. Standal T. Seidel C. Hjertner Ø. Plesner T. Sanderson R.D. Waage A. Borset M. Sundan A. Osteoprotegerin is bound, internalized, and degraded by multiple myeloma cells Blood 2002 100 3002 3007 10.1182/blood-2002-04-1190 12351414
98. Maiso P. Mogollón P. Ocio E.M. Garayoa M. Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Multiple Myeloma: Their Role as Active Contributors to Myeloma Progression Cancers 2021 13 2542 10.3390/cancers13112542 34067236 PMC8196907
99. Roux S. Meignin V. Quillard J. Meduri G. Guiochon-Mantel A. Fermand J.P. Milgrom E. Mariette X. RANK (receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB) and RANKL expression in multiple myeloma Br. J. Haematol. 2002 117 86 92 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2002.03417.x 11918537
100. Pearse R.N. Sordillo E.M. Yaccoby S. Wong B.R. Liau D.F. Colman N. Michaeli J. Epstein J. Choi Y. Multiple myeloma disrupts the TRANCE/osteoprotegerin cytokine axis to trigger bone destruction and promote tumor progression Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001 98 11581 11586 10.1073/pnas.201394498 11562486 PMC58772
101. Liu H. He J. Bagheri-Yarmand R. Li Z. Liu R. Wang Z. Bach D.H. Huang Y.H. Lin P. Guise T.A. Osteocyte CIITA aggravates osteolytic bone lesions in myeloma Nat. Commun. 2022 13 3684 10.1038/s41467-022-31356-7 35760800 PMC9237076
102. Delgado-Calle J. Bellido T. Roodman G.D. Role of osteocytes in multiple myeloma bone disease Curr. Opin. Support. Palliat. Care 2014 8 407 413 10.1097/SPC.0000000000000090 25289928 PMC4278961
103. Calle J.D. Bellido T. Roodman G.D.D. Direct Cell-To-Cell Interactions Between Osteocytes and Multiple Myeloma (MM) Cells Upregulate Sost and Downregulate OPG Expression In Osteocytes: Evidence For Osteocytic Contributions To MM-Induced Bone Disease Blood 2013 122 3140 10.1182/blood.V122.21.3140.3140
104. Panaroni C. Fulzele K. Mori T. Siu K.T. Onyewadume C. Maebius A. Raje N. Multiple myeloma cells induce lipolysis in adipocytes and uptake fatty acids through fatty acid transporter proteins Blood 2022 139 876 888 10.1182/blood.2021013832 34662370 PMC8832479
105. Fairfield H. Costa S. Falank C. Farrell M. Murphy C.S. D’amico A. Driscoll H. Reagan M.R. Multiple Myeloma Cells Alter Adipogenesis, Increase Senescence-Related and Inflammatory Gene Transcript Expression, and Alter Metabolism in Preadipocytes Front. Oncol. 2020 10 584683 10.3389/fonc.2020.584683 33680918 PMC7930573
106. Dabbah M. Attar-Schneider O. Matalon S.T. Shefler I. Dolberg O.J. Lishner M. Drucker L. Microvesicles derived from normal and multiple myeloma bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells differentially modulate myeloma cells’ phenotype and translation initiation Carcinogenesis 2017 38 708 716 10.1093/carcin/bgx045 28838065
107. Ibraheem A. Attar-Schneider O. Dabbah M. Jarchowsky O.D. Matalon S.T. Lishner M. Drucker L. BM-MSCs-derived ECM modifies multiple myeloma phenotype and drug response in a source-dependent manner Transl. Res. 2019 207 83 95 10.1016/j.trsl.2019.01.003 30738861
108. Dabbah M. Jarchowsky-Dolberg O. Attar-Schneider O. Matalon S.T. Pasmanik-Chor M. Drucker L. Lishner M. Multiple myeloma BM-MSCs increase the tumorigenicity of MM cells via transfer of VLA4-enriched microvesicles Carcinogenesis 2020 41 100 110 10.1093/carcin/bgz169 31586190
109. André T. Meuleman N. Stamatopoulos B. De Bruyn C. Pieters K. Bron D. Lagneaux L. Evidences of early senescence in multiple myeloma bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells PLoS ONE 2013 8 e59756 10.1371/journal.pone.0059756 23555770 PMC3605355
110. Arnulf B. Lecourt S. Soulier J. Ternaux B. Lacassagne M.-N. Crinquette A. Dessoly J. Sciaini A.K. Benbunan M. Chomienne C. Phenotypic and functional characterization of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells derived from patients with multiple myeloma Leukemia 2007 21 158 163 10.1038/sj.leu.2404466 17096013
111. Corre J. Mahtouk K. Attal M. Gadelorge M. Huynh A. Fleury-Cappellesso S. Danho C. Laharrague P. Klein B. Rème T. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells are abnormal in multiple myeloma Leukemia 2007 21 1079 1088 10.1038/sj.leu.2404621 17344918 PMC2346535
112. Bataille R. Chappard D. Marcelli C. Dessauw P. Baldet P. Sany J. Alexandre C. Recruitment of new osteoblasts and osteoclasts is the earliest critical event in the pathogenesis of human multiple myeloma J. Clin. Investig. 1991 88 62 66 10.1172/JCI115305 2056131 PMC296003
113. Alameda D. Saez B. Lara-Astiaso D. Sarvide S. Lasa M. Alignani D. Rodriguez I. Garate S. Vilas A. Paiva B. Characterization of freshly isolated bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells from healthy donors and patients with multiple myeloma: Transcriptional modulation of the microenvironment Haematologica 2020 105 e470 e473 10.3324/haematol.2019.235135 33054066 PMC7556476
114. Dotterweich J. Schlegelmilch K. Keller A. Geyer B. Schneider D. Zeck S. Tower R.J. Ebert R. Jakob F. Schütze N. Contact of myeloma cells induces a characteristic transcriptome signature in skeletal precursor cells -Implications for myeloma bone disease Bone 2016 93 155 166 10.1016/j.bone.2016.08.006 27519972
115. Garcia-Gomez A. Rivas J.D.L. Ocio E.M. Díaz-Rodríguez E. Montero J.C. Martín M. Blanco J.F. Sanchez-Guijo F.M. Pandiella A. San Miguel J.F. Transcriptomic profile induced in bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells after interaction with multiple myeloma cells: Implications in myeloma progression and myeloma bone disease Oncotarget 2014 5 8284 8305 10.18632/oncotarget.2058 25268740 PMC4226683
116. Schinke C. Qu P. Mehdi S.J. Hoering A. Epstein J. Johnson S.K. van Rhee F. Zangari M. Thanendrarajan S. Barlogie B. The Pattern of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Expression Is an Independent Marker of Outcome in Multiple Myeloma Clin. Cancer Res. 2018 24 2913 2919 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-2627 29563136
117. Fernando R.C. Mazzotti D.R. Azevedo H. Sandes A.F. Gil Rizzatti E. de Oliveira M.B. Alves V.L.F. Eugênio A.I.P. de Carvalho F. Dalboni M.A. Transcriptome Analysis of Mesenchymal Stem Cells from Multiple Myeloma Patients Reveals Downregulation of Genes Involved in Cell Cycle Progression, Immune Response, and Bone Metabolism Sci. Rep. 2019 9 1056 10.1038/s41598-018-38314-8 30705326 PMC6355867
118. Lemaitre L. Ferreira L.D.S. Joubert M.-V. Avet-Loiseau H. Martinet L. Corre J. Couderc B. Imprinting of Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Transcriptome Persists even after Treatment in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 21 3854 10.3390/ijms21113854 32481768 PMC7312921
119. de Jong M.M.E. Kellermayer Z. Papazian N. Tahri S. Bruinink D.H.O. Hoogenboezem R. Sanders M.A. van de Woestijne P.C. Bos P.K. Khandanpour C. The multiple myeloma microenvironment is defined by an inflammatory stromal cell landscape Nat. Immunol. 2021 22 769 780 10.1038/s41590-021-00931-3 34017122
120. Garayoa M. Garcia J.L. Santamaria C. Garcia-Gomez A. Blanco J.F. Pandiella A. Hernández J.M. Sanchez-Guijo F.M. del Cañizo M.C. Gutiérrez N.C. Mesenchymal stem cells from multiple myeloma patients display distinct genomic profile as compared with those from normal donors Leukemia 2009 23 1515 1527 10.1038/leu.2009.65 19357701
121. Garcia-Gomez A. Li T. de la Calle-Fabregat C. Rodríguez-Ubreva J. Ciudad L. Català-Moll F. Godoy-Tena G. Martín-Sánchez M. San-Segundo L. Muntión S. Targeting aberrant DNA methylation in mesenchymal stromal cells as a treatment for myeloma bone disease Nat. Commun. 2021 12 421 10.1038/s41467-020-20715-x 33462210 PMC7813865
122. Soekojo C.Y. Chng W.J. Treatment horizon in multiple myeloma Eur. J. Haematol. 2022 109 425 440 10.1111/ejh.13840 35880395
123. Kristensen I.B. Pedersen L. Rø T.B. Christensen J.H. Lyng M.B. Rasmussen L.M. Ditzel H.J. Børset M. Abildgaard N. Decorin is down-regulated in multiple myeloma and MGUS bone marrow plasma and inhibits HGF-induced myeloma plasma cell viability and migration Eur. J. Haematol. 2013 91 196 200 10.1111/ejh.12125 23607294
124. Yaccoby S. Wezeman M.J. Zangari M. Walker R. Cottler-Fox M. Gaddy D. Ling W. Saha R. Barlogie B. Tricot G. Inhibitory effects of osteoblasts and increased bone formation on myeloma in novel culture systems and a myelomatous mouse model Haematologica 2006 91 192 199 16461303 PMC1592551
125. Zavrski I. Krebbel H. Wildemann B. Heider U. Kaiser M. Possinger K. Sezer O. Proteasome inhibitors abrogate osteoclast differentiation and osteoclast function Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2005 333 200 205 10.1016/j.bbrc.2005.05.098 15936724
126. Terpos E. Heath D.J. Rahemtulla A. Zervas K. Chantry A. Anagnostopoulos A. Pouli A. Katodritou E. Verrou E. Vervessou E.C. Bortezomib reduces serum dickkopf-1 and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand concentrations and normalises indices of bone remodelling in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma Br. J. Haematol. 2006 135 688 692 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2006.06356.x 17107351
127. Terpos E. Kastritis E. Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I. Christoulas D. Papatheodorou A. Eleutherakis-Papaiakovou E. Kanellias N. Fotiou D. Ziogas D.C. Migkou M. Consolidation therapy with the combination of bortezomib and lenalidomide (VR) without dexamethasone in multiple myeloma patients after transplant: Effects on survival and bone outcomes in the absence of bisphosphonates Am. J. Hematol. 2019 94 400 407 10.1002/ajh.25392 30592079
128. Hurchla M.A. Garcia-Gomez A. Hornick M.C. Ocio E.M. Li A. Blanco J.F. Collins L. Kirk C.J. Piwnica-Worms D. Vij R. The epoxyketone-based proteasome inhibitors carfilzomib and orally bioavailable oprozomib have anti-resorptive and bone-anabolic activity in addition to anti-myeloma effects Leukemia 2013 27 430 440 10.1038/leu.2012.183 22763387 PMC3771507
129. Terpos E. Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I. Katodritou E. Kyrtsonis M.-C. Douka V. Spanoudakis E. Papatheodorou A. Eleutherakis-Papaiakovou E. Kanellias N. Gavriatopoulou M. Carfilzomib Improves Bone Metabolism in Patients with Advanced Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Results of the CarMMa Study Cancers 2021 13 1257 10.3390/cancers13061257 33809268 PMC7998249
130. Cata J.P. Weng H.-R. Burton A.W. Villareal H. Giralt S. Dougherty P.M. Quantitative sensory findings in patients with bortezomib-induced pain J. Pain 2007 8 296 306 10.1016/j.jpain.2006.09.014 17175202
131. Xiao Y. Yin J. Wei J. Shang Z. Incidence and risk of cardiotoxicity associated with bortezomib in the treatment of cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis PLoS ONE 2014 9 e87671 10.1371/journal.pone.0087671 24489948 PMC3906186
132. Richardson P.G. Briemberg H. Jagannath S. Wen P.Y. Barlogie B. Berenson J. Singhal S. Siegel D.S. Irwin D. Schuster M. Frequency, characteristics, and reversibility of peripheral neuropathy during treatment of advanced multiple myeloma with bortezomib J. Clin. Oncol. 2006 24 3113 3120 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.7779 16754936
133. Wang Q. Dong Z. Su J. Huang J. Xiao P. Tian L. Chen Y. Ma L. Chen X. Ixazomib inhibits myeloma cell proliferation by targeting UBE2K Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2021 549 1 7 10.1016/j.bbrc.2021.02.048 33647537
134. Tibullo D. Longo A. Vicario N. Romano A. Barbato A. Di Rosa M. Barbagallo I. Anfuso C.D. Lupo G. Gulino R. Ixazomib Improves Bone Remodeling and Counteracts sonic Hedgehog signaling Inhibition Mediated by Myeloma Cells Cancers 2020 12 323 10.3390/cancers12020323 32019102 PMC7073172
135. Garcia-Gomez A. Quwaider D. Canavese M. Ocio E.M. Tian Z. Blanco J.F. Berger A.J. Ortiz-de-Solorzano C. Hernández-Iglesias T. Martens A.C. Preclinical activity of the oral proteasome inhibitor MLN9708 in Myeloma bone disease Clin. Cancer Res. 2014 20 1542 1554 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1657 24486586
136. Diaz-Delcastillo M. Gundesen M.T. Andersen C.W. Nielsen A.L. Møller H.E.H. Vinholt P.J. Asmussen J.T. Kristensen I.B. Nyvold C.G. Abildgaard N. Increased Bone Volume by Ixazomib in Multiple Myeloma: 3-Month Results from an Open Label Phase 2 Study J. Bone Miner. Res. 2023 38 639 649 10.1002/jbmr.4807 36970780
137. Terpos E. Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I. Kastritis E. Hatjiharissi E. Katodritou E. Eleutherakis-Papaiakovou E. Verrou E. Gavriatopoulou M. Leonidakis A. Manousou K. Daratumumab Improves Bone Turnover in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma; Phase 2 Study “REBUILD” Cancers 2022 14 2768 10.3390/cancers14112768 35681747 PMC9179322
138. Rogers M.J. Crockett J.C. Coxon F.P. Mönkkönen J. Biochemical and molecular mechanisms of action of bisphosphonates Bone 2011 49 34 41 10.1016/j.bone.2010.11.008 21111853
139. van de Donk N.W. Usmani S.Z. CD38 Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: Mechanisms of Action and Modes of Resistance Front. Immunol. 2018 9 2134 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02134 30294326 PMC6158369
140. Vasiliadis E.S. Evangelopoulos D.-S. Kaspiris A. Benetos I.S. Vlachos C. Pneumaticos S.G. The Role of Sclerostin in Bone Diseases J. Clin. Med. 2022 11 806 10.3390/jcm11030806 35160258 PMC8836457
141. Gandolfi S. Laubach J.P. Hideshima T. Chauhan D. Anderson K.C. Richardson P.G. The proteasome and proteasome inhibitors in multiple myeloma Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2017 36 561 584 10.1007/s10555-017-9707-8 29196868
142. Dadzie T.G. Green A.C. The role of the bone microenvironment in regulating myeloma residual disease and treatment Front. Oncol. 2022 12 999939 10.3389/fonc.2022.999939 36072809 PMC9441696
143. Khoo W.H. Ledergor G. Weiner A. Roden D.L. Terry R.L. McDonald M.M. Chai R.C. De Veirman K. Owen K.L. Opperman K.S. A niche-dependent myeloid transcriptome signature defines dormant myeloma cells Blood 2019 134 30 43 10.1182/blood.2018880930 31023703
144. Lawson M.A. McDonald M.M. Kovacic N. Khoo W.H. Terry R.L. Down J. Kaplan W. Paton-Hough J. Fellows C. Pettitt J.A. Osteoclasts control reactivation of dormant myeloma cells by remodelling the endosteal niche Nat. Commun. 2015 6 8983 10.1038/ncomms9983 26632274 PMC4686867