Journal of bone oncology · 2026
Anti-resorptive agents in neuroendocrine bone metastases - A systematic review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Elston Marianne S, Chan Chui Colin, Tamatea Jade A U, Lawrence Ben, Boyle Veronica
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Bone metastases are common in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) and frequently result in skeletal complications. The current role of anti-resorptive agents for these patients is not known.
METHODS: A systematic review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and a PICOS framework searching the Embase, Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane library and Web of Science databases to identify studies reporting the use of anti-resorptive agents in patients with well-differentiated NENs who have bone metastases.
RESULTS: A total of 2424 articles were identified with 104 selected for full text review. After review, five retrospective studies were included in the review. Study design was heterogenous, and treatment details typically poorly described. A total of 348 patients were included in the review, of whom 206 received anti-resorptive treatment. One study (N = 19) reported an increase in overall survival with use of monthly bisphosphonates whereas no difference in survival with use of anti-resorptive agents were identified in three studies. The response to anti-resorptive therapy was positively associated with overall survival in one study. One study reported a significant reduction in SRE in the group receiving anti-resorptive therapy. Significant toxicity from anti-resorptive therapy was reported in 15.2% of patients in one study whereas treatment complications were not documented in the other three studies.
CONCLUSION: Currently, there are insufficient data as to the role of anti-resorptive agents in patients with NENs and a prospective trial is needed.
METHODS: A systematic review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and a PICOS framework searching the Embase, Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane library and Web of Science databases to identify studies reporting the use of anti-resorptive agents in patients with well-differentiated NENs who have bone metastases.
RESULTS: A total of 2424 articles were identified with 104 selected for full text review. After review, five retrospective studies were included in the review. Study design was heterogenous, and treatment details typically poorly described. A total of 348 patients were included in the review, of whom 206 received anti-resorptive treatment. One study (N = 19) reported an increase in overall survival with use of monthly bisphosphonates whereas no difference in survival with use of anti-resorptive agents were identified in three studies. The response to anti-resorptive therapy was positively associated with overall survival in one study. One study reported a significant reduction in SRE in the group receiving anti-resorptive therapy. Significant toxicity from anti-resorptive therapy was reported in 15.2% of patients in one study whereas treatment complications were not documented in the other three studies.
CONCLUSION: Currently, there are insufficient data as to the role of anti-resorptive agents in patients with NENs and a prospective trial is needed.