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
Authors' conclusion
Considering the effectiveness and safety, and the level of evidence available, bisphosphonates present as the preferred bone protective intervention for the management of bone health in patients with non-metastatic BC.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with non-metastatic breast cancer receiving anticancer therapies88 studies
- Comparison
- Bone protective interventions vs controls
- Outcome
- Change in BMD
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Pooled mean difference (lumbar spine)
4.17
P = 0.0
Bisphosphonates
Pooled mean difference (total hip)
1.81
P = 0.034
Bisphosphonates
Pooled mean difference (femoral neck)
2.35
P = 0.001
Bisphosphonates
Further pooled results
| Outcome | Pooled RR | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Incidence of skeletal fracturesBisphosphonates vs Controls | 0.77 | P < 0.001 |
Denosumab: Bone mineral density (BMD) and skeletal fracture incidence
- Similar effects to bisphosphonates; meta-analysis not possible due to lack of RCTs
Original publication
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. Osteoporos Int. Published 16 February 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →