Background: Denosumab is an effective treatment for giant cell tumor of the bone (GCTB) but can cause clinically significant adverse effects. Current approved dosing is every 4 weeks after 3 weekly loading doses. We assessed whether alternative, longer dosing intervals are associated with differences in efficacy or bone toxicity.
Methods: Single institution retrospective chart review was conducted on patients with GCTB over 18 years old who received at least 1 year of standard denosumab dosing. Patients identified using a free-text search engine with keywords "giant cell tumor" and "denosumab" from January 1998 to August 2020.
Results: Approximately 37 patients with GCTB (19F, 18M) were identified with median age of 37 years (range 22-73). Dosing interval was increased in 38% (n = 14), with the most common final dosing interval 12 weeks (n = 8). Six patients (16%) had bone complications: osteonecrosis of the jaw (n =5), atypical fracture (n = 1), and nonhealing dental wounds (n = 2). All patients with bone complications were on the monthly dosing schedule, but there was no statistically significant difference compared to longer dosing intervals (P = .22). No statistically significant difference in median PFS was noted (P = .97). However, 5-year PFS was superior in patients treated with less frequent versus standard dosing of denosumab (P = .036).
Conclusions: Increasing the interval of denosumab dosing for GCTB provided similar tumor control compared to standard dosing and lower absolute number of bone toxicity events. Larger studies are needed to better define the optimal interval of denosumab administration and the effect on efficacy, toxicity, and associated healthcare expense.
Keywords: administration and dosing; adverse effects; denosumab; giant cell tumor of bone.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.