Skip Navigation


Annals of Oncology Advance Access originally published online on February 2, 2005
Annals of Oncology 2005 16(3):513; doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi071
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
16/3/513    most recent
mdi071v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tripathy, D
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Tripathy, D
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2005 European Society for Medical Oncology

Letter to the Editor

Reply to "Letter to the Editor on ‘Oral ibandronate for the treatment of metastatic bone disease in breast cancer: efficacy and safety results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial"’, by A. M. Westermann doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi072

The original ibandronate trials were written and initiated before the approval and availability of bisphosphonates to prevent complications of bone metastases. At the time, these drugs were only used to treat hypercalcemia (and hypercalcemia was excluded from the ibandronate trial). During the course of these trials, results from other bisphosphonate trials did emerge, but only for lytic bone metastases, and the ibandronate trials included all bone metastases. The oral ibandronate trial opened after the intravenous trials, in 1996. Pamidronate was approved for lytic bone metastases in the USA in 1998. However, the ibandronate trials were also open in countries where these agents were still not available, and where they were available, the investigators at the individual center (after 1998) could use their discretion as to whom they would enroll—for example, patients with non-lytic bone metastases. Thus, the whole approach to treating bone metastases was evolving during the course of this trial. The follow-up, analysis and publication of the trial were longer than usual since the company that currently holds the license to the drug (Roche) acquired this drug from another company after the trial was completed.

D Tripathy*

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, NC8.106, Dallas, TX 75390-8852, USA

Email: debu.tripathy{at}utsouthwestern.edu


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
16/3/513    most recent
mdi071v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tripathy, D
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Tripathy, D
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?