Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in elderly men and is often associated with bone metastases. Although bone metastases are osteosclerotic, histological and biochemical studies clearly indicate an increase of both bone formation and bone resorption, providing the rational for using bisphosphonate as a palliative treatment in these patients. The recent development of specific and sensitive biochemical markers, reflecting the overall rate of bone formation and bone resorption, has improved the non-invasive assessment of bone turnover abnormalities in patients with prostate cancer: The immunoassays for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase and type I collagen propeptides are currently the most sensitive markers to assess bone. formation. The best indices of bone resorption are the immunoassay for the pyridinoline cross-links and the related peptides that can be measured in urine and more recently in serum. A better knowledge of the biochemistry, especially of the age-related post-translational modifications of type I collagen in the abnormal bone matrix, associated with bone metastases from prostate cancer may lead to markers of increased sensitivity. A recent example is the demonstration that the isomerization and racemization of the aspartic acid residue in C-telopeptides of type I collagen is impaired in patients with prostate cancer and bone metastases, a pattern than can be detected with specific conformational antibodies. The most sensitive markers of bone formation and bone resorption are markedly increased in patients with bone metastases compared with patients with cancer but without metastases, the levels correlating with the extent of the bone involvement. However; their sensitivity remains limited, suggesting that the currently available biochemical markers cannot be used as a surrogate for bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone involvement. A few studies have suggested that the measurement of bone markers may be useful in the assessment of response to anti-endocrine therapy, although available data indicate a lower sensitivity than with prostates specific antigen. Additional longitudinal studies are required to assess the potential use of bone markers, especially to identify patients who relapse during the course of the treatment and, more specifically 3 those that result from the progression in bone metastases. Clearly the established use of bone markers is for monitoring effects of bisphosphonate treatment. Several studies have shown a rapid decrease of bone resorption markers in patients with prostate cancer and bone metastases, the magnitude of the decrease correlating with the efficacy of the treatment in reducing bone pain. Thus, bone markers are likely to become a useful and objective tool to monitor bisphosphonate treatment and individualie the therapy scheme. (C) 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd.
