Abstract
The 6th annual Bone and the Oncologist New Updates conference was held in Ottawa, Ontario, April 14–15, 2011. This meeting traditionally focuses on innovative research into the mechanisms and consequences of treatment-induced and metastatic bone disease. This year, the multidisciplinary audience was polled to produce “treatment recommendations for the use of bone-targeted agents.” In addition, the meeting report itself outlines some of the key topics presented on adjuvant bisphosphonate use and the role of bone-targeted agents in the settings of meta-static and cancer-therapy-induced bone loss.
Highlights
Since 2005, the annual Bone and the Oncologist New Updates meetings—a day to day-anda-half conference consisting of keynote national and international speakers—have covered a range of bone issues pertinent to health care professionals in oncology
The topics covered have ranged from normal bone function to the effects of cancer and cancer therapies on normal bone and metastatic bone disease
The results should be viewed as treatment recommendations rather than treatment guidelines, because by its very nature, the production of a guideline requires a full systematic review of the topic
Summary
Since 2005, the annual Bone and the Oncologist New Updates (bonus) meetings—a day to day-anda-half conference consisting of keynote national and international speakers—have covered a range of bone issues pertinent to health care professionals in oncology. The 6th annual bonus conference (April 14–15, 2011) brought together clinicians, basic scientists, and others interested in the effects of cancer and its treatment on bone health. Controversial topics about the adjuvant use of bisphosphonates to prevent breast cancer recurrences and about the role and clinical significance of bone biomarkers were discussed. This year there was a drive to produce “treatment recommendations for the use of bone-targeted agents in 2011,” using input from the multidisciplinary audience. The results should be viewed as treatment recommendations rather than treatment guidelines, because by its very nature, the production of a guideline requires a full systematic review of the topic
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have