MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406421525 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32010042

Impact of Bone-Modifying Agents on Post-Bone Metastasis Survival Across Cancer Types

2025· article· en· W4406421525 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hironari Tamiya, Kazumi Nishino, Yuji Kato, Reina Nakahashi-Kato, Yurika Kosuga-Tsujimoto, Shota Kinoshita, Rie Suzuki, Makiyo Watanabe, Toru Wakamatsu, Shigeki Kakunaga, Satoshi Takenaka

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBone metastasisMetastasisInternal medicineOncologyPopulationProstate cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Bone metastasis is associated with a poor prognosis. Bone-modifying agents (BMA) are commonly used for the prevention or treatment of skeletal-related events (SRE) in patients with bone metastasis; however, whether or not treatment with BMA improves survival remains unclear. In this study, we investigated whether BMA was involved in post-bone metastasis survival. Methods: A total of 539 cancer patients were retrospectively analyzed to identify significant independent factors in post-bone metastasis survival. Results: Among the overall population, patients with the following cancers had a median survival longer than 24 months: thyroid, 97.2 months; breast, 51.5 months; prostate, 47.2 months; and kidney, 38.8 months. In contrast, median post-bone metastasis survival was significantly shorter in gastrointestinal (GI) (6.5 months), head and neck (6.3 months), and urinary tract (3.4 months) cancers. In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the log-rank test demonstrated that the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation was a significant factor for post-bone metastasis survival: EGFR mutation (−) n = 67, median post-bone metastasis survival 11.5 months (95% CI: 6.0–15.2); EGFR mutation (+) n = 39, median post-bone metastasis survival 28.8 months (95% CI: 18.1–35.7) (p < 0.05). Intriguingly, treatment with BMA was a significant positive prognostic factor: BMA (−) n = 203, median post-bone metastasis survival 7.8 months (95% CI: 5.8–12.5); BMA (+) n = 336, median post-bone metastasis survival 21.9 months (95% CI: 16.1–26.4) (p < 0.001). Moreover, the Cox proportional hazards model showed that this was particularly evident in cancer types with poor prognosis such as GI cancer (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.40–0.95; p < 0.05) and NSCLC without the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34–0.91; p < 0.05). Conclusions: Treatment with BMA is recommended not only for the prevention and/or treatment of SRE, but also may have a positive impact on post-bone metastasis survival, particularly in cancers with typically poor post-bone metastasis survival such as GI cancer and NSCLC without the EGFR mutation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→