Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Feb;13(3):e7014.
doi: 10.1002/cam4.7014.

Reclassified the phenotypes of cancer types and construct a nomogram for predicting bone metastasis risk: A pan-cancer analysis

Affiliations

Reclassified the phenotypes of cancer types and construct a nomogram for predicting bone metastasis risk: A pan-cancer analysis

Ming Li et al. Cancer Med. 2024 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Numerous of models have been developed to predict the bone metastasis (BM) risk; however, due to the variety of cancer types, it is difficult for clinicians to use these models efficiently. We aimed to perform the pan-cancer analysis to create the cancer classification system for BM, and construct the nomogram for predicting the BM risk.

Methods: Cancer patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were included. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering analysis was performed to create the BM prevalence-based cancer classification system (BM-CCS). Multivariable logistic regression was applied to investigate the possible associated factors for BM and construct a nomogram for BM risk prediction. The patients diagnosed between 2017 and 2018 were selected for validating the performance of the BM-CCS and the nomogram, respectively.

Results: A total of 50 cancer types with 2,438,680 patients were included in the construction model. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering analysis classified the 50 cancer types into three main phenotypes, namely, categories A, B, and C. The pooled BM prevalence in category A (17.7%; 95% CI: 17.5%-17.8%) was significantly higher than that in category B (5.0%; 95% CI: 4.5%-5.6%), and category C (1.2%; 95% CI: 1.1%-1.4%) (p < 0.001). Advanced age, male gender, race, poorly differentiated grade, higher T, N stage, and brain, lung, liver metastasis were significantly associated with BM risk, but the results were not consistent across all cancers. Based on these factors and BM-CCS, we constructed a nomogram for predicting the BM risk. The nomogram showed good calibration and discrimination ability (AUC in validation cohort = 88%,95% CI: 87.4%-88.5%; AUC in construction cohort = 86.9%,95% CI: 86.8%-87.1%). The decision curve analysis also demonstrated the clinical usefulness.

Conclusion: The classification system and prediction nomogram may guide the cancer management and individualized BM screening, thus allocating the medical resources to cancer patients. Moreover, it may also have important implications for studying the etiology of BM.

Keywords: associated factors; bone metastasis; cancer classification system; prediction nomogram.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Spectrum distribution for top 20 bone metastasis prevalence cancer types among total, male and female patients.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Forest plot for the pooled prevalence of bone metastasis across all of the cancer types.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis for the classification of cancer types into three categories based on bone metastasis prevalence (A); the differences in the pooled bone metastatic prevalence among these three categories in the construction cohort (B), and stratified by different races (C), and in the validation cohort (D).
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Risk factors for bone metastasis in the construction cohort. The red color and green color describe risk factors and protective factors for the bine metastatic risk, respectively, while the yellow color indicates that the factors did not reach the significance level.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
The nomogram for predicting the bone metastasis risk in the construction cohort (A); the calibration curve for validating the diagnostic accuracy of the nomogram in the construction cohort (B) and validation cohort (C) and the ROC curve for validating the discrimination ability of the nomogram in the construction and validation cohort (D).

Similar articles

References

    1. Hernandez RK, Wade SW, Reich A, Pirolli M, Liede A, Lyman GH. Incidence of bone metastases in patients with solid tumors: analysis of oncology electronic medical records in the United States. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):44. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Xiaobin C, Zhaojun X, Tao L, et al. Analysis of related risk factors and prognostic factors of gastric cancer with bone metastasis: a SEER‐based study. J Immunol Res. 2022;2022:3251051. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gdowski AS, Ranjan A, Vishwanatha JK. Current concepts in bone metastasis, contemporary therapeutic strategies and ongoing clinical trials. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2017;36(1):108. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hong S, Youk T, Lee SJ, Kim KM, Vajdic CM. Bone metastasis and skeletal‐related events in patients with solid cancer: a Korean nationwide health insurance database study. PLoS One. 2020;15(7):e0234927. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schulman KL, Kohles J. Economic burden of metastatic bone disease in the U.S. Cancer. 2007;109(11):2334‐2342. - PubMed
-