Osteoblastic bone reaction in non-small cell lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor mutation treated with osimertinib.

Background

The bone is one of the most common metastatic sites of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bone metastasis is found in 30–40% of patients with advanced NSCLC [ 1 ]. Bone metastasis often induces pain, impaired mobility, or pathologic fracture, which negatively affects the quality of life of the patients [ 2 , 3 ]. Moreover, bone metastasis is reportedly associated with poor survival in patients with NSCLC [ 4 , 5 ]. Bone metastases are classified into sclerotic, lytic, and mixed types according to their radiographic or pathological appearance [ 6 ]. In various cancers, such as breast or multiple myeloma, tumor cells usually promote osteoclast differentiation rather than osteoblast differentiation. Hence, bone resorption exceeds bone formation, and osteolytic lesions are formed. However, in prostate cancer, tumor cells release substances that stimulate the osteoblast lineage, resulting in the formation of osteosclerotic lesions. Nevertheless, these processes can coexist, forming mixed lesions [ 6 , 7 ]. While most bone metastases of NSCLC present as lytic or mixed types, a previous study reported that the presence of sclerotic metastatic lesions was associated with a good prognosis compared to other types of metastases in epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR )-mutant lung adenocarcinoma [ 8 , 9 ]. However, studies on the types of bone metastases in NSCLC are limited.

An osteoblastic bone reaction (OBR) refers to an increase in bone density at the site of bone metastasis or the appearance of new sclerotic bone lesions after anticancer treatment [ 10 , 11 ]. Although the mechanism underlying OBR has not been completely elucidated, it represents the healing process of new bone formation after treatment [ 12 , 13 ]. OBR was first reported in the 1970s in patients with prostate cancer and has been widely documented in patients with prostate or breast cancer treated with hormones or chemotherapeutics [ 14 – 16 ]. OBR has also been reported in patients with NSCLC and small-cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy or molecular targeting therapy regimens since the 2000s [ 3 , 10 , 11 , 17 – 20 ]. In particular, many cases of OBR have been reported in patients with EGFR -mutant NSCLC treated with EGFR-thyroxine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) [ 13 , 18 , 19 , 21 ]. The third-generation EGFR-TKI, osimertinib, was shown to be superior to the first-generation TKIs, gefitinib and erlotinib, in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); therefore, it is now widely recommended as a first-line treatment for patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations [ 22 – 25 ]. Nevertheless, previous studies investigating OBR in EGFR -mutant NSCLC targeted only patients receiving first-generation TKIs; therefore, it is unknown whether OBR develops in patients treated with osimertinib. Recognizing OBR in this population is important to avoid misunderstanding this phenomenon as a progressive disease and changing treatments unnecessarily [ 11 , 17 ].

Hence, this study aimed to investigate the prevalence of OBR, the details of bone metastasis and OBR, and the association between OBR and clinical outcomes in patients with EGFR -mutant advanced NSCLC treated with osimertinib.

Methods

Study design and inclusion criteria

This single-center retrospective cohort study was approved by the ethics committee of the National Hospital Organization Kinki-Chuo Chest Medical Center (No. 2022–121). The patients who were diagnosed with EGFR -mutant NSCLC with bone metastasis and received osimertinib as the first-line treatment between February 2018 and October 2022 at National Hospital Organization Kinki-Chuo Chest Medical Center were reviewed. Patients who were not assessed using computed tomography (CT) after osimertinib initiation and those who received radiotherapy for bone metastasis before the first evaluation after osimertinib initiation were excluded. Finally, after excluding the patients, those, irrespective of whether they received bone-modifying agents or not, were included in this study.

Data collection

The demographic data; clinical, biological, and histological findings; and EGFR mutation types at the time of osimertinib initiation were collected. The number, sites, and types of bone metastases at osimertinib initiation and OBR development at the first evaluation were also reviewed. OBR was defined as an increase in bone density at the site of bone metastasis or the appearance of new sclerotic bone lesions after anticancer treatment in CT follow-up examinations [ 10 , 11 , 17 ]. In addition, we collected data on the efficacy of osimertinib and the development of skeletal-related events (SREs).

Imaging evaluation

A radiologist with 23 years of experience (H.S.) reviewed the CT scans before osimertinib initiation and at the first CT scan evaluation after treatment initiation for each patient to evaluate bone metastasis and OBR. In addition, an oncologist (K.K.) reviewed CT at baseline and after the treatment and evaluated OBR. If there were disagreements between the radiologist and oncologist, we discussed and then decided whether OBR existed. Baseline bone metastases were classified as sclerotic, lytic, or mixed.

Assessment of treatment efficacy and SRE

Treatment efficacy was assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). The response was categorized as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD) and judged by clinicians. PFS was defined as the time from osimertinib initiation to the first confirmation of disease progression or death. SRE was defined as fractures, spinal cord compression, radiation, or surgery to the bone [ 26 ]. SRE-free survival (SRE-FS) was the time from osimertinib initiation to the first confirmation of SRE onset or death.

Statistical analysis

Patient backgrounds and clinicopathological characteristics were described as medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) for quantitative variables and as counts and percentages for qualitative variables. We conducted Fisher’s exact test for comparing categorical variables and Mann–Whitney U test to compare continuous variables. PFS or SRE-FS was calculated using Kaplan–Meier analysis. A log-rank test was performed to evaluate the association between the OBR and PFS or between the OBR and SRE-FS. Univariate and multivariate prognostic analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. OBR and denosumab administration were included in multivariate analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), a graphical user interface for R. (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) [ 27 ].

Results

Inclusion cohort

During the inclusion period, 138 patients received osimertinib as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutant NSCLC, and 51 patients (37%) had bone metastasis. However, four and two patients were excluded because of a lack of CT scan evaluation after osimertinib initiation and radiation therapy before the first evaluation, respectively. Consequently, 45 patients were included in the final analysis. A consort diagram representing the patient selection is shown in Fig. 1 . Fig. 1 Inclusion cohort of the study. CT, computed tomography; EGFR , epidermal growth factor receptor; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer

Patient characteristics

Patient backgrounds and clinicopathological characteristics are shown in Table 1 . The median age of the patients was 73 years. Thirty-four patients (76%) were female, 41 patients (91%) had adenocarcinoma, and exon 19 deletion mutation was the most frequent type of mutation (58%). Thirty-five of the forty-five patients (78%) underwent positron emission tomography (PET)-CT at baseline. Thirty-seven patients (82%) presented with OBR at the first CT scan after osimertinib initiation. Patients with OBR (OBR group) showed statistically better treatment response and longer duration from osimertinib initiation to the first CT evaluation than patients without OBR (non-OBR group). Thirty-six of the forty-five patients (80%) received denosumab; among these, 31 (86%) were diagnosed with OBR and 5 (14%) were diagnosed without OBR. None of the patients received zoledronic acid as a treatment for bone metastases. Table 1 Patients’ characteristics All patients ( n = 45) OBR patients ( n = 37) non-OBR patients ( n = 8) p -value Age (years) 73 (67–78) 73 (65–78) 73.5 (71–75.8) 0.52 Females 34 (76%) 28 (76%) 6 (75%) 1.0 Histology 0.56 Adenocarcinoma 41 (91%) 34 (92%) 7 (88%) Non-adenocarcinoma 4 (8.9%) 3 (8.1%) 1 (13%) Type of EGFR mutations 0.35 exon 19 deletions 26 (58%) 23 (62%) 3 (38%) L858R 16 (36%) 12 (32%) 4 (50%) Others 3 (6.7%) 2 (5.4%) 1 (13%) Staging 0.65 IVB 36 (80%) 30 (81%) 6 (75%) Recurrence 9 (20%) 7 (19%) 2 (25%) Brain metastasis 16 (36%) 13 (35%) 3 (38%) 1.0 Number of bone metastasis 0.26 1 11 (24%) 8 (22%) 3 (38%) 2 3 (6.7%) 3 (8.1%) 0 (0%) 3 10 (22%) 8 (22%) 2 (25%) 4 4 (8.9%) 2 (5.4%) 2 (25%) ≥ 5 17 (38%) 16 (43%) 1 (13%) ALP (IU/L) 274 (113–347) 274 (113–335) 295 (143–428) 0.55 Ca (mg/dL) 9.5 (9.3–9.7) 9.5 (9.3–9.6) 9.6 (9.4–9.7) 0.51 CEA (ng/mL) 51 (9.9–175) 43 (9.9–175) 73 (39–320) 0.58 RECIST at the first CT evaluation 0.010 CR 1 (2.2%) 1 (2.7%) 0 (0%) PR 39 (87%) 34 (92%) 5 (63%) SD 1 (2.2%) 1 (2.7%) 0 (0%) PD 4 (8.9%) 1 (2.7%) 3 (38%) Time from osimertinib initiation to the first CT evaluation (months) 2 (1–3) 3 (2–3) 1 (0.75–1.5) 0.040 Denosumab use 36 (80%) 31 (84%) 5 (63%) 0.33 ALP Alkaline phosphatase, Ca calcium, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, CR complete response, CT computed tomography, OBR osteoblastic bone reaction, PD progression disease, PR partial response, RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, SD stable disease

Details of OBR

The sites of bone metastasis and the OBR at each site are summarized in Table 2 . Vertebra was the most common site of bone metastases (36/45, 80%). OBR developed in the vertebra in 78% (28/36) of patients with metastasis in the vertebra. The types of bone metastases and the OBR for each type are shown in Table 3 . OBR developed in 94% (16/17) of patients with sclerotic bone lesions at baseline. Similarly, OBR developed in lytic bone and mixed lesions in 76% (13/17) and 82% (23/28) of patients with lytic and mixed lesions, respectively. Furthermore, in 40% (14/35) of patients, OBR was found in lesions that could not be recognized in CT scans but could be recognized in PET-CT. A typical example of each OBR pattern is shown in Fig. 2 . Table 2 Sites of bone metastasis and OBR Site of bone metastases Vertebra Ribs Pelvis Others The number of patients who had bone metastasis ( n = 45) 36 18 22 11 The number of patients who presented with OBR ( n = 37) 28 (78%) 18 (100%) 16 (73%) 7 (64%) OBR osteoblastic bone reaction Table 3 Radiological types of bone metastasis and OBR Radiological type of bone metastases Sclerotic Lytic Mixed Normal a The number of patients who had bone metastasis ( n = 45) 17 17 28 35 The number of patients who presented with OBR ( n = 37) 16 (94%) 13 (76%) 23 (82%) 14 (40%) OBR osteoblastic bone reaction a The lesions which could not be recognized on CT scans but on PET-CT Fig. 2 The typical example of each pattern of osteoblastic bone reaction (OBR). A 58-year-old woman showed sclerotic bone metastasis in the vertebra at baseline ( A ) and increased bone density after 3 months ( B ). An 84-year-old woman presented lytic bone metastasis at the pelvis at baseline ( C ) and conversion to sclerotic lesion after 2 months ( D ). Another 84-year-old woman presented lytic bone metastasis at the pelvis at baseline ( E ) and increased bone density after 3 months ( F ). Arrowheads show the sites in which OBR developed

Association between OBR and PFS

The median follow-up period and PFS in all patients were 13 months (IQR, 6–30 months) and 22 months (95% CI, 12–31 months), respectively. PFS did not differ significantly between the OBR and non-OBR groups (median PFS, 24 months vs. 17 months; Hazard ratio (HR), 0.62; 95% CI, 0.24–1.6; p = 0.31; Fig. 3 ). Fig. 3 PFS of patients with (OBR group) and without OBR (non-OBR group). PFS was not significantly different between the OBR and non-OBR groups (24 months vs. 17 month; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.24–1.6; p = 0.31). HR, hazard ratio; OBR, osteoblastic bone reaction; PFS, progression-free survival

Association between OBR and SRE-FS

The OBR group showed a trend toward longer SRE-FS than the non-OBR group (26 months vs. 12 months; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.21–1.33; p = 0.16; Fig. 4 ). Multivariate analysis showed OBR was a significant independent predictor of SRE-FS (95% CI, 0.13–0.92; p = 0.034; Table 4 ). Fig. 4 SRE-FS of patients with (OBR group) and without OBR (non-OBR group). The median SRE-FS was not significantly different between the OBR and non-OBR groups (median SRE-FS, 26 months vs. 12 months; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.21–1.33; p = 0.16). HR, hazard ratio; OBR, osteoblastic bone reaction; SRE-FS, skeletal-related events-free survival Table 4 Univariate and multivariate analyses for SRE-FS Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis Hazard Ratio 95% CI p -value Hazard Radio 95% CI p -value OBR 0.530 0.211–1.33 0.18 0.347 0.131–0.924 0.034 Denosumab use 2.07 0.601–7.12 0.25 3.37 0.877–12.9 0.077 CI confidence interval, OBR osteoblastic bone reaction, SRE-FS skeletal related events-free survival

Discussion

This is the first study to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of OBR and their influence on clinical outcomes in patients with EGFR -mutant NSCLC treated with osimertinib.

In this study, OBR developed in 82% of patients with EGFR -mutant NSCLC with bone metastasis. Anticancer therapy may alter the balance of bone metabolism into a dominant bone formation process by reducing tumor cells and suppressing the increased bone metabolism caused by tumor cells. In fact, previous studies have shown that OBR is associated with good treatment responses [ 3 , 20 ]. The proportion of OBR in our study was relatively higher than those in previous studies—OBR in patients with advanced lung cancer ranged from19.7% to 26.8%, wherein it varied from 67.8% to 71.4% in those with bone metastasis [ 3 , 10 , 11 , 17 – 20 ]. The higher frequency of OBR in our study than that in previous studies in which chemotherapy or first-generation EGFR-TKIs were administered could be explained by the differences in treatment regimens. Based on the clinical effectiveness of osimertinib [ 22 ], it is conceivable that osimertinib has a greater impact on reducing the tumor burden at bone metastasis than other anticancer therapeutic agents. Furthermore, EGFR-TKIs inhibit the recruitment of osteoclasts during bone metastasis by preventing their differentiation and activation in the bone marrow [ 28 , 29 ]. Together, these findings suggest that the increased incidence of OBR in patients with EGFR -mutant NSCLC with bone metastases treated with osimertinib should not be misunderstood as disease progression.

This study provided three additional findings regarding bone metastasis and OBR. First, sclerotic bone metastasis was found in 38% of patients with bone metastasis, although mixed metastasis was the most frequent type. To the best of our knowledge, only one study has investigated the types of bone metastases in patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations, and the percentage of each type was similar to that in our study [ 9 ]. Because most bone metastases of NSCLC are present as lytic or mixed types [ 8 ], sclerotic metastasis may be a clinical indicator of positive EGFR mutations. Second, OBR can develop from lytic or mixed bone metastasis as well as sclerotic metastasis. This indicates that osimertinib treatment can change bone metabolism into bone formation in any bone metastasis type. Furthermore, in 40% of patients, OBR developed even in lesions that could not be recognized on CT but on PET-CT at baseline, which could be because of the low sensitivity of CT scans for some bone metastases (72.9%) [ 30 ]. In these patients, bone metastases became apparent on CT after OBR. Third, OBR can develop at various sites of bone metastasis, including the vertebra, ribs, and pelvis. Although vertebral metastasis is the most common site of metastasis and causes spinal cord injury [ 31 ], metastasis to the ribs or pelvis also causes pain, fractures, or impaired mobility. Therefore, it is important to correctly assess whether bone metastasis deteriorates and to recognize that OBR can develop at any site in all such lesions.

Although OBR has been reported to be associated with good treatment response or long PFS in patients with NSCLC in previous studies [ 3 , 13 , 20 ], no study has investigated the association between OBR and indices related to SRE. The use of zoledronic has been reported to be associated with an increased density of bone metastasis [ 32 , 33 ]. Although there have been no reports on the association between denosumab administration and bone density on radiological examinations, considering that denosumab binds to the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) and inhibits osteoclast function, it is reasonable to assume that denosumab administration increases bone density. Furthermore, clinicians would tend to prescribe denosumab as a priority for patients with massive or multiple bone metastases in clinical practice, and these patients appear to have a higher risk of SRE or death. Therefore, we conducted a Cox regression analysis of OBR and denosumab administration. The multivariate analysis including denosumab administration, showed OBR was associated with SRE-FS. Considering these result, we inferred that OBR may represent not only increased density on CT scans but also increased practical bone intensity. Conversely, the findings suggest we should be more alert to SRE onset or poor survival when OBR is not detected at the first CT scan evaluation after osimertinib initiation.

The present study had several limitations. First, this was a single-center retrospective study. Second, although a radiologist and an oncologist reviewed the CT scans, the quantitative index was not used, which may have caused bias. Third, our sample size was small and only two variables were considered in the multivariate analysis. Finally, the observation period was short. A longer observation period may be required to precisely evaluate PFS and SRE-FS.

In conclusion, OBR developed in most patients with bone metastasis who received osimertinib. This phenomenon should be considered to avoid misunderstanding OBR as a disease progression.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1. Details of bone metastasis and OBR in all patients included in this study ( n = 45).

Abbreviations

Complete response

Computed tomography

Epidermal growth factor receptor

Interquartile range

Non-small cell lung cancer

Osteoblastic bone reaction

Overall survival

Progression disease

Positron emission tomography

Progression-free survival

Partial response

Receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand

Stable disease

Skeletal-related events

SRE-free survival

Thyroxine kinase inhibitors

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

KK contributed to the conceptualization, data collection, methodology, formal analysis, and writing of the original draft. HS contributed to the data collection, review, and editing of the draft. SO contributed to the formal analysis, review, and editing of the manuscript. AT, YI, YT, KN, YM, and KO contributed to the conceptualization, review, and editing of the draft.

Funding

This study is supported by The Osaka Medical Research Foundation for Intractable Diseases.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the ethics committee of the National Hospital Organization Kinki-Chuo Chest Medical Center (Institutional Review Board number 2022–121). The ethics committee of the National Hospital Organization Kinki-Chuo Chest Medical Center waived the need for informed consent because the data were collected retrospectively and anonymized.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Dr. Kanaoka received personal fees from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Oyamada received honoraria from Chugai Co. Dr. Tamiya received grants from AstraZeneca, Beigene, and Daiichi-Sankyo, and personal fees from Eli Lilly, Ono Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Taiho, Pfizer, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Nihon Kayaku, Novartis, Merck Biopharma, and Thermo Fisher Scientific outside the submitted work. Dr. Inagaki received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Chugaiigakusya, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Taniguchi received personal fees from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Al Husaini H Wheatley-Price P Clemons M Shepherd FA Prevention and management of bone metastases in lung cancer: a review J Thorac Oncol 2009 4 251 259 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31819518fc 19179905

2. Coleman RE Skeletal complications of malignancy Cancer 1997 80 Suppl 1588 1594 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19971015)80:8+<1588::AID-CNCR9>3.0.CO;2-G 9362426

3. Yamashita Y Aoki T Hanagiri T Yoshii C Mukae H Uramoto H Osteosclerotic lesions in patients treated with gefitinib for lung adenocarcinomas: a sign of favorable therapeutic response Skelet Radiol 2012 41 409 414 10.1007/s00256-011-1253-9 21866322

4. Riihimäki M Hemminki A Fallah M Thomsen H Sundquist K Sundquist J Metastatic sites and survival in lung cancer Lung Cancer 2014 86 78 84 10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.07.020 25130083

5. Chen YY Wang PP Fu Y Li Q Tian JF Liu T Inferior outcome of bone metastasis in non-small-cell-lung-cancer patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors J Bone Oncol 2021 29 100369 10.1016/j.jbo.2021.100369 34036039 PMC8138759

6. Suva LJ Washam C Nicholas RW Griffin RJ Bone metastasis: mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities Nat Rev Endocrinol 2011 7 208 218 10.1038/nrendo.2010.227 21200394 PMC3134309

7. Ottewell PD The role of osteoblasts in bone metastasis J Bone Oncol 2016 5 124 127 10.1016/j.jbo.2016.03.007 27761372 PMC5063217

8. Wu S Pan Y Mao Y Chen Y He Y Current progress and mechanisms of bone metastasis in lung cancer: a narrative review Transl Lung Cancer Res 2021 10 439 451 10.21037/tlcr-20-835 33569325 PMC7867745

9. Gu L Gong T Ma Q Zhong D Retrospective study of EGFR -mutant lung adenocarcinoma with bone metastatic clinical features Cancer Rep (Hoboken) 2023 6 e1628 10.1002/cnr2.1628 35614541 PMC9875678

10. Lemieux J Guimond J Laberge F St-Pierre C Cormier Y The bone scan flare phenomenon in non–small-cell lung cancer Clin Nucl Med 2002 27 486 489 10.1097/00003072-200207000-00004 12072774

11. Fink C Hasan B Deleu S Pallis AG Baas P O’Brien MO High prevalence of osteoblastic bone reaction in computed tomography scans of an European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer prospective randomised phase II trial in extensive stage small cell lung cancer Eur J Cancer 2012 48 3157 3160 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.05.025 22795583

12. Conteduca V Poti G Caroli P Russi S Brighi N Lolli C Flare phenomenon in prostate cancer: recent evidence on new drugs and next generation imaging Ther Adv Med Oncol 2021 13 175883592098765 1758835920987654 33708265 10.1177/1758835920987654 PMC7907710

13. Pluquet E Cadranel J Legendre A Faller MB Souquet PJ Zalcman G Osteoblastic reaction in non-small cell lung carcinoma and its association to epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors response and prolonged survival J Thorac Oncol 2010 5 491 496 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181cf0440 20195171

14. Pollen JJ Shlaer WJ Osteoblastic response to successful treatment of metastatic cancer of the prostate AJR Am J Roentgenol 1979 132 927 931 10.2214/ajr.132.6.927 108971

15. Vogel CL Schoenfelder J Shemano I Hayes DF Gams RA Worsening bone scan in the evaluation of antitumor response during hormonal therapy of breast cancer J Clin Oncol 1995 13 1123 1128 10.1200/JCO.1995.13.5.1123 7537797

16. Janicek MJ Hayes DF Kaplan WD Healing flare in skeletal metastases from breast cancer Radiology 1994 192 201 204 10.1148/radiology.192.1.8208938 8208938

17. Stattaus J Hahn S Gauler T Eberhardt W Mueller SP Forsting M Osteoblastic response as a healing reaction to chemotherapy mimicking progressive disease in patients with small cell lung cancer Eur Radiol 2009 19 193 200 10.1007/s00330-008-1115-6 18677488

18. Chao HS Chang CP Chiu CH Chu LS Chen YM Tsai CM Bone scan flare phenomenon in non–small-cell lung cancer patients treated with gefitinib Clin Nucl Med 2009 34 346 349 10.1097/RLU.0b013e3181a344df 19487842

19. Bersanelli M Bini P Rabaiotti E Facchinetti F De Filippo M Bortesi B Osteoblastic progression during EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in mutated non-small cell lung cancer: A potential blunder Tumori 2017 103 66 71 10.5301/tj.5000423 26391764

20. Rong D Mao Y Yang Q Xu S Zhao Q Zhang R Early osteosclerotic changes predict chemotherapy response in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with bone metastases Eur Radiol 2018 28 4362 4369 10.1007/s00330-017-5253-6 29651766

21. Ansén S Bangard C Querings S Gabler F Scheffler M Seidel D Osteoblastic response in patients with non-small cell lung cancer with activating EGFR mutations and bone metastases during treatment with EGFR kinase inhibitors J Thorac Oncol 2010 5 407 409 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181cf32aa 20186030

22. Soria JC Ohe Y Vansteenkiste J Reungwetwattana T Chewaskulyong B Lee KH Osimertinib in untreated EGFR -Mutated advanced non–small-cell lung cancer N Engl J Med 2018 378 113 125 10.1056/NEJMoa1713137 29151359

23. Ramalingam SS Vansteenkiste J Planchard D Cho BC Gray JE Ohe Y Overall survival with osimertinib in untreated, EGFR -Mutated advanced NSCLC N Engl J Med 2020 382 41 50 10.1056/NEJMoa1913662 31751012

24. Hanna NH Schneider BJ Temin S Baker S Brahmer J Ellis PM Therapy for Stage IV non–small-cell lung cancer without driver alterations: ASCO and OH (CCO) joint guideline update J Clin Oncol 2020 38 1608 1632 10.1200/JCO.19.03022 31990617

25. Ninomiya K Teraoka S Zenke Y Kenmotsu H Nakamura Y Okuma Y Japanese lung cancer society guidelines for Stage IV NSCLC with EGFR mutations JTO Clin Res Rep 2021 2 100107 34589972 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2020.100107 PMC8474490

26. Henry DH Costa L Goldwasser F Hirsh V Hungria V Prausova J Randomized, double-blind study of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in the treatment of bone metastases in patients with advanced cancer (excluding breast and prostate cancer) or multiple myeloma J Clin Oncol 2011 29 1125 1132 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.3304 21343556

27. Kanda Y Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics Bone Marrow Transplant 2013 48 452 458 10.1038/bmt.2012.244 23208313 PMC3590441

28. Normanno N De Luca A Aldinucci D Maiello MR Mancino M D’Antonio A Gefitinib inhibits the ability of human bone marrow stromal cells to induce osteoclast differentiation: implications for the pathogenesis and treatment of bone metastasis Endocr Relat Cancer 2005 12 471 482 10.1677/erc.1.00956 15947117

29. Normanno N Gullick WJ Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors and bone metastases: different mechanisms of action for a novel therapeutic application? Endocr Relat Cancer 2006 13 3 6 10.1677/erc.1.01185 16601275

30. Yang HL Liu T Wang XM Xu Y Deng SM Diagnosis of bone metastases: a meta-analysis comparing 1 8 FDG PET, CT MRI and bone scintigraphy Eur Radiol 2011 21 2604 2617 10.1007/s00330-011-2221-4 21887484

31. Sugiura H Yamada K Sugiura T Hida T Mitsudomi T Predictors of survival in patients with bone metastasis of lung cancer Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008 466 729 736 10.1007/s11999-007-0051-0 18196360 PMC2505203

32. Quattrocchi CC Santini D Dell’Aia P Piciucchi S Leoncini E Vincenzi B A prospective analysis of CT density measurements of bone metastases after treatment with zoledronic acid Skelet Radiol 2007 36 1121 1127 10.1007/s00256-007-0388-1 17912514

33. Amir E Whyne C Freedman OC Fralick M Kumar R Hardisty M Radiological changes following second-line zoledronic acid treatment in breast cancer patients with bone metastases Clin Exp Metastasis 2009 26 479 484 10.1007/s10585-009-9247-x 19266291