Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28824875›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2017

Sex Differences and Bone Metastases of Breast, Lung, and Prostate Cancers: Do Bone Homing Cancers Favor Feminized Bone Marrow?

Mary C Farach-Carson, Sue-Hwa Lin, Theresa Nalty, Robert L Satcher

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Pattern and Outcome of Metastatic Malignant Lesions to the Jaws: A Systematic Review of 594 Cases.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mary C Farach-CarsonDepartment of Diagnostic and Biomedical Sciences, School of Dentistry, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States.
Sue-Hwa LinDepartment of Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Theresa NaltyDepartment of Orthopaedic Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Robert L SatcherDepartment of Orthopaedic Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

Prostate Cancer Bone Metastasis: Biology and TargetingP01CA098912 · NCI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI CHUNG, LELAND W.K. · 2003 to 2019
$24.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sex-associated differences in bone metastasis formation from breast, lung, and prostate cancer exist in clinical studies, but have not been systematically reviewed. Differences in the bone marrow niche can be attributed to sexual dimorphism, to genetic variations that affect sex hormone levels, or to the direct effects of sex hormones, natural or exogenously delivered. This review describes the present understanding of sex-associated and sex hormone level differences in the marrow niche and in formation of bone metastasis during the transition of these three cancers from treatable disease to an often untreatable, lethal metastatic one. Our purpose is to provide insight into some underlying molecular mechanisms for hormonal influence in bone metastasis formation, and to the potential influence of sexual dimorphism, genetic differences affecting sex assignment, and sex hormone level differences on the bone niche and its favorability for metastasis formation. We reviewed publications in PubMed and EMBASE, including full length manuscripts, case reports, and clinical studies of relevance to our topic. We focused on bone metastasis formation in breast, lung, and prostate cancer because all three commonly present with bone metastases. Several clear observations emerged. For breast cancer bone metastasis formation, estrogen receptor (ER) signaling pathways indicate a role for ER beta (ERβ). Estrogen influences the bone microenvironment, creating and conditioning a favorable niche for colonization and breast cancer progression. For lung cancer, studies support the hypothesis that females have a more favorable bone microenvironment for metastasis formation. For prostate cancer, a decrease in the relative androgen to estrogen balance or a "feminization" of bone marrow favors bone metastasis formation, with a potentially important role for ERβ that may be similar to that in breast cancer. Long-term estrogen administration or androgen blockade in males may feminize the bone marrow niche to one more favorable for bone metastases in prostate cancer. Administration of androgens in females, especially combined with mastectomy, may reduce risk of developing bone metastatic breast cancer. We conclude that it should be considered that females, those with female-leaning genetic variations, or hormonal states that feminize the bone marrow, may offer favorable sites for bone metastases.

Indexed as

bone marrowbone metastasisbreast cancerlung cancerprostate cancersex differencessex hormones

Identifiers

PMID28824875
PMCPMC5545941
OpenAlexW2742883705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.