Practice disparities in palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases: insights from the Shizuoka Kokuho database study.

Practice disparities in palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases: insights from the Shizuoka Kokuho database study - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Jpn J Radiol . 2026 Jan 14;44(6):1071–1078. doi: 10.1007/s11604-025-01938-8 Practice disparities in palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases: insights from the Shizuoka Kokuho database study Yuhei Miyasaka 1, 2, 3 , Yoko Sato 1 , Hideyuki Harada 4 , Katsumasa Nakamura 5 , Tatsuya Ohno 2, 3 , Seiichiro Yamamoto 1, ✉ Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Graduate School of Public Health, Shizuoka Graduate University of Public Health, 4-27-2 Kitaando, Aoi-ku, Shizuoka, Shizuoka 420-0881 Japan 2 Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, 3-39-22, Showa-Machi, Maebashi, Gunma 371-8511 Japan 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-22, Showa-Machi, Maebashi, Gunma 371-8511 Japan 4 Division of Radiation Therapy, Shizuoka Cancer Center, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi-cho, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka 411-8777 Japan 5 Department of Radiation Oncology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, 1-20-1 Handayama, Chuo-ku, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka 431-3192 Japan ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2025 Jul 28; Accepted 2025 Dec 15; Issue date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13222301  PMID: 41533309 Abstract Purpose Palliative radiation therapy (pRT) is a standard treatment option for bone metastases from malignancies and is recommended in current guidelines. Patients should have an equal opportunity to receive pRT regardless of their residential address or the location of the treatment facility; however, the frequency of use of pRT varied across regions and healthcare systems in studies in North America. This study aimed to examine the disparity in Japan. Materials and methods We conducted a historical cohort study using a regional population-based cohort that included medical insurance data to examine practice disparities in pRT for patients diagnosed with bone metastases who received bone-modifying agents (BMA). The analyses focused on the secondary medical areas (SMA) where the patients lived and facilities where they were treated. Results Overall, 6289 patients were included in our study, and 39.6% received pRT. The regional disparity in the proportion of pRT delivery was not large, despite some areas having no facilities with RT devices. However, differences among facilities where BMA was initiated were substantial. The BMA facilities with RT devices had a higher proportion of pRT than those without RT devices. In addition, the difference was wide among the facilities with RT devices. Patients treated with BMA in designated cancer hospitals were likely to receive pRT than those of other hospitals. Conclusion This population-based study using medical claims data demonstrated practice disparities in pRT for bone metastases, particularly at the facility level. To improve this disparity, facility-level strategies seem to be more effective than SMA-level approaches. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11604-025-01938-8. Keywords: Bone neoplasms, Healthcare disparities, Neoplasm metastasis, Palliative care, Radiotherapy Introduction Bone metastases are common in patients with advanced malignancies, especially those with primary cancers of the lung, prostate, and breast, contributing to a substantial healthcare burden. An epidemiological analysis using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program estimated an annual incidence of 18.8 cases of bone metastases per 100,000 persons [ 1 ]. The management of bone metastases focuses on palliating symptoms, preventing skeletal-related events (SREs) and improving the quality of life. Among various treatment modalities, palliative radiation therapy (pRT) is a standard intervention for the relief of pain associated with bone metastases. The effectiveness of pRT in improving patients’ quality of life is well-documented, with pain relief observed in approximately 60–80% of patients [ 2 ]. Furthermore, a randomized controlled trial demonstrated the potential benefits of prophylactic radiation therapy (RT) for asymptomatic bone metastases with a high risk of bone fractures, showing a reduction in the incidence of SREs and potential improvements in survival outcomes [ 3 ]. Considering the benefits of pRT, all patients should have an equal opportunity to receive pRT appropriately, regardless of the area in which they live or facility where they are treated. However, the use of pRT in clinical practice varies widely across different regions and healthcare systems. Previous population-based studies in North America have highlighted significant disparities in access to and delivery of pRT [ 4 – 7 ]. Huang et al. reported that socioeconomic status, diagnostic facilities, and residential areas were associated with pRT delivery in the Ontario Cancer Registry between 1986 and 1995 [ 4 ]. Furthermore, Mackillop and Kong demonstrated that on-site RT availability in diagnostic facilities was associated with the proportion of pRT in the same registry from 2006 to 2010 [ 7 ]. In regions other than North America, comparable data on pRT utilization are scarce, leaving a critical knowledge gap regarding the practice differences in pRT. In Japan, the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW) has established the Basic Plan to Promote Cancer Control Programs and set the equalization of cancer treatment as one of its goals. Therefore, the MHLW and Shizuoka Prefecture have developed designated cancer care hospitals [ 8 ]. However, the actual status of pRT equalization in bone metastases remains unknown. This study addressed this disparity by examining the proportion of pRT deliveries in patients with bone metastases according to their residential areas or facilities where they were treated, using a Japanese regional population-based cohort. These findings may be helpful when considering policies and interventions aimed at equalizing pRT delivery for patients with bone metastases. Material and methods Study design and data source We performed a historical population-based cohort study using the Shizuoka Kokuho Database (SKDB), version 2024-2 [ 9 , 10 ]. The SKDB includes monthly administrative claims data for residents of Shizuoka Prefecture between April 2012 and September 2022. Shizuoka Prefecture is in central Japan and includes both rural and urban areas. The total number of patients treated with RT per institution in Shizuoka Prefecture was at the average level in Japan [ 11 ]. We accessed the SKDB for research purposes between November 3 and 5, 2024. Study population and observation The present study included patients with bone metastases, defined by the International Classification of Disease, tenth edition (ICD-10) code C79.5″ Secondary malignant neoplasm of bone and bone marrow”, treated with bone-modifying agents (BMA) specifically indicated for bone diseases from malignancies. The BMA included zoledronic acid and denosumab, however, BMA for osteoporosis was excluded (Table S1). Baseline characteristics were obtained within 3 months backward from the month of BMA initiation. The ICD-10 codes for malignancies obtained during the study period are summarized in Table S2. The design diagram of this study is shown in Fig. 1 . Fig. 1. Open in a new tab Study schema. SKDB, Shizuoka Kokuho Database; BMA, bone-modifying agents The key date was set as the date of initiation of BMA administration (new user design [ 12 ], a wash-out period of 3 months), and the follow-up period was limited to 3 months from the key date. RT during this period was defined as pRT. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), particle therapy, brachytherapy, and radioisotope therapy were excluded to ensure that the purpose of the RT was limited to palliation. The medical procedure codes for the RT are listed in Table S3. RT 3 months after the key date was also assessed to examine the validity of the pRT definition. The proportion of patients who underwent pRT was evaluated across secondary medical areas (SMA) where the patients lived. The SMA is an administrative unit in Japan designed to provide general medical services. There are eight SMA in Shizuoka Prefecture: Seibu, Chutoen, Shida-Haibara, Shizuoka, Fuji, Sunto-Tagata, Atami-Ito, and Kamo. The proportion of pRT was evaluated based on the facilities where BMA was initiated. Subsequent analyses were conducted by categorizing these facilities according to the presence or absence of RT devices and whether they were designated cancer care hospitals. Statistical analysis Tabular data were evaluated using the Fisher’s exact test. The Wilson score interval was used to demonstrate the 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for variables. All analyses and visualizations were performed using R version 4.4.1 (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria) [ 13 ] or Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, WA, USA). Results Descriptions of characteristics and the pRT delivery in the entire cohort Of the 2,267,253 individuals, 6,289 met our criteria for potential indications for pRT for bone metastasis (Table 1 , Fig. S1). Among them, 3,140 (49.9% [95% CI: 48.7– 51.2%]) patients received RT after BMA initiation, and 2,490 (39.6% [95% CI 38.4–40.8%]) underwent pRT (Table S4, Fig. S2). The proportions of pRT according to patient factors are summarized in Table 2 . Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the entire cohort (n = 6289) Factors n (%) Gender Men 3730 (59%) Women 2559 (41%) Age at BMA initiation < 60 439 (7.0%) 60 ≤ , < 75 3022 (48%) 75 ≤ 2828 (45%) BMA Denosumab 3322 (53%) Zoledronic acid 2976 (47%) Malignant neoplasm Head and neck 51 (0.8%) Esophagus 96 (1.5%) Stomach 124 (2.0%) Colorectum 211 (3.4%) Kidney 184 (2.9%) Liver 196 (3.1%) Pancreas 91 (1.4%) Lung 1722 (27%) Skin 22 (0.3%) Breast 726 (12%) Uterine cervix 31 (0.5%) Endometrial 32 (0.5%) Ovarian 15 (0.2%) Prostate 819 (13%) Bladder 94 (1.5%) Thyroid 31 (0.5%) Malignant lymphoma 42 (0.7%) Multiple myeloma 104 (1.7%) Others/ Unknown 1196 (19%) SMA Seibu 1292 (20.5%) Chutoen 798 (12.7%) Shida-Haibara 694 (11.0%) Shizuoka 1229 (19.5%) Fuji 616 (9.8%) Sunto-Tagata 1135 (18.0%) Atami-Ito 340 (5.4%) Kamo 185 (2.9%) RT availability at the facility for BMA Yes 5587 (88.8%) No 702 (11.2%) Open in a new tab BMA, bone-modifying agent; SMA, secondary medical area; RT, radiation therapy Table 2. Numbers and proportions of the delivery of pRT Numbers of pRT N = 2490 Proportions of pRT (%) 95% CI Gender Men 1482 39.7 38.1–41.3 Women 1008 39.4 37.5–41.3 Age at BMA initiation < 60 176 40.1 35.6–44.8 60 ≤ , < 75 1253 41.5 39.8–43.3 75 ≤ 1061 37.5 35.7–39.3 BMA Denosumab 3322 36.8 35.2–38.5 Zoledronic acid 2976 42.6 40.8–44.4 Malignant neoplasm Head and neck 30 58.8 45.1–71.2 Esophagus 56 58.3 48.3–67.7 Stomach 55 44.4 36.0–53.2 Colorectum 114 54.0 47.3–60.6 Kidney 99 53.8 46.6–60.9 Liver 124 63.3 56.4–69.7 Pancreas 47 51.6 41.5–61.6 Lung 913 53.0 50.6–55.3 Breast 221 30.4 27.2–33.8 Uterine cervix 13 41.9 26.4–59.2 Endometrial 17 53.1 36.4–69.1 Prostate 157 19.2 16.6–22.0 Bladder 46 48.9 39.0–58.8 Thyroid 10 32.3 18.6–49.9 Malignant lymphoma 27 64.3 49.2–77.0 Multiple myeloma 42 41.2 31.5–50.0 Others/ Unknown 301 25.2 22.8–27.7 Open in a new tab pRT, palliative radiation therapy; CI, confidence interval; BMA, bone-modifying agent Delivery of pRT by the SMA and facility where BMA was initiated The proportion of patients treated with pRT was investigated across SMA (Fig. 2 ). The proportion was 40.1% (95% CI 37.5–42.8%) in Seibu, 42.8% (95% CI 39.3–46.2%) in Chutoen, 34.8% (95% CI 31.3–38.3%) in Shida-Haibara, 33.9% (95% CI 31.2–36.5%) in Shizuoka, 42.7% (95% CI 38.9–46.6%) in Fuji, 45.1% (95% CI 42.2–48.0%) in Sunto-Tagata, 37.4% (95% CI 32.4–42.7%) in Atami-Ito, and 38.9% (95% CI 32.2–46.1%) in Kamo. As no RT facilities were in Atami-Ito and Kamo, all patients in these areas underwent pRT in other areas. Residents receiving pRT in areas other than their residential areas in Fuji, Shida-Haibara, Chutoen, and Shizuoka were 74.2% (95% CI 68.6–79.1%), 27.9% (95% CI 22.6–33.9%), 22.9% (95% CI 18.8–27.6%), 10.6% (95% CI 8.0–13.9%), respectively. Fig. 2. Open in a new tab Proportion of patients who underwent pRT by SMA. Numbers in the plotted areas represent individual data. pRT, palliative radiation therapy; SMA, secondary medical area Furthermore, the proportion of patients treated with pRT was surveyed in facilities where BMA were initiated (Fig. 3 ). The proportions ranged from 0 to 71.1% for all BMA facilities, 23.1–71.1% for BMA facilities with RT devices, and 0–26.9% for BMA facilities without RT devices. The proportion of patients treated with pRT in the BMA facilities with and without RT device was 43.1% (95% CI 41.8–44.4%) and 11.7% (95% CI 9.5–14.3%), respectively. This difference was significant across the SMA (Table 3 ). After adjusting for age categories, malignancies, and SMA, the proportion of pRT in the facilities with RT devices was still significantly higher than those without RT device, with an odds ratio of 5.55 (95% CI 4.35–7.14). Patients treated with BMA in designated cancer care hospitals were likely to receive pRT than those in the other hospitals (47.7% [95% CI 46.2–49.3%] vs 26.7% [95% CI 24.9–28.5%], p -value < 0.001). Fig. 3. Open in a new tab Proportion of patients who underwent pRT by the facilities where BMA was initiated. Numbers in the plotted areas represent individual data. pRT, palliative radiation therapy; BMA, body modifying agents Table 3. Proportion of patients who underwent pRT by RT availability at the facilities for BMA Place of residence, SMA RT availability in facilities where BMA started n Percentage of pRT (95% CI) RD (95% CI) RR (95% CI) p -value* Seibu Yes 1188 42.6 (39.8–45.4) 31.1 (24.3–37.8) 3.69 (2.16–6.31) < 0.001 No 104 11.5 (6.7–19.0) Chutoen Yes 700 47.0 (43.3–50.7) 34.8 (27.3–42.2) 3.84 (2.25–6.56) < 0.001 No 98 12.2 (7.1–20.1) Shida-Haibara Yes 651 36.1 (32.5–39.9) 22.1 (11.2–33.1) 2.59 (1.22–5.47) 0.003 No 43 14.0 (6.6–27.3) Shizuoka Yes 1123 36.0 (33.2–38.9) 24.7 (18.0–31.3) 3.18 (1.85–5.44) < 0.001 No 106 11.3 (6.6–18.7) Fuji Yes 571 45.0 (41.0–49.1) 31.7 (20.9–42.4) 3.38 (1.59–7.15) < 0.001 No 45 13.3 (6.2–26.1) Sunto-Tagata Yes 1003 49.5 (46.4–52.6) 37.3 (31.0–43.7) 4.08 (2.57–6.49) < 0.001 No 132 12.1 (7.6–18.8) Atami-Ito Yes 208 54.8 (48.0–61.4) 45.0 (36.5–53.4) 5.57 (3.27–9.46) < 0.001 No 132 9.85 (5.8–16.1) Kamo Yes 143 46.9 (38.9–55.1) 35.0 (22.2–47.7) 3.94 (1.70–9.13) < 0.001 No 42 11.9 (5.2–25.0) Overall Yes 5587 43.1 (41.8–44.4) 31.4 (28.7–34.1) 3.69 (3.00–4.53) < 0.001 No 702 11.7 (9.5–14.3) Open in a new tab pRT, palliative radiation therapy; BMA, bone-modifying agent; SMA, secondary medical area; RD, risk difference; CI, confidence interval; RR, risk ratio *Fisher’s exact test Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate practice disparities in pRT for bone metastases in a Japanese population-based setting. In the SKDB cohort, 39.6% of BMA-treated patients with bone metastases were treated with pRT. The proportion of pRT differs among SMA with a range of 33.8–45.1%, whereas a wider range among BMA facilities, 0–71.1% among all facilities, 23.1–71.1% among BMA facilities with RT devices, and 0–26.9% among BMA facilities without RT device. In BMA facilities with and without RT device, pRT was delivered to 43.1% and 11.7% of patients, respectively. Patients treated with BMA in the designated cancer care hospitals were more likely to receive pRT. In this study, patients who had potential indications of pRT for bone metastases was defined as patients with an ICD-10 code of C79.5 “Secondary malignant neoplasm of bone and bone marrow” and had initiated BMA including zoledronic acid or denosumab. While no validation study is available for this definition, it is considered sufficiently specific for identifying bone metastases, as it is based on the prescription of the BMA which are indicated only for malignant tumors in Japan. However, it should be noted that our cohort included asymptomatic bone metastases some of which were not indicative of pRT. Conversely, patients with bone metastases who were not treated with BMA, and/or who lacked the code of C79.5 were not included. These factors contribute to the discrepancy between our definition of potential indication of pRT and the actual disease status. Nevertheless, we consider that any influence on the main findings of our study is minimal and does not affect the conclusions regarding regional and institutional disparities in pRT for bone metastases. Additionally, we should discuss the claim-based definition of pRT. The purpose of RT is almost unidentified in Japanese administrative claims codes themselves. Therefore, we limited the analysis period to 3 months following BMA administration to identify RT that could be considered pRT for bone metastases. Even when using this definition, there remained a possibility that RT to other sites could be recognized as pRT for bone metastases. However, supplemental analysis showed that 79.9% (2,490 out of 3,140) of RT was performed within 3 months following BMA initiation, which means our definition of “pRT for bone metastases” has reasonable validity. We examined in detail whether the proportion of patients receiving pRT differed according to SMA. However, despite some areas had no facilities with RT devices, no large differences were observed among the SMA. High-volume facilities, such as a cancer center or university hospitals in adjacent areas, may have provided the demand for pRT in such areas. This hypothesis was supported by our finding that the proportion of pRT deliveries was higher in designated cancer care hospitals. Among the factors related to the delivery of pRT, across all SMA, the on-site availability of RT at facilities where BMA were initiated was consistently associated with a higher proportion of pRT delivery compared to facilities lacking RT devices, which is consistent with those of a previous study that used data from the Ontario Cancer Registry [ 7 ]. Regardless of differences in healthcare systems, geography, or other factors, the lack of RT devices in hospitals primarily responsible for a patient’s cancer treatment is a challenge to the use of pRT. Even when the proportion of pRT delivery was evaluated separately for BMA facilities with and without RT devices, the differences between facilities were still significant. Especially, the higher proportions of pRT deliveries were observed in designated cancer care hospitals. As such kind of hospitals are required to employ full-time radiation oncologists, to hold tumor bord, and to have medical care collaboration networks, they could improve the delivery of pRT. Limitation This study had several limitations. First, this study was conducted only among residents of Shizuoka Prefecture, Japan; therefore, it is unknown whether our results can be extrapolated to other countries or regions. Second, as we defined the potential indication for pRT as patients who had an ICD-10 code of C79.5″ Secondary malignant neoplasm of bone and bone marrow” and were started on zoledronic acid or denosumab, there were patients who did not meet our definition but were eligible for pRT, as mentioned above. Given the inherent limitations of claims data, it is not feasible to identify a population indicative of pRT for bone metastases with complete accuracy. To reduce misclassification, we employed strict inclusion and exclusion criteria designed to enhance the specificity of case identification. While this approach may have resulted in the exclusion of some patients who needed pRT for bone metastases, we consider it unlikely that the treatment patterns among excluded cases differ substantially from those included. Thus, we judged that reducing false-positive classification was more important than maximizing the study population. Third, the definition of pRT in this study was based on medical claims data and may not fully reflect actual clinical administration. However, considering that most RT was initiated within the same month of BMA initiation (Fig. S2), it is reasonable to interpret most of these RTs as being intended for bone metastases. This interpretation is further supported by previous population-based studies reporting that patients with bone metastases may concurrently have brain or lymph node metastases, with prevalences of approximately 10–20% in breast [ 14 ], lung [ 15 , 16 ], and kidney [ 17 ] cancers, and ≤ 5% in prostate cancer [ 18 ]. These findings suggest that some degree of misclassification is unavoidable when using administrative claims data. Nevertheless, because the proportion of such cases is relatively small, substantial misclassification is unlikely to have influenced our overall findings. Fractionation data of RT would be helpful in identifying the aim of RT; however, we were unable to use these data because the number of RT sessions recorded in the SKDB may be duplicated in some inpatient cases due to administrative processing under the DPC system. As no validated correction method currently exists, we did not include fractionation patterns in this study. Additionally, pRT prior to the month wherein BMA was initiated was not evaluated, but this may not matter when evaluating disparities among areas or facilities. Fourth, it may be difficult to account for differences in pRT according to malignancy, as malignant neoplasms were identified using ICD-10 codes during the baseline period and may not be indicative of a primary tumor. In patients with multiple malignancies, the primary tumor could not be identified in the present study. In addition, the indications for BMA in clinical practice may differ according to the primary tumor, which may affect our definition of the potential indications for pRT. Fifth, the SKDB does not have information on patients’ socioeconomic status, which is reportedly a factor associated with the use of pRT [ 16 ], but the socioeconomic impact may not be as great in Japan, which has a universal health insurance system. Sixth, the SKDB has insufficient data on patient status, such as performance status, clinical stage, and comorbidities, which might influence pRT delivery. Finally, our definition of pRT did not include IMRT, SBRT, or particle therapy, excluding RT, which is not primarily aimed at palliation. However, as the usefulness of high-precision RT for bone metastases has been recently reported [ 19 ], studies on high-precision pRT are required. Despite these limitations, the present study provides information on the large disparities among facilities in the delivery of pRT for bone metastases, indicating the need for attempting to equalize the clinical practice of pRT. Conclusion In the regional population-based setting, the proportion of patients with bone metastasis who underwent pRT was not greatly different among the SMA, but significantly different among the facilities where the BMA was initiated. This study contributes to providing an equal opportunity to receive pRT regardless of the patients’ residence and facilities where they are treated for bone metastases. Supplementary Information Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Supplementary Material 1 (192KB, pdf) Acknowledgements None to declare. Abbreviations BMA Bone-modifying agents CI Confidence interval ICD-10 International Classification of Disease, tenth edition IMRT Intensity-modulated radiation therapy MHLW The Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare pRT Palliative radiation therapy RD Risk difference RR Risk ratio RT Radiation therapy SBRT Stereotactic body radiation therapy SMA Secondary medical areas SREs Skeletal-related events Author contributions YM: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. YS: conceptualization, methodology, resources, software, validation, writing—review and editing. HH: validation, writing—review and editing. KN: validation, writing—review and editing. TO: validation, writing—review and editing. SY: conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, project administration, validation, supervision, writing—review and editing. Funding The present study was funded by Shizuoka Prefecture. The Shizuoka Graduate University of Public Health is conducting contract research projects related to public health in Shizuoka Prefecture, including the present study. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Declarations Conflict of interest Hideyuki Harada received lecture fees from AstraZeneca and Brainlab. Tatsuya Ohno received joint research funds from Hitachi for work unrelated to the present study. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare with respect to this article. Ethics approval The present study was designed and conducted according to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects. Approval for the study was granted by the institutional ethics committee (SGUPH_2021_001_073). Before receiving the SKDB data, all personal data were anonymized by the Shizuoka Federation of National Health Insurance Organizations. Information about this study was posted on the Shizuoka Graduate University of Public Health website to ensure that participants could opt out of having their data used. Footnotes Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. Ryan C, Stoltzfus KC, Horn S, Chen H, Louie AV, Lehrer EJ, et al. Epidemiology of bone metastases. Bone. 2022;158:115783. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Alcorn S, Cortés ÁA, Bradfield L, Brennan M, Dennis K, Diaz DA, et al. External beam radiation therapy for palliation of symptomatic bone metastases: an ASTRO clinical practice guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2024;14:377–97. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Gillespie EF, Yang JC, Mathis NJ, Marine CB, White C, Zhang Z, et al. Prophylactic radiation therapy versus standard of care for patients with high-risk asymptomatic bone metastases: a multicenter, randomized phase II clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42:38–46. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Huang J, Zhou S, Groome P, Tyldesley S, Zhang-Solomans J, Mackillop WJ. Factors affecting the use of palliative radiotherapy in Ontario. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:137–44. 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.1.137. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Guadagnolo BA, Liao K-P, Elting L, Giordano S, Buchholz TA, Shih Y-CT. Use of radiation therapy in the last 30 days of life among a large population-based cohort of elderly patients in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:80–7. 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.0585. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Kress M-AS, Jensen RE, Tsai H-T, Lobo T, Satinsky A, Potosky AL. Radiation therapy at the end of life: a population-based study examining palliative treatment intensity. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:15. 10.1186/s13014-014-0305-4. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Mackillop WJ, Kong W. Estimating the need for palliative radiation therapy: a benchmarking approach. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;94(1):51–9. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.09.045. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Okawa S, Tabuchi T, Nakata K, Morishima T, Koyama S, Odani S, et al. Three-year survival from diagnosis in surgically treated patients in designated and nondesignated cancer care hospitals in Japan. Cancer Sci. 2021;112:2513–21. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Nakatani E, Tabara Y, Sato Y, Tsuchiya A, Miyachi Y. Data resource profile of Shizuoka Kokuho Database (SKDB) using integrated health- and care-insurance claims and health checkups: the Shizuoka study. J Epidemiol. 2022;32:391–400. 10.2188/jea.JE20200480. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Shizuoka Graduate University of Public Health. Shizuoka Kokuho Database (SKDB). Available from: https://skdb.s-sph.ac.jp/en/ . 11. Numasaki H, Nakada Y, Okuda Y, Ohba H, Teshima T, Ogawa K. Japanese structure survey of radiation oncology in 2015. J Radiat Res. 2022;63:230–46. 10.1093/jrr/rrab129. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Her QL, Rouette J, Young JC, Webster-Clark M, Tazare J. Core concepts in pharmacoepidemiology: new-user designs. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2024;33:e70048. 10.1002/pds.70048. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2024. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/ . 14. Zhang M, Deng H, Hu R, Chen F, Dong S, Zhang S, et al. Patterns and prognostic implications of distant metastasis in breast cancer based on SEER population data. Sci Rep. 2025;15:26717. 10.1038/s41598-025-12883-x. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Shi S, Wang H, Liu X, Xiao J. Prediction of overall survival of non-small cell lung cancer with bone metastasis: an analysis of the surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) database. Transl Cancer Res. 2021;10:5191–203. 10.21037/tcr-21-1507. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Munai E, Zeng S, Yuan Z, Yang D, Jiang Y, Wang Q, et al. Machine learning-based prediction model for brain metastasis in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):28790. 10.1038/s41598-024-80425-y. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Fan Z, Huang Z, Huang X. Bone metastasis in renal cell carcinoma patients: risk and prognostic factors and nomograms. J Oncol. 2021;2021:5575295. 10.1155/2021/5575295. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Gandaglia G, Abdollah F, Schiffmann J, Trudeau V, Shariat SF, Kim SP, et al. Distribution of metastatic sites in patients with prostate cancer: a population-based analysis: sites of metastases in PCa patients. Prostate. 2014;74:210–6. 10.1002/pros.22742. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Bindels BJJ, Mercier C, Gal R, Verlaan J-J, Verhoeff JJC, Dirix P, et al. Stereotactic body and conventional radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7:e2355409. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Supplementary Material 1 (192KB, pdf) Articles from Japanese Journal of Radiology are provided here courtesy of Springer ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.2 MB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Impact of Heart Dose on Survival in Palliative Radiotherapy for Bone Metastases: Propensity Score-matched Analysis.#150093
• Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage I, Stage II, or Stage III Prostate Cancer#877642
• A Trial to Improve Quality of Life With Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Patients With Painful Bone Metastases#872165
• Study Comparing Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy vs Conventional Palliative Radiotherapy (CRT) for Spinal Metastases#1125404
• Timely Integration of Palliative Care in Oncology Care for Patients Referred for Palliative Radiotherapy on Bone Metastases: A Randomized Trial#1113432