Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T05:23:07.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-Invasive Prediction of Fracture Risk Due to Benign and Metastatic Skeletal Defects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Brian D. Snyder M.D., Ph.D ,
John A. Hipp Ph.D  and
Ara Nazarian M.Sc
Brian D. Snyder M.D., Ph.D
Affiliation:
Orthopedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, U.S.A.
John A. Hipp Ph.D
Affiliation:
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Suite 2060, 6560 Fannin, Houston, TX 77030, U.S.A.
Ara Nazarian M.Sc
Affiliation:
Orthopedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

The skeleton is the third most common site of metastatic cancer and a third to half of all cancer cases metastasize to bone. While much has been learned about the mechanisms of metastatic spread of cancer to bone, little headway has been made in establishing reliable guidelines for estimating fracture risk associated with skeletal metastases. Our hypothesis is that a change in bone structural properties as a result of tumor-induced osteolysis determines the fracture risk in patients with skeletal metastases. Our goal was to develop an image based clinical tool to monitor the fracture risk associated with individual lesions in patients with skeletal metastases and to use this tool to optimize treatment and to monitor a patient's response to treatment. If bone is considered a rigid porous foam undergoing remodeling by osteoblasts and osteoclasts in response to local and/or systemic modulators of their activity, it follows that changes in bone material properties reflect the net effect of this remodeling activity. Therefore, image based methods that measure both bone mineral density and whole bone geometry can be used to monitor the response of skeletal metastases to anticancer treatment and to predict whether a specific lesion has weakened the bone sufficiently such that pathological fracture is imminent. In a series of laboratory experiments we demonstrated that the reduction in the load carrying capacity of a bone with simulated skeletal defects could be predicted accurately and non-invasively using computed tomography (CT). We also demonstrated that bone material properties from tissue excised from normal, osteoporotic and metastatic cancer bone specimens could be modeled analytically using a bivariate function of bone tissue density and bone volume fraction (Vvb). Since these bone specimens were inhomogeneous with respect to density distribution (as is the case for pathologic bone in-situ), the sub-region with the minimum-Vvb accounted for more of the variability in the measured mechanical properties compared to the average Vvb for the entire specimen. Therefore the “weakest” subregion governed most of the mechanical behavior of the pathologic bone specimens. We applied our methods for predicting fracture risk to analyze bones from children with benign bone defects and showed that our relatively simple methods were much better at predicting fracture (100% sensitive, 94% specific) than current radiographic based guidelines (66% accurate). Using CT based data to calculate the load bearing capacity of vertebrae infiltrated with metastatic breast carcinoma, we also predicted with 100% sensitivity and 69% specificity the occurrence of a new vertebral fracture in women with metastatic breast cancer. These results are in contrast to the best available fracture risk criteria based on the size and location of the lesion on CT images of the spine, which were only 22% specific. Our non-invasive, image based method that measures both bone mineral density and whole bone geometry may also be used to monitor the response of skeletal metastases to anticancer treatment and to predict whether a specific lesion has weakened the bone sufficiently such that pathological fracture is imminent.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 844: Symposium Y – Mechanical Properties of Bio-Inspired and Biological Materials , 2004 , Y7.1
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Michaeli, DA et al. Skeletal Radiol 1999, 28:90–5.Google Scholar
2. Fidler, M. Acta Orthop Scand 1981, 52:623–7.Google Scholar
3. Gitelis, S et al. Benign bone tumors. Instr Course Lect, 1996, 45:425–46.Google Scholar
4. Garmatis, CJ, Chu, FC. Radiology 1978, 126:235–7.Google Scholar
5. Scheid, V et al. Cancer 1986, 58:2589–93.Google Scholar
6. Rizzoli, R et al. Bone 1996, 18:531–7.Google Scholar
7. Cobleigh, M.A. Cancer Treat Res 1998, 94:209–30.Google Scholar
8. Theriault, RL, Hortobagyi, GN. Semin Oncol 2001, 28:284–90.Google Scholar
9. Boissier, S et al. Cancer Res 2000, 60:2949–54.Google Scholar
10. Harrington, KD. Clin Orthop 1995, 312:136–47.Google Scholar
11. Love, RR. Cancer Invest 1992, 10:587–93.Google Scholar
12. Tanaka, M et al. Eur Spine J 1996, 5:198–200.Google Scholar
13. Schocker, JD, Brady, LW. Clin Orthop 1982, 169:38–43.Google Scholar
14. Snyder, B et al. Trans 46th Orthop Res Soc 2000, 25:1104.Google Scholar
15. Houston, SJ, Rubens, RD. Clin Orthop 1995, 312:95–104.Google Scholar
16. Windhagen, HJ et al. Clin Orthop 1997, 344:313–319.Google Scholar
17. Rice, JC et al. J Biomech 1988, 21:155–68.Google Scholar
18. Snyder, SM, Schneider, E. J Orthop Res 1991, 9:422–431.Google Scholar
19. Keaveny, TM et al. J Biomech 1994, 27:1137–46.Google Scholar
20. Gibson, LJ, Ashby, MF. Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties, 2nd edition, edited by Clarke, DR et al. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1997.Google Scholar
21. Copley, L. Dormans, JP. Pediatr Clin North Am 1996, 43:949–66.Google Scholar
22. Hecht, AC Gebhardt, MC. Curr Opin Pediatr 1998, 10:87–94.Google Scholar
23. Honore, P et al. Nat Med 2000, 6:521–8.Google Scholar
24. Tubiana-Hulin, M. Bone 1991, 12(Suppl 1):S9–10.Google Scholar
25. Whealan, KM et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000, 82:1240–51.Google Scholar
26. Taneichi, H et al. Spine 1997, 22:239–45.Google Scholar
27. Genant, HK et al. J Bone Miner Res 1993, 8:1137–48.Google Scholar