Literature DB >> 26169800

CT-based Structural Rigidity Analysis Is More Accurate Than Mirels Scoring for Fracture Prediction in Metastatic Femoral Lesions.

Timothy A Damron1, Ara Nazarian2, Vahid Entezari2, Carlos Brown3, William Grant4, Nathan Calderon5, David Zurakowski6, Richard M Terek7, Megan E Anderson8, Edward Y Cheng9, Albert J Aboulafia10, Mark C Gebhardt8, Brian D Snyder2,11.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Controversy continues regarding the appropriate assessment of fracture risk in long bone lesions affected by disseminated malignancy. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this ongoing Musculoskeletal Tumor Society-sponsored, multi-institutional prospective cross-sectional clinical study is to compare CT-based structural rigidity analysis (CTRA) with physician-derived Mirels scoring for predicting pathologic fracture in femoral bone lesions. We hypothesized CTRA would be superior to Mirels in predicting fracture risk within the first year based on (1) sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value; (2) receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis; and (3) fracture prediction after controlling for potential confounding variables such as age and lesion size.
METHODS: Consented patients with femoral metastatic lesions were assigned Mirels scores by the individual enrolling orthopaedic oncologist based on plain radiographs and then underwent CT scans of both femurs with a phantom of known density. The CTRA was then performed. Between 2004 and 2008, six study centers performed CTRA on 125 patients. The general indications for this test were femoral metastatic lesions potentially at risk of fracture. The enrolling physician was allowed the choice of prophylactic stabilization or nonsurgical treatment, and the local treating oncology team along with the patient made this decision. Of those 125 patients, 78 (62%) did not undergo prophylactic stabilization and had followup sufficient for inclusion, which was fracture through the lesion within 12 months of CTRA, death within 12 months of CTRA, or 12-month survival after CTRA without fracture, whereas 15 (12%) were lost to followup and could not be studied here. The mean patient age was 61 years (SD, 14 years). There were 46 women. Sixty-four of the lesions were located in the proximal femur, 13 were in the diaphysis, and four were distal. Osteolytic lesions prevailed (48 lesions) over mixed (31 lesions) and osteoblastic (15 lesions). The most common primary cancers were breast (25 lesions), lung (14 lesions), and myeloma (11 lesions). CTRA was compared with Mirels based on sensitivity/specificity analysis, ROC, and fracture prediction by multivariate analysis. For the CTRA, reduction greater than 35% in axial, bending, or torsional rigidities at the lesion was considered at risk for fracture, whereas a Mirels score of 9 or above, as suggested in the original manuscript, was used as the definition of impending fracture.
RESULTS: CTRA provided higher sensitivity (100% versus 66.7%), specificity (60.6% versus 47.9%), positive predictive value (17.6% versus 9.8%), and negative predictive value (100% versus 94.4%) compared with the classic Mirels definition of impending fracture (≥ 9), although there was considerable overlap in the confidence intervals. ROC curve analysis found CTRA to be better than the Mirels score regardless of what Mirels score cutoff was used. After controlling for potential confounding variables including age, lesion size, and Mirels scores, multivariable logistic regression indicated that CTRA was a better predictor of fracture (likelihood ratio test = 10.49, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: CT-based structural rigidity analysis is better than Mirels score in predicting femoral impending pathologic fracture. CTRA appears to provide a substantial advance in the accuracy of predicting pathological femur fracture over currently used clinical and radiographic criteria. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26169800      PMCID: PMC4746194          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4453-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  29 in total

1.  Risk of pathologic fracture: assessment.

Authors:  Timothy A Damron; William G Ward
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Predicting fracture through benign skeletal lesions with quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  Brian D Snyder; Diana A Hauser-Kara; John A Hipp; David Zurakowski; Andrew C Hecht; Mark C Gebhardt
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Predicting the strength of femoral shafts with and without metastatic lesions.

Authors:  Joyce H Keyak; Tadashi S Kaneko; Stephen A Rossi; Marina R Pejcic; Jamshid Tehranzadeh; Harry B Skinner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Surgical treatment for secondary neoplastic fractures. A retrospective study of ninety-six patients.

Authors:  F F Parrish; J A Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1970-06       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Inter- and intra-observer variation in classification systems for impending fractures of bone metastases.

Authors:  Moataz El-Husseiny; Nigel Coleman
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Incidence of fracture through metastases in long bones.

Authors:  M Fidler
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1981-12

Review 7.  Metastatic disease around the hip: maintaining quality of life.

Authors:  G J Haidukewych
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2012-11

8.  Pathologic fracture risk in rehabilitation of patients with bony metastases.

Authors:  R Bunting; W Lamont-Havers; D Schweon; A Kliman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1985 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  Impending fracture associated with bone destruction.

Authors:  R C Thompson
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 1.390

10.  Estimated number of prevalent cases of metastatic bone disease in the US adult population.

Authors:  Shuling Li; Yi Peng; Eric D Weinhandl; Anne H Blaes; Karynsa Cetin; Victoria M Chia; Scott Stryker; Joseph J Pinzone; John F Acquavella; Thomas J Arneson
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 4.790

View more
  32 in total

Review 1.  Fracture risk assessment and clinical decision making for patients with metastatic bone disease.

Authors:  Timothy A Damron; Kenneth A Mann
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 3.494

2.  CORR Insights®: What Is the Adverse Event Profile After Prophylactic Treatment of Femoral Shaft or Distal Femur Metastases?

Authors:  Timothy A Damron
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Influence of bone lesion location on femoral bone strength assessed by MRI-based finite-element modeling.

Authors:  Chamith S Rajapakse; Nishtha Gupta; Marissa Evans; Hamza Alizai; Malika Shukurova; Abigail L Hong; Nicholas J Cruickshank; Nirmal Tejwani; Kenneth Egol; Stephen Honig; Gregory Chang
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 4.398

4.  FDG PET/CT Assesses the Risk of Femoral Pathological Fractures in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Gary A Ulaner; Alexandra M Zindman; Junting Zheng; Tae Won B Kim; John H Healey
Journal:  Clin Nucl Med       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 7.794

5.  Risk assessment of femoral pathological fracture in prostate cancer patients by computed tomography analysis.

Authors:  Hajime Rikitake; Keisuke Horiuchi; Kosuke Miyai; Michiro Susa; Masahiro Inoue; Eiko Taguchi; Takahiro Ishizaka; Kazuhiro Chiba
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 2.626

6.  Noninvasive Failure Load Prediction of Vertebrae with Simulated Lytic Defects and Biomaterial Augmentation.

Authors:  Hugo Giambini; Zhong Fang; Heng Zeng; Jon J Camp; Michael J Yaszemski; Lichun Lu
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part C Methods       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.056

7.  The trabecular effect: A population-based longitudinal study on age and sex differences in bone mineral density and vertebral load bearing capacity.

Authors:  Marianna L Oppenheimer-Velez; Hugo Giambini; Asghar Rezaei; Jon J Camp; Sundeep Khosla; Lichun Lu
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 2.063

Review 8.  The effects of metastatic lesion on the structural determinants of bone: Current clinical and experimental approaches.

Authors:  Stacyann Bailey; David Hackney; Deepak Vashishth; Ron N Alkalay
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 4.398

9.  [Perioperative clinical characteristics of patients with pathological fracture of proximal femur].

Authors:  Y P Cui; C Mi; B Wang; Y X Pa; Y F Lin; X D Shi
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2019-10-18

Review 10.  Biomechanical Properties of Metastatically Involved Osteolytic Bone.

Authors:  Cari M Whyne; Dallis Ferguson; Allison Clement; Mohammedayaz Rangrez; Michael Hardisty
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 5.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.