0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      CT-based finite element simulating spatial bone damage accumulation predicts metastatic human vertebrae strength and stiffness

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction: Pathologic vertebral fractures are devastating for patients with spinal metastases. However, the mechanical process underlying these fractures is poorly understood, limiting physician’s ability to predict which vertebral bodies will fail.

          Method: Here, we show the development of a damage-based finite element framework producing highly reliable pathologic vertebral strength and stiffness predictions from X-Ray computed tomography (CT) data. We evaluated the performance of specimen-specific material calibration vs. global material calibration across osteosclerotic, osteolytic, and mixed lesion vertebrae that we derived using a machine learning approach.

          Results: The FE framework using global calibration strongly predicted the pathologic vertebrae stiffness ( R 2 = 0.90, p < 0.0001) and strength ( R 2 = 0.83, p = 0.0002) despite the remarkable variance in the pathologic bone structure and density. Specimen-specific calibration produced a near-perfect prediction of both stiffness and strength ( R 2 = 0.99, p < 0.0001, for both), validating the FE approach. The FE damage-based simulations highlighted the differences in the pattern of spatial damage evolution between osteosclerotic and osteolytic vertebral bodies.

          Discussion: With failure, the FE simulation suggested a common damage evolution pathway progressing largely localized to the low bone modulus regions within the vertebral volume. Applying this FE approach may allow us to predict the onset and anatomical location of vertebral failure, which is critical for developing image-based diagnostics of impending pathologic vertebral fractures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references67

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, part I: National cancer statistics

          BACKGROUND The American Cancer Society (ACS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) collaborate to provide annual updates on cancer occurrence and trends in the United States. METHODS Incidence data were obtained from the CDC‐funded and NCI‐funded population‐based cancer registry programs and compiled by NAACCR. Data on cancer deaths were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics National Vital Statistics System. Trends in age‐standardized incidence and death rates for all cancers combined and for the leading cancer types by sex, race, and ethnicity were estimated by joinpoint analysis and expressed as the annual percent change. Stage distribution and 5‐year survival by stage at diagnosis were calculated for breast cancer, colon and rectum (colorectal) cancer, lung and bronchus cancer, and melanoma of the skin. RESULTS Overall cancer incidence rates from 2008 to 2014 decreased by 2.2% per year among men but were stable among women. Overall cancer death rates from 1999 to 2015 decreased by 1.8% per year among men and by 1.4% per year among women. Among men, incidence rates during the most recent 5‐year period (2010‐2014) decreased for 7 of the 17 most common cancer types, and death rates (2011‐2015) decreased for 11 of the 18 most common types. Among women, incidence rates declined for 7 of the 18 most common cancers, and death rates declined for 14 of the 20 most common cancers. Death rates decreased for cancer sites, including lung and bronchus (men and women), colorectal (men and women), female breast, and prostate. Death rates increased for cancers of the liver (men and women); pancreas (men and women); brain and other nervous system (men and women); oral cavity and pharynx (men only); soft tissue, including heart (men only); nonmelanoma skin (men only); and uterus. Incidence and death rates were higher among men than among women for all racial and ethnic groups. For all cancer sites combined, black men and white women had the highest incidence rates compared with other racial groups, and black men and black women had the highest death rates compared with other racial groups. Non‐Hispanic men and women had higher incidence and mortality rates than those of Hispanic ethnicity. Five‐year survival for cases diagnosed from 2007 through 2013 ranged from 100% (stage I) to 26.5% (stage IV) for female breast cancer, from 88.1% (stage I) to 12.6% (stage IV) for colorectal cancer, from 55.1% (stage I) to 4.2% (stage IV) for lung and bronchus cancer, and from 99.5% (stage I) to 16% (stage IV) for melanoma of the skin. Among children, overall cancer incidence rates increased by 0.8% per year from 2010 to 2014, and overall cancer death rates decreased by 1.5% per year from 2011 to 2015. CONCLUSIONS For all cancer sites combined, cancer incidence rates decreased among men but were stable among women. Overall, there continue to be significant declines in cancer death rates among both men and women. Differences in rates and trends by race and ethnic group remain. Progress in reducing cancer mortality has not occurred for all sites. Examining stage distribution and 5‐year survival by stage highlights the potential benefits associated with early detection and treatment. Cancer 2018;124:2785‐2800. © 2018 American Cancer Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012.

            Although there has been considerable progress in reducing cancer incidence in the United States, the number of cancer survivors continues to increase due to the aging and growth of the population and improvements in survival rates. As a result, it is increasingly important to understand the unique medical and psychosocial needs of survivors and be aware of resources that can assist patients, caregivers, and health care providers in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship. To highlight the challenges and opportunities to serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute estimated the prevalence of cancer survivors on January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2022, by cancer site. Data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries were used to describe median age and stage at diagnosis and survival; data from the National Cancer Data Base and the SEER-Medicare Database were used to describe patterns of cancer treatment. An estimated 13.7 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2012, and by January 1, 2022, that number will increase to nearly 18 million. The 3 most prevalent cancers among males are prostate (43%), colorectal (9%), and melanoma of the skin (7%), and those among females are breast (41%), uterine corpus (8%), and colorectal (8%). This article summarizes common cancer treatments, survival rates, and posttreatment concerns and introduces the new National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center, which has engaged more than 100 volunteer survivorship experts nationwide to develop tools for cancer survivors, caregivers, health care professionals, advocates, and policy makers. Published 2012 American Cancer Society, Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Strategies to improve radiotherapy with targeted drugs.

              Radiotherapy is used to treat approximately 50% of all cancer patients, with varying success. The dose of ionizing radiation that can be given to the tumour is determined by the sensitivity of the surrounding normal tissues. Strategies to improve radiotherapy therefore aim to increase the effect on the tumour or to decrease the effects on normal tissues. These aims must be achieved without sensitizing the normal tissues in the first approach and without protecting the tumour in the second approach. Two factors have made such approaches feasible: namely, an improved understanding of the molecular response of cells and tissues to ionizing radiation and a new appreciation of the exploitable genetic alterations in tumours. These have led to the development of treatments combining pharmacological interventions with ionizing radiation that more specifically target either tumour or normal tissue, leading to improvements in efficacy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/45322/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1751411/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/92845/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Journal
                Front Bioeng Biotechnol
                Front Bioeng Biotechnol
                Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.
                Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-4185
                23 July 2024
                2024
                : 12
                : 1424553
                Affiliations
                [1] 1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery , Center for Advanced Orthopedic Studies , Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA, United States
                [2] 2 Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies Aeronautics and Astronautics , Massachusetts Institute of Technology , Cambridge, MA, United States
                [3] 3 Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies , Massachusetts Institute of Technology , Cambridge, MA, United States
                [4] 4 Centre for Artificial Intelligence , ZHAW School of Engineering , Zurich University of Applied Sciences , Zurich, Switzerland
                [5] 5 Department of Radiology , Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Francesco Travascio, University of Miami, United States

                Reviewed by: Giovanni Solitro, Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, United States

                Alessio Gizzi, Campus Bio-Medico University, Italy

                *Correspondence: Ron N. Alkalay, rn_alkalay@ 123456bidmc.harvard.edu
                Article
                1424553
                10.3389/fbioe.2024.1424553
                11300227
                b517e78a-fcbb-4f17-8f1d-3fe0b2df9a0a
                Copyright © 2024 Soltani, Xu, Radovitzky, Stadelmann, Hackney and Alkalay.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 28 April 2024
                : 29 May 2024
                Funding
                The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors acknowledge the support of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases for the corresponding authors, RA and DH, under its Research Project Grants (AR075964).
                Categories
                Bioengineering and Biotechnology
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                Biomechanics

                spine,human metastatic vertebrae,finite element framework,bone damage model,fracture prediction

                Comments

                Comment on this article