ObjectivesIn this prospective cohort study, we investigated whether patient-specific finite element (FE) models can identify patients at risk of a pathological femoral fracture resulting from metastatic bone disease, and compared these FE predictions with clinical assessments by experienced clinicians.MethodsA total of 39 patients with non-fractured femoral metastatic lesions who were irradiated for pain were included from three radiotherapy institutes. During follow-up, nine pathological fractures occurred in seven patients. Quantitative CT-based FE models were generated for all patients. Femoral failure load was calculated and compared between the fractured and non-fractured femurs. Due to inter-scanner differences, patients were analyzed separately for the three institutes. In addition, the FE-based predictions were compared with fracture risk assessments by experienced clinicians.ResultsIn institute 1, median failure load was significantly lower for patients who sustained a fracture than for patients with no fractures. In institutes 2 and 3, the number of patients with a fracture was too low to make a clear distinction. Fracture locations were well predicted by the FE model when compared with post-fracture radiographs. The FE model was more accurate in identifying patients with a high fracture risk compared with experienced clinicians, with a sensitivity of 89% versus 0% to 33% for clinical assessments. Specificity was 79% for the FE models versus 84% to 95% for clinical assessments.ConclusionFE models can be a valuable tool to improve clinical fracture risk predictions in metastatic bone disease. Future work in a larger patient population should confirm the higher predictive power of FE models compared with current clinical guidelines.Cite this article: F. Eggermont, L. C. Derikx, N. Verdonschot, I. C. M. van der Geest, M. A. A. de Jong, A. Snyers, Y. M. van der Linden, E. Tanck. Can patient-specific finite element models better predict fractures in metastatic bone disease than experienced clinicians? Towards computational modelling in daily clinical practice. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:430–439. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.76.BJR-2017-0325.R2.
The objective of this study was to develop a new calibration method that enables calibration of Hounsfield units (HU) to bone mineral densities (BMD) without the use of a calibration phantom for fracture risk prediction of femurs with metastases using CT-based finite element (FE) models. Fifty-seven advanced cancer patients (67 femurs with bone metastases) were CT scanned atop a separate calibration phantom using a standardized protocol. Non-linear isotropic FE models were constructed based on the phantom calibration and on two phantomless calibration methods: the “air-fat-muscle” and “non-patient-specific” calibration. For air-fat-muscle calibration, peaks for air, fat and muscle tissue were extracted from a histogram of the HU in a standardized region of interest including the patient’s right leg and surrounding air. These CT peaks were linearly fitted to reference “BMD” values of the corresponding tissues to obtain a calibration function. For non-patient-specific calibration, an average phantom calibration function was used for all patients. FE failure loads were compared between phantom and phantomless calibrations. There were no differences in failure loads between phantom and air-fat-muscle calibration (p = 0.8), whereas there was a significant difference between phantom and non-patient-specific calibration (p<0.001). Although this study was not designed to investigate this, in four patients who were scanned using an aberrant reconstruction kernel, the effect of the different kernel seemed to be smaller for the air-fat-muscle calibration compared to the non-patient-specific calibration. With the air-fat-muscle calibration, clinical implementation of the FE model as tool for fracture risk assessment will be easier from a practical and financial viewpoint, since FE models can be made using everyday clinical CT scans without the need of concurrent scanning of calibration phantoms.
In a multi‐center patient study, using different CT scanners, CT‐based finite element (FE) models are utilized to calculate failure loads of femora with metastases. Previous studies showed that using different CT scanners can result in different outcomes. This study aims to quantify the effects of (i) different CT scanners; (ii) different CT protocols with variations in slice thickness, field of view (FOV), and reconstruction kernel; and (iii) air between calibration phantom and patient, on Hounsfield Units (HU), bone mineral density (BMD), and FE failure load. Six cadaveric femora were scanned on four CT scanners. Scans were made with multiple CT protocols and with or without an air gap between the body model and calibration phantom. HU and calibrated BMD were determined in cortical and trabecular regions of interest. Non‐linear isotropic FE models were constructed to calculate failure load. Mean differences between CT scanners varied up to 7% in cortical HU, 6% in trabecular HU, 6% in cortical BMD, 12% in trabecular BMD, and 17% in failure load. Changes in slice thickness and FOV had little effect (≤4%), while reconstruction kernels had a larger effect on HU (16%), BMD (17%), and failure load (9%). Air between the body model and calibration phantom slightly decreased the HU, BMD, and failure loads (≤8%). In conclusion, this study showed that quantitative analysis of CT images acquired with different CT scanners, and particularly reconstruction kernels, can induce relatively large differences in HU, BMD, and failure loads. Additionally, if possible, air artifacts should be avoided. © 2018 Orthopaedic Research Society. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the Orthopaedic Research Society. J Orthop Res 36:2288–2295, 2018.
This study investigated the effect of different CT scanners, reconstruction protocols, scan positions, and air gaps on HU and/or calibrated calcium hydroxyapatite concentrations (CaHA). Phantoms containing bone-like materials were scanned on four different CT scanners. The effect of slice thickness, field of view (FOV) and reconstruction kernel on HU was investigated. Using clinical scan and reconstruction protocols and a calibration phantom, HU and CaHA were determined for different positions, and air gaps between phantom and calibration phantom. Changing reconstruction kernel considerably affected the HU (range −31 HU to 64 HU), whereas slice thickness and FOV did not. Inter-scanner differences in HU were <88 HU and decreased to <47 CaHA after calibration. Different positions of the phantom resulted in differences (on average up to −26 HU and −24 CaHA). An air gap of 2.5 cm atop the calibration phantom resulted in errors up to −41 CaHA. If absolute HU and calibrated CaHA are needed, different reconstruction kernels and changes in position within the FOV as well as air gaps should be avoided. RECEIVED
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.