Background
Breast cancer (BrCa) is a predominant malignancy, with metastasis occurring in one in eight patients, nearly half of which target the bone, leading to serious complications such as pain, fractures, and compromised mobility. Structural rigidity, crucial for bone strength, becomes compromised with osteolytic lesions, highlighting the vulnerability and increased fracture risk in affected areas. Historically, two-dimensional radiographs have been employed to predict these fracture risks; however, their limitations in capturing the three-dimensional structural and material changes in bone have raised concerns. Recent advances in CT-based Structural Rigidity Analysis (CTRA), offer a promising, more accurate non-invasive 3D approach. This study aims to assess the efficacy of CTRA in monitoring osteolytic lesions’ progression and response to therapy, suggesting its potential superiority over existing methodologies in guiding treatment strategies.
Methods
Twenty-seven female nude rats underwent femoral intra-medullary inoculation with MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells or saline control. They were divided into Control, Cancer Control, Ibandronate, and Paclitaxel groups. Osteolytic progression was monitored weekly using biplanar radiography, quantitative computed tomography (QCT), and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). CTRA was employed to predict fracture risk, normalized using the contralateral femur. Statistical analyses, including Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA, assessed differences in outcomes among groups and over time.
Results
Biplanar radiographs showed treatment benefits over time; however, only certain time-specific differences between the Control and other treatment groups were discernible. Notably, observer subjectivity in X-ray scoring became evident, with significant inter-operator variations. DEXA measurements for metaphyseal Bone Mineral Content (BMC) did not exhibit notable differences between groups. Although diaphyseal BMC highlighted some variance, it did not reveal significant differences between treatments at specific time points, suggesting a limited ability for DEXA to differentiate between treatment effects. In contrast, the CTRA consistently demonstrated variations across different treatments, effectively capturing bone rigidity changes over time, and the axial- (EA), bending- (EI), and torsional rigidity (GJ) outcomes from the CTRA method successfully distinguished differences among treatments at specific time points.
Conclusion
Traditional approaches, such as biplanar radiographs and DEXA, have exhibited inherent limitations, notably observer bias and time-specific inefficacies. Our study accentuates the capability of CTRA in capturing real-time, progressive changes in bone structure, with the potential to predict fractures more accurately and provide a more objective analysis. Ultimately, this innovative approach may bridge the existing gap in clinical guidelines, ushering in enhanced Clinical Decision Support Tool (CDST) for both surgical and non-surgical treatments.
