Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals

Abstract

Introduction. Nonhereditary heterotopic ossification (NHO) is a common complication of trauma. Progressive osseous heteroplasia (POH) and fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) are rare genetic causes of heterotopic bone. In this article, we detail the vascular patterning associated with genetic versus NHO. Methods. Vascular histomorphometric analysis was performed on patient samples from POH, FOP, and NHO. Endpoints for analysis included blood vessel (BV) number, area, density, size, and wall thickness. Results. Results demonstrated conserved temporal dynamic changes in vascularity across all heterotopic ossification lesions. Immature areas had the highest BV number, while the more mature foci had the highest BV area. Most vascular parameters were significantly increased in genetic as compared with NHO. Discussion. In sum, both genetic and NHO show temporospatial variation in vascularity. These findings suggest that angiogenic pathways are potential therapeutic targets in both genetic and nonhereditary forms of heterotopic ossification.

Introduction

Heterotopic ossification (HO) is the formation of bone outside of the normal skeleton. This process may occur in the skin, muscles, and soft tissues and can cause significant morbidity. Nonhereditary heterotopic ossification (NHO) is a common consequence of musculoskeletal trauma and surgery. NHO has also been reported following spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, and severe burns.1-5 NHO has been reported to occur in up to 90% of patients following hip arthroplasty and acetabular fractures, and in up to 53% of patients with neurologic injury.3,6 This condition causes significant morbidity as a result of joint contractures, loss of soft tissue, and chronic pain.2-4 Histologically, NHO is a process that demonstrates temporospatial evolution. Early lesions demonstrate a nodular fasciitis (NF)-like fibroblastic proliferation followed by gradual bone production and osseous maturation over time.1,2,4 Similar to bone morphogenesis7 or fracture repair,8 NHO may form through endochondral or intramembranous mechanisms.9 Reported frequencies of endochondral versus intramembranous ossification in NHO are highly variable.1,2,4,5,10
Progressive osseous heteroplasia (POH) is a rare genetic form of HO characterized by predominantly intramembranous ossification (OMIM: 166350).11-17 POH typically presents in infancy with dermal ossification that progresses to involve the subcutaneous and deep skeletal muscle and connective tissues.11-22 Ossification may progress to ankylosis of the joints causing focal growth retardation of involved limbs.17,21 POH is caused by inactivating mutations in the GNAS gene, which encodes the alpha subunit of the stimulatory G protein (Gsα) of adenylyl cyclase,11,13,14,18,23-32 and has been associated with autosomal dominant17,18,21,32 inheritance with the mutation most frequently occurring on the paternally inherited allele,16,18,27,28,30,31 although many cases are sporadic.11,12,17,18 The disorder exists on a spectrum of GNAS mutation-associated hereditary HO disorders, including Albright hereditary osteodystrophy.11,13,17,18,23,25,27 Disease progression typically slows during adulthood.11,12 Patients have a normal level of intelligence and do not have significant congenital skeletal abnormalities or endocrine abnormalities.12,17
Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) is another rare genetic form of HO that presents in childhood caused by activating mutations in the ACVR1 gene (OMIM: 135100). In contrast with POH, FOP is characterized by predominantly endochondral ossification within muscle and deep connective tissues and spares the skin.11,16,17,33 Patients with FOP usually have congenital malformations of the great toes and may have other congenital skeletal anomalies. In the absence of injury, HO generally arises bilaterally in a cranial to caudal, proximal to distal progression, and lesions are preceded by inflammatory tumor-like swellings.11-13,17,19,33 The disease begins in early childhood and continues to progress through adulthood, with most patients wheelchair-bound by the second decade of life. The median lifespan for FOP patients is approximately 40 years, and patients typically succumb to thoracic insufficiency syndromes.33-37 Most cases of FOP are sporadic; however, some families show autosomal dominant inheritance. Both de novo and inherited cases are caused by activating mutations in the ACVR1 gene, which encodes activin A receptor type 1/activin-like kinase 2, a bone morphogenic protein type 1 receptor.1-3,33
In a prior study, we characterized the vascular patterning of NHO.1 We found that heterotopic bone formation and maturation is coupled with dynamic temporal vascular changes.1 In this article, we report on the vascular patterning of NHO in comparison with inherited forms of HO (including both POH and FOP). We especially sought to characterize the differences in vascular modeling across the various disease processes and across the histologic spectrum of HO.

Materials and Methods

Identification of HO Samples

Six cases of POH, 3 cases of FOP, and 5 cases of NHO were identified in our surgical pathology archives (Johns Hopkins University and University of Pennsylvania). Cases were obtained under institutional review board approval with a waiver of informed consent. All material was coded so as to protect the confidentiality of personal health information. Cases of POH and FOP were diagnosed by clinical features, followed by detection of GNAS or ACVR1 mutational analysis if available. Two skeletal pathologists independently performed a review to verify the diagnostic accuracy of all cases of NHO (AWJ, EM).

Image Acquisition and Categorization of HO Samples

Histologic images of hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections were taken of each sample, with the goal of encompassing distinct areas of each lesion. Depending on the size of the specimen, between 2 and 19 images of each case were taken at 10× magnification. A total of 131 images were analyzed (42 images of POH samples, 43 images of FOP samples, and 46 images of NHO). Next, the images were examined (by ADW and AWJ) and categorized based on their predominant histologic appearance. The following 4 phasic subcategories were employed as per our prior study1:
1.
NF-like areas: sheets of spindled fibroblastic to myofibroblastic cells with minimal to no bone formation
2.
Cartilaginous areas: areas of prominent cartilaginous differentiation with minimal to no bone formation
3.
HO with woven bone: comprised predominantly of trabeculae of woven bone often with prominent osteoblastic rimming
4.
HO with lamellar bone: comprised predominantly of trabeculae of lamellar bone

Vascular Histomorphometric Analysis of HO Samples

Each image was analyzed to determine the following factors: blood vessel number (total blood vessel number per 10× field), blood vessel area (total vascular area per 10× field), blood vessel density (blood vessel area/tissue area per 10× field), blood vessel size (mean number of pixel units per blood vessel in each 10× field), and blood vessel wall thickness (mean blood vessel wall thickness per 10× field). Blood vessel number was counted manually. All other calculations were performed in ImageJ 1.52a (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD). Vessel area was determined using the wand (tracing) tool in ImageJ in conjunction with the measurement log function to measure the area in pixel units. Density was calculated by dividing vessel area by total photograph tissue area, as determined using ImageJ. Vessel thickness was measured in pixel units using the “straight” tool in ImageJ. Vascular indices were analyzed by diagnostic category (POH, FOP, or NHO) as well as by phasic subcategory of HO (NF-like, HO with woven bone, HO with lamellar bone).

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel Version 16.16.3 (181015). Analysis of variance single factor and 2-tailed t test analyses were performed for each histomorphometric parameter (blood vessel number, blood vessel area, blood vessel density, blood vessel size, and blood vessel wall thickness) for each histologic phase in all samples of POH, FOP, and NHO. Analysis of variance single factor and 2-tailed t test analyses were also performed for each disease subtype (POH, FOP, and NHO) to compare each histomorphometric parameter across disease types. Results were charted on box and whisker plots in Microsoft Excel. *P < .05 and **P < .01 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Patient Demographics of POH, FOP, and NHO

A total of 6 cases of POH, 3 cases of FOP, and 5 cases of NHO were examined in this study. Demographics are summarized below and in Table 1. The size of specimens ranged from 1.5 to 5 cm in maximum dimension.
Table 1. Patient Demographics for Each Sample of POH, FOP, and NHO.
PatientGenderAge at BiopsyLocation of Biopsy
POH
 POH1Male2Left hand
 POH2Female41Left neck
 POH3Male26Right metacarpal, right shoulder
 POH4Female9Unknown
 POH5Female8Left lower back
 POH6Female11Right triceps
FOP
 FOP1Male2Left vastus lateralis
 FOP2Female9Right quadriceps
 FOP3Female7unknown
NHO
 NHO1Male38Right knee
 NHO2Female29Right distal femur
 NHO3unknownUnknownUnknown
 NHO4Female30Brachial plexus, soft tissue
 NHO5Male31Left foot
Abbreviations: POH, progressive osseous heteroplasia; FOP, fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva; NHO, nonhereditary heterotopic ossification.
Among cases of POH, 4 patients were female and 2 were male, with an average age of 16.2 years (range = 2-41 years). The majority of cases of POH involved the trunk and upper extremity (n = 5), and sites included the hand (n = 2), triceps (n = 1), shoulder (n = 1), neck (n = 1), and lower back (n = 1). In 1 case of POH, specimens from 2 different sites were received (shoulder and hand). Anatomic site of origin was not recorded in 1 case of POH.
In the 3 cases of FOP, 2 patients were female and 1 was male. The average age at time of FOP biopsy was 6 years (range = 2-9 years). Patient demographics and the site of each lesion are further delineated in Table 1.
Among cases of NHO, patient samples were evenly distributed by gender (2 females, 2 males, 1 not recorded), and the average patient age was 32.0 years (range = 29-38 years). NHO samples were most commonly from the lower extremity (n = 3 samples including 1 sample from distal thigh, periarticular soft tissue of knee, and soft tissue of foot), and 1 case involved the upper extremity (periarticular soft tissue of shoulder). Anatomic site of origin was not recorded in 1 case of NHO. For cases of NHO, limited additional clinical information was available. Two cases had no known history of local trauma or other inciting event. One case had a deep venous thrombosis in the affected extremity. Two patients had no available clinical data.

Histologic Features of POH, FOP, and NHO

Typical histologic features of HO were examined in cases of NHO, POH, and FOP, using our previously defined HO histologic subcategories,1 which included the following:
1.
NF-like areas: These areas showed sheets and fascicles of spindled fibroblastic/myofibroblastic cells, similar to the pattern observed in NF or granulation tissue (Figure 1A-C). Minimal to no bone formation was observed in these areas. Blood vessels in these areas were numerous, slender, elongated, and thin-walled, consistent with capillaries. NF-like areas were observed in 1/6 (16.7%) cases of POH, 3/3 (100%) cases of FOP, and 3/5 (60%) cases of NHO.
2.
Cartilaginous areas: These areas showed prominent cartilaginous differentiation or endochondral ossification (Figure 1D-F). Very few blood vessels were observed within purely cartilaginous areas. Areas of frank cartilage were observed in 1/6 (16.7%) of cases of POH and 3/3 (100%) cases of FOP. No cases of NHO showed areas that met these criteria. One case of NHO showed foci of late endochondral ossification.
3.
HO with woven bone: In these areas, lesional tissue is comprised predominantly of woven bone with prominent osteoblastic rimming (Figure 2A-C). Blood vessels were predominantly thin-walled, with morphologic similarity to venules or bone marrow sinusoids. Areas of woven bone were observed in 5/6 (83.3%) of cases of POH, 1 case (33.3%) of FOP, and 3/5 (60%) of cases of NHO.
4.
HO with lamellar bone: These areas predominantly contained thickened trabeculae of mature lamellar bone (Figure 2D-F). A range of blood vessel appearance was seen in these areas, from dilated and ectatic thin-walled vessels again resembling bone marrow sinusoids, to smaller, thick-walled vessels resembling arterioles. Lamellar bone was seen in 4/6 (66.7%) of POH cases, 1 case (33%) of FOP, and 3/5 (60%) of NHO cases.
Figure 1. Histologic appearance of early heterotopic ossification across genetic and nonhereditary cases. Nodular fasciitis (NF)-like appearance in (A) progressive osseous heteroplasia (POH), (B) fibrodysplasia ossificans progressive (FOP), and (C) nonhereditary heterotopic ossification (NHO). Even at low magnification an increase in vascular density is appreciable in genetic lesions (arrows). Cartilaginous areas in (D) POH, (E) FOP, and (F) NHO. Cartilaginous islands are essentially avascular, and blood vessels invade from the periphery. Areas of prominent cartilage were not included for later vascular histomorphometry. Black scale bars: 5 µm. Arrowheads indicate representative blood vessels.
Figure 2. Histologic appearance of evolving heterotopic ossification (HO) across genetic and nonhereditary cases. HO with predominantly woven bone in (A) progressive osseous heteroplasia (POH), (B) fibrodysplasia ossificans progressive (FOP), and (C) nonhereditary heterotopic ossification (NHO). Even at low magnification, an increase in vascular density is appreciable in genetic lesions (arrows). HO with predominantly lamellar bone in (D) POH, (E) FOP, and (F) NHO. Black scale bars: 5 µm. Arrowheads indicate representative blood vessels.
Each case had at least some bone matrix. No cases included features of malignancy, such as nuclear hyperchromasia, pleomorphism or significant atypia, or atypical mitotic figures.

Vascular Histomorphometry Across the Histologic Stages of HO

As described above, similar phasic changes in vasculature seemed to be present in both genetic and NHO. For this reason, vascular indices were first examined combining all samples independent of genetic versus nongenetic etiologies (Table 2). Here, 3 subcategories as previously described were included: NF-like areas or “NF-like,” HO with predominantly woven bone or “Woven,” and HO with predominantly lamellar bone or “Lamellar.” Too few cartilaginous areas were obtained for analysis.
Table 2. Vascular Histomorphometric Analysis of All HO Samples, Across Histologic Phasesa,b.
 NF-Like Areas (SEM)Woven Bone (SEM)Lamellar Bone (SEM)
Average blood vessel number9.6 (21.89)*9.23 (23.23)#6.70 (15.97)
Average blood vessel size (pixelsc)9515.89 (1.53 × 108)25 706.56 (1.23 × 109)39 060.23 (2.28 × 109)*
Average blood vessel area (square pixelsc)78 007.69 (2.83 × 109)271 074.80 (2.11 × 1011)301 278.80 (1.52 × 1011)*
Average blood vessel wall thickness (pixelsc)0.025 (3.89 × 10−4)0.056 (7.93 × 10−3)#,0.073 (8.67 × 10−3)
Abbreviations: HO, heterotopic ossification; NF, nodular fasciitis; SEM, standard error of mean.
a
All vascular measurements are included in a single analysis, including those taken from progressive osseous heteroplasia, fibrodysplasia ossificans progressive, and nonhereditary heterotopic ossification. Three histologic phases were included: NF-like areas, HO with predominantly woven bone, and HO with predominantly lamellar bone. Blood vessel parameters were assessed across all available images at 10× magnification. Means and SEM are shown.
b
Two-tailed Student’s t tests are presented: *P < .05, NF-like areas versus lamellar bone areas; #P < .05, woven bone versus lamellar bone areas; P < .05, woven bone versus NF-like areas.
c
Pixel measurements are reported based on ImageJ 1.52a (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) measurement tools.
Results recapitulated the temporal dynamic changes that occur in the vasculature of HO obtained in prior studies of only NHO.1 Blood vessel number was significantly highest in NF-like areas and reduced in areas of mature lamellar bone (Table 2). Conversely, blood vessel size and area were lowest in NF-like areas and were highest in areas of mature lamellar bone. In the case of each vascular metric, areas of woven bone showed mean values that were between that of NF-like areas and lamellar bone. Blood vessel thickness also showed dynamic changes over different histologic appearances of HO, with increased vessel wall thickness in areas of mature lamellar bone. Thus, when all samples of HO were examined irrespective of etiology, quantitative phasic changes in vasculature accompany changes in bony “maturation.” These quantitative metrics represent a shift from the slender and numerous capillary-type vessels in most immature HO, to a combination of more developed vessels in more mature bony lesions, including larger bone marrow sinusoid-type vessels along with thick-walled arterioles.

Vascular Histomorphometry in POH, FOP, and NHO

Vascular indices were next examined between genetic and NHO types across each histologic subcategory (Table 3). NF-like areas were first examined in POH, FOP, and NHO. Despite variability, a nonsignificant trend toward increased blood vessel numbers was observed among POH and FOP in comparison to NHO. Blood vessel size among NF-like areas was similar across genetic and NHO. A similar nonsignificant trend was also observed for blood vessel area. Blood vessel wall thickness showed an increase among genetic versus NHO, which achieved statistical significance. Two-way statistical comparisons found a significant difference between blood vessel wall thickness among POH as compared with NHO (*P = .0125). Thus, when examining the most immature areas of HO, a trend toward increased vessel numbers, increased total vascular area, and increased vessel wall thickness were all observed among cases of genetic HO.
Table 3. Histomorphometric Analysis Comparing POH, FOP and NHO Samples Across Phases of HOa,b.
 POHFOPNHO
Average blood vessel number
 NF-like areas (SEM)11.17 (4.2)12.11 (28.1)8 (19.8)
 Woven bone (SEM) ANOVA, P = .00039.17 (20.5)*12.22 (21.2)#6.12 (9.7)
 Lamellar bone (SEM)6.33 (11.0)11.67 (52.3)5.89 (12.9)
Average blood vessel size (pixelsc)
 NF-like areas (SEM)8208 (9.3 × 105)67 573 (1.5 × 107)10 812 (2.6 × 108)
 Woven Bone (SEM) ANOVA, P = .022744 494 (2.1 × 109)*28 614 (1.4 × 109)#9365 (8.9 × 107)
 Lamellar bone (SEM)38 792 (2.4 × 109)86 874 (3.8 × 109)#174 664 (5.8 × 108)
Average blood vessel area (square pixelsc)
 NF-like areas (SEM)91 676 (3.9 × 108)95 479 (4.6 × 109)66 045 (2.7 × 109)
 Woven bone (SEM) ANOVA, P = .0165526 023 (5.0 × 1011)*310 989 (1.5 × 1011)#48 848 (1.3 × 109)
 Lamellar bone (SEM) ANOVA, P = .0174263 248 (1.3 × 1011)881 682 (2.2 × 1011)#,183 458 (6.5 × 1010)
Average blood vessel wall thickness (pixelsc)
 NF-like areas (SEM) ANOVA, P = .027212.4 (6.0)*10.9 (5.6)8.4 (5.6)
 Woven bone (SEM) ANOVA, P = .01179.9 (13.3)*8.6 (3.9)#6.8 (6.9)
 Lamellar bone (SEM)10.2 (12.4)9.0 (18.3)9.3 (7.3)
Abbreviations: HO, heterotopic ossification; POH, progressive osseous heteroplasia; FOP, fibrodysplasia ossificans progressive; NHO, nonhereditary heterotopic ossification; NF, nodular fasciitis; SEM, standard error of mean; ANOVA, analysis of variance.
a
Three histologic phases were included: NF-like areas, HO with predominantly woven bone, and HO with predominantly lamellar bone. Blood vessel parameters were assessed across all available images at 10× magnification. Means and SEM are shown.
b
Two-tailed Student’s t tests are presented as *P < .05, POH versus NHO; #P < .05, FOP versus NHO; P < .05, POH versus FOP.
c
Pixel measurements are reported based on ImageJ 1.52a (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) measurement tools.
Vascular indices were next compared for genetic and NHO among areas with predominantly woven bone. Significant differences were observed between genetic and NHO across all metrics. Vessel numbers per high-power field were significantly higher among FOP and POH in comparison to NHO. Vessel size and total vessel area were likewise significantly increased in both POH and FOP as compared with NHO samples. Vascular wall thickness was similarly highest in POH and FOP as compared with NHO samples. When comparing vasculature between genetic etiologies, slight differences were observed between POH and FOP. However, no vascular histomorphometric measurements achieved statistical significance when directly comparing POH and FOP. Images obtained from FOP samples trended toward increased number of vessels, while POH samples trended toward increased vessel size, area, and thickness.
Vascular indices were next compared for genetic and NHO among areas with predominantly lamellar bone. FOP samples had only rare examples of lamellar bone, and so statistical analysis between FOP and other groups was not performed. Overall the vascular differences between POH and NHO were no longer observed in areas of mature lamellar bone. Blood vessel numbers, size, total area, and wall thickness showed no significant difference between POH and NHO. Although comparisons are limited by small sample numbers, areas of FOP with lamellar bone showed higher vessel numbers, size, and total area.

Discussion

Heterotopic bone has diverse etiologies, and in this study, we sought to directly compare vascular patterns among HO with and without an underlying genetic driver. POH and FOP are rare genetic diseases that share a commonality, but have important differences in their site of bone formation, frequency of endochondral bone, studied signaling cascades, and even prognosis. Our qualitative and quantitative data in vascular patterning suggest that despite these differences, both genetic forms of HO demonstrate overall increased vascularity in comparison to NHO. Both genetic and NHO disorders show temporospatial variation in vascularity. To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing the vascular histomorphometric features of genetic and NHO.
The histology of heterotopic bone has been well described elsewhere, progressing from an early inflammatory phases through mature bone, which resembles normal skeletal elements. Overall and in this study, HO from all etiologies showed some a similar phasic disease process. NF-like areas were similar in appearance in both genetic forms (POH and FOP) and NHO. In contrast, the frequency and overall amount of cartilage varied greatly between genetic forms of HO as well as compared with NHO. POH has been characteristically described as having predominantly intramembranous ossification,2,11-14,17,23,26 and in agreement with this, we observed frank cartilage in only 1 of 6 cases of POH. In contrast, FOP is routinely described as predominantly an endochondral process,38 and all 3 cases in our files showed prominent cartilage. Interestingly, in the present study and in agreement with our clinical experience, the frequency and amount of cartilage in cases of FOP greatly exceeded that of NHO.
Despite these differences, conserved features in vascularity were seen across HO types. As we observed in prior studies,1 early NF-like lesions showed the highest number of small caliber blood vessels. As HO bone maturation occurs, vessels are less frequent but dilated in size. While the overall patterning of blood vessels was similar in POH, FOP, and NHO, notable differences in the degree of the vascularity were present. Among NF-like areas, vascular quantification showed a slight increase in vascularity within both forms of genetic HO as compared with NHO. These differences were most obvious in areas of woven bone, where genetic forms of HO both evidenced significantly increased vascularity in comparison to NHO. Most striking for the authors were foci of POH (as in Figure 2A), in which blood vessels within a given area actually eclipsed the bone itself in prominence. In our clinical experience, this prominence of vascularity is not seen in NHO at any stage in its evolution. Finally, these differences in vascularity between genetic and nonhereditary were not as prominent in areas of mature lamellar bone. In our experience, overtime human HO maturation progresses toward an appearance that resembles native skeletal elements. It seems that those distinguishing histologic features of genetic versus NHO (whether osseous, cartilaginous, or vascular) are lost with maturation of the lesion.
Studies have shown that osteogenesis is closely tied to vascularization.3,39-45 Hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (Hif-1α) regulates responses to low oxygen availability and is necessary for normal osteogenesis.44,45 Hif-1α causes an increase in vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) within osteoblasts, stimulating the angiogenesis that drives osteogenesis.45 VEGF expression has been shown in areas of ectopic ossification,39-41 suggesting that angiogenesis is also necessary for HO. Studies show that mice with increased Hif-1α activation in osteoblasts have markedly increased vascularity and increased bone production, and that those lacking Hif-1α have impaired angiogenesis and bone formation. This clinical study in subtypes of human HO provides yet more evidence of the proximal linkage between bone and vasculogenesis. Of note, experimental models of HO suggest that the lymphatic system may also be an important environmental contributor to the formation of HO.46 In this context, surgical lymph node excision decreased HO formation in a trauma-induced mouse model.46 An interesting future study would include the characterization of lymphatic ingrowth and distribution across human HO samples.
Current therapies for HO are largely ineffective, and HO remains a debilitating spectrum of diseases. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been used to prevent NHO; however, these carry a risk of long-bone nonunion and gastrointestinal bleeding.3 Radiation has been used effectively as preventative therapy following hip arthroplasty,3 although this is a less feasible therapy in patients with genetic HO who may have progressive and widespread lesions. Bisphosphonates have been used by some, but their efficacy remains unclear. Lesions often recur following surgical excision, leading to soft tissue loss and increased morbidity.2,3,11,12 In conjunction with previous studies showing the close relationship with angiogenesis, our findings suggest that antiangiogenic therapeutic agents that target vasculogenic growth factors, particularly Hif-1α or VEGF, may be useful in the treatment of HO. Neutralizing antibodies to VEGF (Bevacizumab, Avastin) have been studied in numerous examples of pathologic angiogenesis47 and may be efficacious in HO; however, future experimental studies to assess targeting of VEGF signaling in HO are warranted. Such agents could lead to a critical reduction in vasculogenesis that is necessary for new heterotopic bone formation.
In summary, both genetic and nonhereditary forms of HO show temporospatial variation in vascularity. Both POH and FOP demonstrate a comparatively richer vascular environment than NHO. Further studies are necessary to explore the relationship between angiogenesis and osteogenesis in HO, and to determine whether targeting angiogenesis may be of therapeutic benefit.

Ethical Approval

This study obtained by JHU institutional review board approval.

Informed Consent

Waiver of informed consent was provided by the JHU institutional review board.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: AWJ is on the scientific advisory board for Novadip LLC, for unrelated work.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: AWJ was supported by the NIH/NIAMS (R01 AR070773, K08 AR068316), NIH/NIDCR (R21 DE027922), Department of Defense (W81XWH-18-1-0121, W81XWH-18-1-0336, W81XWH-18-10613), the American Cancer Society (Research Scholar Grant, RSG-18-027-01-CSM), the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation with funding provided by the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, the Maryland Stem Cell Research Foundation, and the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation. EMS was supported by the Progressive Osseous Heteroplasia Association, the International FOP Association, and the Center for Research in FOP and Related Disorders. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or Department of Defense.

ORCID iD

Footnote

Trial Registration Not applicable, because this article does not contain any clinical trials.

References

1. Cocks M, Mohan A, Meyers CA, et al. Vascular patterning in human heterotopic ossification. Hum Pathol. 2017;63:165-170.
2. Amalfitano M, Fyfe B, Thomas SV, et al. A case report of mesenteric heterotopic ossification: histopathologic and genetic findings. Bone. 2018;109:56-60.
3. Ranganathan K, Loder S, Agarwal S, et al. Heterotopic ossification: basic-science principles and clinical correlates. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:1101-1111.
4. Vanden Bossche L, Vanderstraeten G. Heterotopic ossification: a review. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:129-136.
5. Pacifici M. Acquired and congenital forms of heterotopic ossification: new pathogenic insights and therapeutic opportunities. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2018;40:51-58.
6. van Kuijk AA, Geurts AC, van Kuppevelt HJ. Neurogenic heterotopic ossification in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2002;40:313-326.
7. Wiśniewski M, Baumgart M, Grzonkowska M, et al. Quantitative anatomy of the primary ossification center of the radial shaft in human fetuses [published online May 2, 2019]. Surg Radiol Anat.
8. Schindeler A, McDonald MM, Bokko P, Little DG. Bone remodeling during fracture repair: the cellular picture. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2008;19:459-466.
9. Meyers C, Lisiecki J, Miller S, et al. Heterotopic ossification: a comprehensive review. JBMR Plus. 2019;3:e10172.
10. Cholok D, Chung MT, Ranganathan K, et al. Heterotopic ossification and the elucidation of pathologic differentiation. Bone. 2018;109:12-21.
11. Kumagai K, Motomura K, Egashira M, et al. A case of progressive osseous heteroplasia: a first case in Japan. Skeletal Radiol. 2008;37:563-567.
12. Kaplan FS, Craver R, MacEwen GD, et al. Progressive osseous heteroplasia: a distinct developmental disorder of heterotopic ossification. Two new case reports and follow-up of three previously reported cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76:425-436.
13. Kaplan FS, Shore EM. Progressive osseous heteroplasia. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15:2084-2094.
14. Shore EM, Kaplan FS. Inherited human diseases of heterotopic bone formation. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2010;6:518-527.
15. Athanasou NA, Benson MK, Brenton BP, Smith R. Progressive osseous heteroplasia: a case report. Bone. 1994;15:471-475.
16. Seror R, Job-Deslandre C, Kahan A. Progressive osseous heteroplasia: a rare case of late onset. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007;46:716-717.
17. Shore EM, Glaser DL, Gannon FH. Osteogenic induction in hereditary disorders of heterotopic ossification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;(374):303-316.
18. Shore EM, Ahn J, Jan de, Beur S, et al. Paternally inherited inactivating mutations of the GNAS1 gene in progressive osseous heteroplasia. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:99-106.
19. Schmidt AH, Vincent KA, Aiona MD. Hemimelic progressive osseous heteroplasia. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76:907-912.
20. Miller ES, Esterly NB, Fairley JA. Progressive osseous heteroplasia. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132:787-791.
21. Aynaci O, Aynaci FM, Cobanoğlu U, Alpay K. Progressive osseous heteroplasia. A case report and review of the literature. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2002;11:339-342.
22. Hou JW. Progressive osseous heteroplasia controlled by intravenous administration of pamidronate. Am J Med Genet A. 2006;140:910-913.
23. Eddy MC, De Beur SMJ, Yandow SM, et al. Deficiency of the alpha-subunit of the stimulatory G protein and severe extraskeletal ossification. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15:2074-2083.
24. Yeh GL, Mathur S, Wivel A, et al. GNAS1 mutation and Cbfa1 misexpression in a child with severe congenital platelike osteoma cutis. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15:2063-2073.
25. Adegbite NS, Xu M, Kaplan FS, Shore EM, Pignolo RJ. Diagnostic and mutational spectrum of progressive osseous heteroplasia (POH) and other forms of GNAS-based heterotopic ossification. Am J Med Genet A. 2008;146A:1788-1796.
26. Pignolo RJ, Ramaswamy G, Fong JT, Shore EM, Kaplan FS. Progressive osseous heteroplasia: diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Appl Clin Genet. 2015;8:37-48.
27. Chan I, Hamada T, Hardman C, McGrath JA, Child FJ. Progressive osseous heteroplasia resulting from a new mutation in the GNAS1 gene. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2004;29:77-80.
28. Jüppner H. The genetic basis of progressive osseous heteroplasia. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:128-130.
29. Ahmed SF, Barr DG, Bonthron DT. GNAS1 mutations and progressive osseous heteroplasia. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1669-1671.
30. Lebrun M, Richard N, Abeguilé G, et al. Progressive osseous heteroplasia: a model for the imprinting effects of GNAS inactivating mutations in humans. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95:3028-3038.
31. Goto M, Mabe H, Nishimura G, Katsumata N. Progressive osseous heteroplasia caused by a novel nonsense mutation in the GNAS1 gene. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2010;23:303-309.
32. Happle R. Progressive osseous heteroplasia is not a Mendelian trait but a type 2 segmental manifestation of GNAS inactivation disorders: a hypothesis. Eur J Med Genet. 2016;59:290-294.
33. Pignolo RJ, Shore EM, Kaplan FS. Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva: clinical and genetic aspects. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6:80.
34. Gencer-Atalay K, Ozturk EC, Yagci I, et al. Challenges in the treatment of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. Rheumatol Int. 2019;39:569-576.
35. Kaplan FS, Zasloff MA, Kitterman JA, Shore EM, Hong CC, Rocke DM. Early mortality and cardiorespiratory failure in patients with fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:686-691.
36. Pignolo RJ, Kaplan FS. Clinical staging of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP). Bone. 2018;109:111-114.
37. Wentworth KL, Bigay K, Chan TV, et al. Clinical-pathological correlations in three patients with fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. Bone. 2018;109:104-110.
38. Convente MR, Wang H, Pignolo RJ, Kaplan FS, Shore EM. The immunological contribution to heterotopic ossification disorders. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2015;13:116-124.
39. Kakudo N, Kusumoto K, Wang YB, Iguchi Y, Ogawa Y. Immunolocalization of vascular endothelial growth factor on intramuscular ectopic osteoinduction by bone morphogenetic protein-2. Life Sci. 2006;79:1847-1855.
40. Ueno T, Kagawa T, Kanou M, et al. Immunolocalization of vascular endothelial growth factor during heterotopic bone formation induced from grafted periosteum. Ann Plast Surg. 2004;53:150-154.
41. Dilling CF, Wada AM, Lazard ZW, et al. Vessel formation is induced prior to the appearance of cartilage in BMP-2-mediated heterotopic ossification. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25:1147-1156.
42. Riddle RC, Leslie JM, Gross TS, Clemens TL. Hypoxia-inducible factor-1α protein negatively regulates load-induced bone formation. J Biol Chem. 2011;286:44449-44456.
43. Akeno N, Robins J, Zhang M, Czyzyk-Krzeska MF, Clemens TL. Induction of vascular endothelial growth factor by IGF-I in osteoblast-like cells is mediated by the PI3K signaling pathway through the hypoxia-inducible factor-2alpha. Endocrinology. 2002;143:420-425.
44. Wang Y, Wan C, Deng L, et al. The hypoxia-inducible factor alpha pathway couples angiogenesis to osteogenesis during skeletal development. J Clin Invest. 2007;117:1616-1626.
45. Wan C, Gilbert SR, Wang Y, et al. Activation of the hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha pathway accelerates bone regeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:686-691.
46. Loder S, Agarwal S, Sorkin M, et al. Lymphatic contribution to the cellular niche in heterotopic ossification. Ann Surg. 2016;264:1174-1180.
47. Ferrara N, Hillan KJ, Novotny W. Bevacizumab (avastin), a humanized anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody for cancer therapy. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2005;333:328-335.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Create a link to share a read only version of this article with your colleagues and friends. For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Please read and accept the terms and conditions and check the box to generate a sharing link.

terms and conditions

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: June 28, 2019
Issue published: December 2019

Keywords

  1. heterotopic ossification
  2. progressive heterotopic ossification
  3. fibrodysplasia ossificans progressive
  4. heterotopic bone
  5. angiogenesis

Rights and permissions

© The Author(s) 2019.
Request permissions for this article.
PubMed: 31250694

Authors

Affiliations

Alisha D. Ware, MD
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
Niambi Brewer, BS
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Carolyn Meyers, BS
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
Carol Morris, MD
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
Edward McCarthy, MD
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
Eileen M. Shore, PhD
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Aaron W. James, MD, PhD

Notes

Aaron W. James, Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Ross Research Building, Room 524A, 720 Rutland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. Email: [email protected]

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in International Journal of Surgical Pathology.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 913

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 8 view articles Opens in new tab

Crossref: 8

  1. Human iPSCs as Model Systems for BMP-Related Rare Diseases
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Contemporary perspectives on heterotopic ossification
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. BMP signaling and skeletal development in fibrodysplasia...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. Burn-induced heterotopic ossification from incidence to therapy: key s...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. ActivinA Induced SMAD1/5 Signaling in an iPSC Derived EC Model of Fibr...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. Challenges and Opportunities for Drug Repositioning in Fibrodysplasia ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  7. Gnas Inactivation Alters Subcutaneous Tissues in Progression to Hetero...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  8. Development of Macrocycle Kinase Inhibitors for ALK2 Using Fibrodyspla...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.