Validation of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging-based apparent bone volume fraction in peri-articular tibial bone of cadaveric knees

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Timothy E McAlindon⁷  Erika Schneider⁴  Charles B Eaton³  Lori Lyn Price¹  Daniel Harper⁷  Anna M Tassinari⁶  Grace H Lo⁵  Ming Zhang⁷  Neil S Kalariya²  Mamta Amin²  Mary F Barbe²  Jeffrey B Driban⁷ 

[1] The Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, and Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Tufts University, 800 Washington Street, Box #63, Boston, MA 02111, USA;Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Temple University School of Medicine, 3500 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19140, USA;Center for Primary Care and Prevention, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 111 Brewster Street, Pawtucket, RI 02860, USA;Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue L10, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA;Section of Immunology, Allergy, and Rheumatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 1 Baylor Plaza, BCM-285, Houston, TX 77030, USA;Graduate Program in Bioinformatics, Boston University, 44 Cummington Mall, Boston, MA 02215, USA;Division of Rheumatology, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, Box #406, Boston, MA 02111, USA

关键词: Trabecula;    Osteoarthritis;    Magnetic resonance;    Validation;    Micro-computed tomography;   

Others  :  1127680
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-143

 received in 2013-09-19, accepted in 2014-04-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

In the knee, high-resolution magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has demonstrated that increased apparent bone volume fraction (trabecular bone volume per total volume; BV/TV) in the peri-articular proximal medial tibia is associated with joint space narrowing and the presence of bone marrow lesions. However, despite evidence of construct validity, MR-based apparent BV/TV has not yet been cross-validated in the proximal medial tibia by comparison with a gold standard (e.g., micro-computed tomography [microCT]). In this cadaveric validation study we explored the association between MR-based apparent BV/TV and microCT-based BV/TV in the proximal peri-articular medial tibia.

Methods

Fresh cadaveric whole knee specimens were obtained from individuals 51 to 80 years of age with no knee pathology other than osteoarthritis. Ten knees were collected from five cadavers within 10 hours of death and underwent a 3-Tesla MR exam including a coronal-oblique 3-dimensional fast imaging with steady state precession (3D FISP) sequence within 36 hours of death. The specimens were placed in a 4% paraformaldehyde in phosphate buffer within 58 hours of death. After preservation, a subchondral region from the tibial plateau was collected and underwent microCT imaging with a voxel size of 9 μm x 9 μm x 9 μm. A single reader analyzed the microCT images in a similar volume of interest as selected in the MR measures. A different reader analyzed the MR-based trabecular morphometry using a custom analysis tool. To analyze the MR-based trabecular morphometry, a rectangular region of interest (ROI) was positioned on the 20 central images in the proximal medial tibial subchondral bone. The primary outcome measures were MR-based and microCT-based trabecular BV/TV in the proximal medial tibia.

Results

The MR-based apparent BV/TV was strongly correlated with microCT-based BV/TV (r = 0.83, confidence interval = 0.42 to 0.96), despite the MR-based apparent BV/TV being systematically lower than measured using microCT.

Conclusions

MR-based apparent BV/TV in the proximal peri-articular medial tibia has good construct validity and may represent an alternative for CT-based BV/TV.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Driban et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lo GH, Tassinari AM, Driban JB, Price LL, Schneider E, Majumdar S, McAlindon TE: Cross-sectional DXA and MR measures of tibial periarticular bone associate with radiographic knee osteoarthritis severity. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012, 20:686-693.
• [2]Driban JB, Tassinari A, Lo GH, Price LL, Schneider E, Lynch JA, Eaton CB, McAlindon TE: Bone marrow lesions are associated with altered trabecular morphometry. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012, 20:1519-1526.
• [3]Issever AS, Link TM, Newitt D, Munoz T, Majumdar S: Interrelationships between 3-T-MRI-derived cortical and trabecular bone structure parameters and quantitative-computed-tomography-derivedbone mineral density. Magn Reson Imaging 2010, 28:1299-1305.
• [4]Krug R, Carballido-Gamio J, Burghardt AJ, Kazakia G, Hyun BH, Jobke B, Banerjee S, Huber M, Link TM, Majumdar S: Assessment of trabecular bone structure comparing magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla with high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography ex vivo and in vivo. Osteoporos Int 2008, 19:653-661.
• [5]Sell CA, Masi JN, Burghardt A, Newitt D, Link TM, Majumdar S: Quantification of trabecular bone structure using magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla–calibration studies using microcomputed tomography as a standard of reference. Calcif Tissue Int 2005, 76:355-364.
• [6]Boutry N, Cortet B, Chappard D, Dubois P, Demondion X, Marchandise X, Cotten A: Bone structure of the calcaneus: analysis with magnetic resonance imaging and correlation with histomorphometric study. Osteoporos Int 2004, 15:827-833.
• [7]Link TM, Vieth V, Stehling C, Lotter A, Beer A, Newitt D, Majumdar S: High-resolution MRI vs multislice spiral CT: which technique depicts the trabecular bone structure best? Eur Radiol 2003, 13:663-671.
• [8]Issever AS, Vieth V, Lotter A, Meier N, Laib A, Newitt D, Majumdar S, Link TM: Local differences in the trabecular bone structure of the proximal femur depicted with high-spatial-resolution MR imaging and multisection CT. Acad Radiol 2002, 9:1395-1406.
• [9]Majumdar S, Newitt D, Mathur A, Osman D, Gies A, Chiu E, Lotz J, Kinney J, Genant H: Magnetic resonance imaging of trabecular bone structure in the distal radius: relationship with X-ray tomographic microscopy and biomechanics. Osteoporos Int 1996, 6:376-385.
• [10]Vieth V, Link TM, Lotter A, Persigehl T, Newitt D, Heindel W, Majumdar S: Does the trabecular bone structure depicted by high-resolution MRI of the calcaneus reflect the true bone structure? Invest Radiol 2001, 36:210-217.
• [11]Phan CM, Matsuura M, Bauer JS, Dunn TC, Newitt D, Lochmueller EM, Eckstein F, Majumdar S, Link TM: Trabecular bone structure of the calcaneus: comparison of MR imaging at 3.0 and 1.5 T with micro-CT as the standard of reference. Radiology 2006, 239:488-496.
• [12]Lam SC, Wald MJ, Rajapakse CS, Liu Y, Saha PK, Wehrli FW: Performance of the MRI-based virtual bone biopsy in the distal radius: serial reproducibility and reliability of structural and mechanical parameters in women representative of osteoporosis study populations. Bone 2011, 49:895-903.
• [13]Mueller D, Link TM, Monetti R, Bauer J, Boehm H, Seifert-Klauss V, Rummeny EJ, Morfill GE, Raeth C: The 3D-based scaling index algorithm: a new structure measure to analyze trabecular bone architecture in high-resolution MR images in vivo. Osteoporos Int 2006, 17:1483-1493.
• [14]Majumdar S, Link TM, Augat P, Lin JC, Newitt D, Lane NE, Genant HK: Trabecular bone architecture in the distal radius using magnetic resonance imaging in subjects with fractures of the proximal femur. Magnetic Resonance Science Center and Osteoporosis and Arthritis Research Group. Osteoporos Int 1999, 10:231-239.
• [15]Majumdar S, Genant HK, Grampp S, Newitt DC, Truong VH, Lin JC, Mathur A: Correlation of trabecular bone structure with age, bone mineral density, and osteoporotic status: in vivo studies in the distal radius using high resolution magnetic resonance imaging. J Bone Miner Res 1997, 12:111-118.
• [16]Baum T, Dutsch Y, Muller D, Monetti R, Sidorenko I, Rath C, Rummeny EJ, Link TM, Bauer JS: Reproducibility of trabecular bone structure measurements of the distal radius at 1.5 and 3.0 T magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2012, 36:623-626.
• [17]Schneider E, Lo GH, Sloane G, Fanella L, Hunter DJ, Eaton CB, McAlindon TE: Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of weight-bearing subchondral trabecular bone in the knee. Skeletal Radiol 2011, 40:95-103.
• [18]Grampp S, Majumdar S, Jergas M, Newitt D, Lang P, Genant HK: Distal radius: in vivo assessment with quantitative MR imaging, peripheral quantitative CT, and dual X-ray absorptiometry. Radiology 1996, 198:213-218.
• [19]Krug R, Carballido-Gamio J, Burghardt AJ, Haase S, Sedat JW, Moss WC, Majumdar S: Wavelet-based characterization of vertebral trabecular bone structure from magnetic resonance images at 3 T compared with micro-computed tomographic measurements. Magn Reson Imaging 2007, 25:392-398.
• [20]Peterfy CG, Schneider E, Nevitt M: The osteoarthritis initiative: report on the design rationale for the magnetic resonance imaging protocol for the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008, 16:1433-1441.
• [21]Glaser C, Burgkart R, Kutschera A, Englmeier KH, Reiser M, Eckstein F: Femoro-tibial cartilage metrics from coronal MR image data: Technique, test-retest reproducibility, and findings in osteoarthritis. Magn Reson Med 2003, 50:1229-1236.
• [22]Majumdar S, Newitt D, Jergas M, Gies A, Chiu E, Osman D, Keltner J, Keyak J, Genant H: Evaluation of technical factors affecting the quantification of trabecular bone structure using magnetic resonance imaging. Bone 1995, 17:417-430.
• [23]Shrout PE, Fleiss JL: Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 1979, 86:420-428.
• [24]Brennan T, Adapala NS, Barbe MF, Yingling V, Sanjay A: Abrogation of Cbl-PI3K interaction increases bone formation and osteoblast proliferation. Calcif Tissue Int 2011, 89:396-410.
• [25]Wise BL, Niu J, Yang M, Lane NE, Harvey W, Felson DT, Hietpas J, Nevitt M, Sharma L, Torner J, Lewis CE, Zhang Y, Multicenter Osteoarthritis (MOST) Group: Patterns of compartment involvement in tibiofemoral osteoarthritis in men and women and in whites and African Americans. Arthritis Care Res 2012, 64:847-852.
• [26]Bolen G, Haye D, Dondelinger R, Busoni V: Magnetic resonance signal changes during time in equine limbs refrigerated at 4 degrees C. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2010, 51:19-24.