Development of a rapid knee cartilage damage quantification method using magnetic resonance images

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Timothy E McAlindon⁵  Robert J Ward³  Eric Miller¹  Grace H Lo⁴  Daniel Harper⁵  Lori Lyn Price²  Jeffrey B Driban⁵  Ming Zhang⁵ 

[1] Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Tufts University, 216 Halligan Hall, Medford, MA 02155, USA;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 Radiology, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, Box #299, Boston, MA 02111, USA;Section of Immunology, Allergy, and Rheumatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 1 Baylor Plaza, BCM-285, Houston, TX 77030, USA;Division of Rheumatology, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, Box #406, Boston, MA 02111, USA

关键词: Magnetic resonance imaging;    Informative locations;    Quantitative measurements;    Cartilage;    Osteoarthritis;   

Others  :  1125443
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-264

 received in 2014-05-07, accepted in 2014-07-25,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Cartilage morphometry based on magnetic resonance images (MRIs) is an emerging outcome measure for clinical trials among patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). However, current methods for cartilage morphometry take many hours per knee and require extensive training on the use of the associated software. In this study we tested the feasibility, reliability, and construct validity of a novel osteoarthritis cartilage damage quantification method (Cartilage Damage Index [CDI]) that utilizes informative locations on knee MRIs.

Methods

We selected 102 knee MRIs from the Osteoarthritis Initiative that represented a range of KOA structural severity (Kellgren Lawrence [KL] Grade 0 – 4). We tested the intra- and inter-tester reliability of the CDI and compared the CDI scores against different measures of severity (radiographic joint space narrowing [JSN] grade, KL score, joint space width [JSW]) and static knee alignment, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally.

Results

Determination of the CDI took on average14.4 minutes (s.d. 2.1) per knee pair (baseline and follow-up of one knee). Repeatability was good (intra- and inter-tester reliability: intraclass correlation coefficient >0.86). The mean CDI scores related to all four measures of osteoarthritis severity (JSN grade, KL score, JSW, and knee alignment; all p values < 0.05). Baseline JSN grade and knee alignment also predicted subsequent 24-month longitudinal change in the CDI (p trends <0.05). During 24 months, knees with worsening in JSN or KL grade (i.e. progressors) had greater change in CDI score.

Conclusions

The CDI is a novel knee cartilage quantification method that is rapid, reliable, and has construct validity for assessment of medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis structural severity and its progression. It has the potential to addresses the barriers inherent to studies requiring assessment of cartilage damage on large numbers of knees, and as a biomarker for knee osteoarthritis progression.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Zhang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Roemer FW, Crema MD, Trattnig S, Guermazi A: Advances in imaging of osteoarthritis and cartilage. Radiology 2011, 260:332-354.
• [2]Eckstein F, Wirth W: Quantitative cartilage imaging in knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis 2011, 2011:1-19.
• [3]Frobell RB, Le Graverand MP, Buck R, Roos EM, Roos HP, Tamez-Pena J, Totterman S, Lohmander LS: The acutely ACL injured knee assessed by MRI: changes in joint fluid, bone marrow lesions, and cartilage during the first year. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009, 17:161-167.
• [4]Eckstein F, Hudelmaier M, Wirth W, Kiefer B, Jackson R, Yu J, Eaton CB, Schneider E: Double echo steady state magnetic resonance imaging of knee articular cartilage at 3 Tesla: a pilot study for the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2006, 65:433-441.
• [5]Hernandez-Molina G, Guermazi A, Niu J, Gale D, Goggins J, Amin S, Felson DT: Central bone marrow lesions in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis and their relationship to anterior cruciate ligament tears and cartilage loss. Arthritis Rheum 2008, 58:130-136.
• [6]Felson DT, Nevitt MC, Yang M, Clancy M, Niu J, Torner JC, Lewis CE, Aliabadi P, Sack B, Mcculloch C, Zhang Y: A new approach yields high rates of radiographic progression in knee osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2008, 34:2047-2054.
• [7]Jaremko JL, Cheng RW, Lambert RG, Habib AF, Ronsky JL: Reliability of an efficient MRI-based method for estimation of knee cartilage volume using surface registration. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006, 14:914-922.
• [8]Steines D, Lang P: U.S. Patent 6,799,066. In Book U.S. Patent 6,799,066. USA: United States Patent; 2004.
• [9]Wirth W, Nevitt M, Hellio Le Graverand MP, Benichou O, Dreher D, Davies R, Lee J, Picha K, Gimona A, Maschek S, Hudelmaier M, Eckstein F, OAI investigators: Sensitivity to change of cartilage morphometry using coronal FLASH, sagittal DESS, and coronal MPR DESS protocols--comparative data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009, 18:547-554.
• [10]Duryea J, Ratzlaff C, Iranpour-Boroujeni T, Collins J, Losina E, Vanwynngaarden C, Gu A: Responsiveness of a semi-automated novel method of measuring cartilage loss in knee osteoarthritis over two years using 3.0 T Dess 3D MRI. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012, 20:S54-S296.
• [11]Cashman PMM, Kitney RI, Gariba MA, Carter ME: Automated techniques for visualization and mapping of articular cartilage in MR images of the osteoarthritic knee: a base technique for the assessment of microdamage and submicro damage. Trans NanoBioscience 2002, 1:42-51.
• [12]Hussain ZT, Usha SS: Automated image processing and analysis of cartilage MRI: enabling technology for data mining applied to osteoarthritis. AIP Conference Proceedings 2007, 262-276.
• [13]Vincent G, Wolstenholme C, Scott I, Bowes M: Fully Automatic Segmentation of the Knee Joint using Active Appearance Models. Medical Image Analysis for the Clinic: A Grand Challenge 2010.
• [14]Yin Y, Zhang X, Williams R, Wu X, Anderson D, Sonka M: LOGISMOS - Layered Optimal Graph Image Segmentation of Multiple Objects and Surfaces: cartilage segmentation in the knee joint. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010, 29:2023-2037.
• [15]Fripp J, Crozier S, Warfield S, Ourselin S: Automatic segmentation and quantitative analysis of the articular cartilages from magnetic resonance images of the knee. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010, 29:55-64.
• [16]Arno S, Walker PS, Bell CP, Krasnokutsky S, Samuels J, Abramson SB, Regatte R, Recht M: Relation between cartilage volume and meniscal contact in medial osteoarthritis of the knee. Knee 2012, 19:896-901.
• [17]Bae WC, Payanal MM, Chen AC, Hsieh-Bonassera ND, Ballard BL, Lotz MK, Coutts RD, Bugbee WD, Sah RL: Topographic patterns of cartilage lesions in knee osteoarthritis. Cartilage 2010, 1:10-19.
• [18]Bennett LD, Buckland-Wright JC: Meniscal and articular cartilage changes in knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional double-contrast macroradiographic study. Rheumatology 2002, 41:917-923.
• [19]Sharma L, Song J, Dunlop D, Felson D, Lewis CE, Segal N, Torner J, Cooke TD, Hietpas J, Lynch J, Nevitt M: Varus and valgus alignment and incident and progressive knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010, 69:1940-1945.
• [20]McAlindon T, LaValley M, Schneider E, Nuite M, Le J, Price L, Lo G, Dawson-Hughes B: Effect of vitamin D supplementation on progression of knee pain and cartilage volume loss in patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2012, 309:155-162.
• [21]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.
• [22]Patrick ES, Joseph LF: Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979, 86:420-428.
• [23]Eckstein F, Wirth W, Hudelmaier M, Stein V, Lengfelder V, Cahue S, Marshall M, Prasad P, Sharma L: Patterns of femorotibial cartilage loss in knees with neutral, varus, and valgus alignment. Arthritis Rheum 2008, 59:1563-1570.
• [24]Pelletier J-P, Raynauld J-P, Berthiaume M-J, Abram F, Choquette D, Haraoui B, Beary JF, Cline GA, Meyer JM, Martel-Pelletier J: Risk factors associated with the loss of cartilage volume on weight-bearing areas in knee osteoarthritis patients assessed by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging: a longitudinal study. Arthritis Res Ther 2007, 9:R74.
• [25]Ding C, Garnero P, Cicuttini F, Scott F, Cooley H, Jones G: Knee cartilage defects: association with early radiographic osteoarthritis, decreased cartilage volume, increased joint surface area and type II collagen breakdown. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005, 13:198-205.
• [26]Eckstein F, Wirth W, Hunter DJ, Guermazi A, Kwoh CK, Nelson DR, Benichou O: Magnitude and regional distribution of cartilage loss associated with grades of joint space narrowing in radiographic osteoarthritis–data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010, 18:760-768.
• [27]Hunter DJ, Zhang W, Conaghan PG, Hirko K, Menashe L, Li L, Reichmann WM, Losina E: Systematic review of the concurrent and predictive validity of MRI biomarkers in OA. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011, 19:557-588.
• [28]Duryea J, Zaim S, Genant HK: New radiographic-based surrogate outcome measures for osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2003, 11:102-110.
• [29]Neumann G, Hunter D, Nevitt M, Chibnik LB, Kwoh K, Chen H, Harris T, Satterfield S, Duryea J, Study HA: Location specific radiographic joint space width for osteoarthritis progression. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009, 17:761-765.
• [30]Duryea J, Neumann G, Niu J, Totterman S, Tamez J, Dabrowski C, Graverand MPL, Luchi M, Beals CR, Hunter DJ: Comparison of radiographic joint space width with magnetic resonance imaging cartilage morphometry: analysis of longitudinal data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Arthritis Care Res 2010, 62:932-937.
• [31]Altman RD, Gold GE: tlas of individual radiographic features in osteoarthritis, revised. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007, 15 Suppl A:A1-56.
• [32]Sharma L, Song J, Felson TD, Cahue S, Shamiyeh E, Dunlop DD: The role of knee alignment in disease progression and functional decline in knee osteoarthritis. JAMA 2001, 286:188-195.
• [33]Cicuttini F, Wluka A, Hankin J, Wang Y: Longitudinal study of the relationship between knee angle and tibiofemoral cartilage volume in subjects withknee osteoarthritis. Rheumatol 2004, 43:321-324.
• [34]Iranpour-Boroujeni T, Watanabe A, Bashtar R, Yoshioka H, Duryea J: Quantification of cartilage loss in local regions of knee joints using semi-automated segmentation software: analysis of longitudinal data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011, 19:309-314.
• [35]Chan WP, Huang G-S, Hsu S-M, Chang Y-C, Ho W-P: Radiographic joint space narrowing in osteoarthritis of the knee: relationship to meniscal tears and duration of pain. Skeletal Radiol 2008, 37:917-922.
• [36]Beattie KA, Duryea J, Pui M, O’Neill J, Boulos P, Webber CE, Eckstein F, Adachi JD: Minimum joint space width and tibial cartilage morphology in the knees of healthy individuals: A cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008, 9:119.
• [37]Hunter D, Buck R, Vignon E, Eckstein F, Brandt K, Mazzuca SA, Wyman BT, Otterness I, Hellio Le Graverand MP: Relation of regional articular cartilage morphometry and meniscal position by MRI to joint space width in kneeradiographs. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009, 17:1170-1176.
• [38]Hunter DJ, Zhang W, Conaghan PG, Hirko K, Menashe L, Reichmann WM, Losina E: Responsiveness and reliability of MRI in knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of published evidence. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011, 19:589-605.
• [39]Moriya S, Miki Y, Matsuno Y, Okada M: Three-dimensional double-echo steady-state (3D-DESS) magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: establishment of flip angles for evaluation of cartilage at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Acta Radiol 2012, 53:790-794.
• [40]Roemer FW, Kwoh CK, Hannon MJ, Crema MD, Moore CE, Jakicic JM, Green SM, Guermazia A: Semiquantitative assessment of focal cartilage damage at 3 T MRI: A comparative study of dual echo at steady state (DESS) and intermediate-weighted (IW) fat suppressed fast spin echo sequences. Eur J Radiol 2011, 80:e126-e131.
• [41]Bloecker K, Wirth W, Hunter DJ, Duryea J, Guermazi A, Kwoh CK, Resch H, Eckstein F: Contribution of regional 3D meniscus and cartilage morphometry by MRI to joint space width in fixed flexion knee radiography–a between-knee comparison in subjects with unilateral joint space narrowing. Eur J Radiol 2013, 82:e832-839.
• [42]Wirth W, Nevitt M, Hellio Le Graverand MP, Lynch J, Maschek S, Hudelmaier M, Eckstein F, Group ftOII: Lateral and medial joint space narrowing predict subsequent cartilage loss in the narrowed, but not in the non-narrowed femorotibial compartment - data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013, S1063–4584:00984-00989.
• [43]Eckstein F, Maschek S, Maschek S: One year change of knee cartilage morphology in the first release of participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative progression subcohort: association with sex, body mass index, symptoms and radiographic osteoarthritis status. Ann Rheum Dis 2009, 68:674-679.
• [44]Bloecker K, Guermazi A, Wirth W, Benichou O, Kwoh CK, Hunter DJ, Englund M, Resch H, Eckstein F, OAI investigators: Tibial coverage, meniscus position, size and damage in knees discordant for joint space narrowing - data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013, 21:419-427.