INTRODUCTION: Quantitative cartilage morphometry is a valuable tool to assess osteoarthritis (OA) progression. Current methodologies generally evaluate cartilage morphometry in a full or partial sub-region of the cartilage plates. This report describes the evaluation of a semi-automated cartilage segmentation software tool capable of quantifying cartilage loss in a local indexed region. METHODS: We examined the baseline and 24-month follow-up MRI image sets of twenty-four subjects from the progression cohort of Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), using the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) score of 3 at baseline as the inclusion criteria. A radiologist independently marked a single region of local thinning for each subject, and three additional readers, blinded to time point, segmented the cartilage using a semi-automated software method. Each baseline-24-month segmentation pair was then registered in 3D and the change in cartilage volume was measured. RESULTS: After 3D registration, the change in cartilage volume was calculated in specified regions centered at the marked point, and for the entire medial compartment of femur. The responsiveness was quantified using the standardized response mean (SRM) values and the percentage of subjects that showed a loss in cartilage volume. The most responsive measure of change was SRM=-1.21, and was found for a region of 10mm from the indexed point. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that measurement of cartilage loss in a local region is superior to larger areas and to the total plate. There also may be an optimal region size (10mm from an indexed point) in which to measure change. In principle, the method is substantially faster than segmenting entire plates or sub-regions.
INTRODUCTION: Quantitative cartilage morphometry is a valuable tool to assess osteoarthritis (OA) progression. Current methodologies generally evaluate cartilage morphometry in a full or partial sub-region of the cartilage plates. This report describes the evaluation of a semi-automated cartilage segmentation software tool capable of quantifying cartilage loss in a local indexed region. METHODS: We examined the baseline and 24-month follow-up MRI image sets of twenty-four subjects from the progression cohort of Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), using the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) score of 3 at baseline as the inclusion criteria. A radiologist independently marked a single region of local thinning for each subject, and three additional readers, blinded to time point, segmented the cartilage using a semi-automated software method. Each baseline-24-month segmentation pair was then registered in 3D and the change in cartilage volume was measured. RESULTS: After 3D registration, the change in cartilage volume was calculated in specified regions centered at the marked point, and for the entire medial compartment of femur. The responsiveness was quantified using the standardized response mean (SRM) values and the percentage of subjects that showed a loss in cartilage volume. The most responsive measure of change was SRM=-1.21, and was found for a region of 10mm from the indexed point. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that measurement of cartilage loss in a local region is superior to larger areas and to the total plate. There also may be an optimal region size (10mm from an indexed point) in which to measure change. In principle, the method is substantially faster than segmenting entire plates or sub-regions.
Authors: Robert J Buck; Bradley T Wyman; Marie-Pierre Hellio Le Graverand; Martin Hudelmaier; Wolfgang Wirth; Felix Eckstein Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2009-07-15
Authors: J Duryea; G Neumann; M H Brem; W Koh; F Noorbakhsh; R D Jackson; J Yu; C B Eaton; P Lang Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2006-12-22 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Peter R Kornaat; Ruth Y T Ceulemans; Herman M Kroon; Naghmeh Riyazi; Margreet Kloppenburg; Wayne O Carter; Thasia G Woodworth; Johan L Bloem Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2004-10-08 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: F Eckstein; R J Buck; D Burstein; H C Charles; J Crim; M Hudelmaier; D J Hunter; G Hutchins; C Jackson; V Byers Kraus; N E Lane; T M Link; L S Majumdar; S Mazzuca; P V Prasad; T J Schnitzer; M S Taljanovic; A Vaz; B Wyman; M-P Hellio Le Graverand Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2008-02-18 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: M-P Hellio Le Graverand; R J Buck; B T Wyman; E Vignon; S A Mazzuca; K D Brandt; M Piperno; H C Charles; M Hudelmaier; D J Hunter; C Jackson; V B Kraus; T M Link; S Majumdar; P V Prasad; T J Schnitzer; A Vaz; W Wirth; F Eckstein Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: F Eckstein; M Schnier; M Haubner; J Priebsch; C Glaser; K H Englmeier; M Reiser Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: L F Schaefer; M Sury; M Yin; S Jamieson; I Donnell; S E Smith; J A Lynch; M C Nevitt; J Duryea Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Sally Arno; Peter S Walker; Christopher P Bell; Svetlana Krasnokutsky; Jonathan Samuels; Steven B Abramson; Ravinder Regatte; Michael Recht Journal: Knee Date: 2012-05-04 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: C Ratzlaff; A Guermazi; J Collins; J N Katz; E Losina; C Vanwyngaarden; R Russell; T Iranpour; J Duryea Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Jeffrey Duryea; Tannaz Iranpour-Boroujeni; Jamie E Collins; Case Vanwynngaarden; Ali Guermazi; Jeffrey N Katz; Elena Losina; Ruby Russell; Charles Ratzlaff Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Alexander Mathiessen; Erin L Ashbeck; Emily Huang; Edward John Bedrick; C Kent Kwoh; Jeffrey Duryea Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 5.178
Authors: Ming Zhang; Jeffrey B Driban; Lori Lyn Price; Daniel Harper; Grace H Lo; Eric Miller; Robert J Ward; Timothy E McAlindon Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 2.362