Literature DB >> 22521758

Equivalence and precision of knee cartilage morphometry between different segmentation teams, cartilage regions, and MR acquisitions.

E Schneider1, M Nevitt, C McCulloch, F M Cicuttini, J Duryea, F Eckstein, J Tamez-Pena.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare precision and evaluate equivalence of femorotibial cartilage volume (VC) and mean cartilage thickness over total area of bone (ThCtAB.Me) from independent segmentation teams using identical Magnetic Resonance (MR) images from three series: sagittal 3D Dual Echo in the Steady State (DESS), coronal multi-planar reformat (DESS-MPR) of DESS and coronal 3D Fast Low Angle SHot (FLASH).
DESIGN: Nineteen subjects underwent test-retest MR imaging at 3 T. Four teams segmented the cartilage using prospectively defined plate regions and rules. Mixed models analysis of the pooled data were used to evaluate the effect of acquisition, team and plate on precision and Pearson correlations and mixed models were used to evaluate equivalence.
RESULTS: Segmentation team differences dominated measurement variability in most cartilage regions for all image series. Precision of VC and ThCtAB.Me differed significantly by team and cartilage plate, but not between FLASH and DESS. Mean values of VC and ThCtAB.Me differed by team (P < 0.05) for DESS, FLASH and DESS-MPR. FLASH VC was 4-6% larger than DESS in the medial tibia and lateral central femur, and FLASH ThCtAB.Me was 5-6% larger in the medial tibia, but 4-8% smaller in the medial central femur. Correlations between DESS and FLASH for VC and ThCtAB.Me were high (r = 0.90-0.97), except for DESS vs FLASH medial central femur ThCtAB.Me (r = 0.81-0.83).
CONCLUSIONS: Cartilage morphology metrics from different image contrasts had similar precision, were generally equivalent, and may be combined for cross-sectional analyses if potential systematic offsets are accounted for. Data from different teams should not be pooled unless equivalence is demonstrated for cartilage metrics of interest.
Copyright © 2012 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22521758      PMCID: PMC3391588          DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2012.04.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage        ISSN: 1063-4584            Impact factor:   6.576


  49 in total

1.  Long-term and resegmentation precision of quantitative cartilage MR imaging (qMRI).

Authors:  F Eckstein; L Heudorfer; S C Faber; R Burgkart; K-H Englmeier; M Reiser
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 6.576

2.  Comparison of 1-year vs 2-year change in regional cartilage thickness in osteoarthritis results from 346 participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative.

Authors:  W Wirth; S Larroque; R Y Davies; M Nevitt; A Gimona; F Baribaud; J H Lee; O Benichou; B T Wyman; M Hudelmaier; S Maschek; F Eckstein
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2010-10-31       Impact factor: 6.576

3.  Compartment differences in knee cartilage volume in healthy adults.

Authors:  Flavia M Cicuttini; Anita E Wluka; Yuanyuan Wang; Susan R Davis; Judith Hankin; Peter Ebeling
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 4.666

4.  Tibial and femoral cartilage changes in knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  F M Cicuttini; A E Wluka; S L Stuckey
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 19.103

5.  Design and conduct of clinical trials in patients with osteoarthritis: recommendations from a task force of the Osteoarthritis Research Society. Results from a workshop.

Authors:  R Altman; K Brandt; M Hochberg; R Moskowitz; N Bellamy; D A Bloch; J Buckwalter; M Dougados; G Ehrlich; M Lequesne; S Lohmander; W A Murphy; T Rosario-Jansen; B Schwartz; S Trippel
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 6.576

Review 6.  Osteoarthritis: new insights. Part 2: treatment approaches.

Authors:  D T Felson; R C Lawrence; M C Hochberg; T McAlindon; P A Dieppe; M A Minor; S N Blair; B M Berman; J F Fries; M Weinberger; K R Lorig; J J Jacobs; V Goldberg
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-11-07       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Femorotibial cartilage morphology: reproducibility of different metrics and femoral regions, and sensitivity to change in disease.

Authors:  M Hudelmaier; W Wirth; B Wehr; V Kraus; B T Wyman; M-P Hellio Le Graverand; F Eckstein
Journal:  Cells Tissues Organs       Date:  2010-07-02       Impact factor: 2.481

Review 8.  Quantitative MR imaging of cartilage and trabecular bone in osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Felix Eckstein; Ali Guermazi; Frank W Roemer
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.303

9.  Sensitivity to change of cartilage morphometry using coronal FLASH, sagittal DESS, and coronal MPR DESS protocols--comparative data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI).

Authors:  W Wirth; M Nevitt; M-P Hellio Le Graverand; O Benichou; D Dreher; R Y Davies; J Lee; K Picha; A Gimona; S Maschek; M Hudelmaier; F Eckstein
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2009-12-21       Impact factor: 6.576

10.  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.

Authors:  F Eckstein; S Maschek; W Wirth; M Hudelmaier; W Hitzl; B Wyman; M Nevitt; M-P Hellio Le Graverand
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2008-06-02       Impact factor: 19.103

View more
  12 in total

1.  Predicting early symptomatic osteoarthritis in the human knee using machine learning classification of magnetic resonance images from the osteoarthritis initiative.

Authors:  Beth G Ashinsky; Mustapha Bouhrara; Christopher E Coletta; Benoit Lehallier; Kenneth L Urish; Ping-Chang Lin; Ilya G Goldberg; Richard G Spencer
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 3.494

2.  Brief Report: Cartilage Thickness Change as an Imaging Biomarker of Knee Osteoarthritis Progression: Data From the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Osteoarthritis Biomarkers Consortium.

Authors:  F Eckstein; J E Collins; M C Nevitt; J A Lynch; V B Kraus; J N Katz; E Losina; W Wirth; A Guermazi; F W Roemer; D J Hunter
Journal:  Arthritis Rheumatol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 10.995

Review 3.  Segmentation of joint and musculoskeletal tissue in the study of arthritis.

Authors:  Valentina Pedoia; Sharmila Majumdar; Thomas M Link
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 2.310

4.  Automatic segmentation of high- and low-field knee MRIs using knee image quantification with data from the osteoarthritis initiative.

Authors:  Erik B Dam; Martin Lillholm; Joselene Marques; Mads Nielsen
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-04-20

Review 5.  Subject-specific analysis of joint contact mechanics: application to the study of osteoarthritis and surgical planning.

Authors:  Corinne R Henak; Andrew E Anderson; Jeffrey A Weiss
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.097

Review 6.  Imaging of cartilage and bone: promises and pitfalls in clinical trials of osteoarthritis.

Authors:  F Eckstein; A Guermazi; G Gold; J Duryea; M-P Hellio Le Graverand; W Wirth; C G Miller
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 6.576

Review 7.  Clinical and translational potential of MRI evaluation in knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Daichi Hayashi; Ali Guermazi; C Kent Kwoh
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.592

Review 8.  Toward patient-specific articular contact mechanics.

Authors:  Gerard A Ateshian; Corinne R Henak; Jeffrey A Weiss
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2014-12-18       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 9.  Recent advances in osteoarthritis imaging--the osteoarthritis initiative.

Authors:  Felix Eckstein; Wolfgang Wirth; Michael C Nevitt
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 20.543

10.  A statistically-augmented computational platform for evaluating meniscal function.

Authors:  Hongqiang Guo; Thomas J Santner; Tony Chen; Hongsheng Wang; Caroline Brial; Susannah L Gilbert; Matthew F Koff; Amy L Lerner; Suzanne A Maher
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 2.712

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.