L F Schaefer1, V Nikac2, J A Lynch3, J Duryea2. 1. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: lenafranziskaschaefer@yahoo.com. 2. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 3D Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans are generally used for quantitative cartilage measurements in knee osteoarthritis. However, a great deal of MRI data is from 2D scans, often thought to be unsuitable for quantitative cartilage assessment. The goal of our study was to demonstrate that mLACS, a modified version of the Local Area Cartilage Segmentation (LACS) method, could be used to measure cartilage volume on 2D MRI images. METHODS: We studied 301 randomly selected subjects from the OA Biomarkers Consortium FNIH Study, a nested case-control study within the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). The study comprised four subgroups based on radiographic and pain progression. We compared mLACS applied to 2D TSE scans to LACS on 3D DESS data. The Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to establish agreement between LACS and mLACS, standardized response means (SRMs) for responsiveness, and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) to measure reader precision. Logistic regression in a case/control analysis was used to compare the clinical validity between the two methods. RESULTS: We found R2 = 0.76 for the correlation between LACS and mLACs. For LACS, the responsiveness was SRM = 0.49 compared to 0.39 for mLACS. The odds ratios (OR) for the primary case/control analyses were 1.62 for LACS and 1.78 for mLACS. The intra and inter reader reproducibility values for mLACS were ICC = 0.90 and 0.86, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that a reproducible, responsive, and clinically valid quantitative measurement of cartilage volume can be made using 2D TSE scans with a modest loss of responsiveness compared to 3D scans.
PURPOSE: 3D Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans are generally used for quantitative cartilage measurements in knee osteoarthritis. However, a great deal of MRI data is from 2D scans, often thought to be unsuitable for quantitative cartilage assessment. The goal of our study was to demonstrate that mLACS, a modified version of the Local Area Cartilage Segmentation (LACS) method, could be used to measure cartilage volume on 2D MRI images. METHODS: We studied 301 randomly selected subjects from the OA Biomarkers Consortium FNIH Study, a nested case-control study within the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). The study comprised four subgroups based on radiographic and pain progression. We compared mLACS applied to 2D TSE scans to LACS on 3D DESS data. The Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to establish agreement between LACS and mLACS, standardized response means (SRMs) for responsiveness, and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) to measure reader precision. Logistic regression in a case/control analysis was used to compare the clinical validity between the two methods. RESULTS: We found R2 = 0.76 for the correlation between LACS and mLACs. For LACS, the responsiveness was SRM = 0.49 compared to 0.39 for mLACS. The odds ratios (OR) for the primary case/control analyses were 1.62 for LACS and 1.78 for mLACS. The intra and inter reader reproducibility values for mLACS were ICC = 0.90 and 0.86, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that a reproducible, responsive, and clinically valid quantitative measurement of cartilage volume can be made using 2D TSE scans with a modest loss of responsiveness compared to 3D scans.
Authors: D J Hunter; R D Altman; F Cicuttini; M D Crema; J Duryea; F Eckstein; A Guermazi; R Kijowski; T M Link; J Martel-Pelletier; C G Miller; T J Mosher; R E Ochoa-Albíztegui; J-P Pelletier; C Peterfy; J-P Raynauld; F W Roemer; S M Totterman; G E Gold Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 6.576
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
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: D J Hunter; A Guermazi; G H Lo; A J Grainger; P G Conaghan; R M Boudreau; F W Roemer Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: C G Peterfy; A Guermazi; S Zaim; P F J Tirman; Y Miaux; D White; M Kothari; Y Lu; K Fye; S Zhao; H K Genant Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Ali Guermazi; Daichi Hayashi; Felix Eckstein; David J Hunter; Jeff Duryea; Frank W Roemer Journal: Rheum Dis Clin North Am Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.670
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: Jean-Pierre Pelletier; Jean-Pierre Raynauld; Marie-Josée Berthiaume; François Abram; Denis Choquette; Boulos Haraoui; John F Beary; Gary A Cline; Joan M Meyer; Johanne Martel-Pelletier Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2007 Impact factor: 5.156
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