| Literature DB >> 29721684 |
James W MacKay1, Geeta Kapoor2, Jeffrey B Driban3, Grace H Lo4, Timothy E McAlindon3, Andoni P Toms2,5, Andrew W McCaskie6, Fiona J Gilbert7.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether initial or 12-18-month change in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) subchondral bone texture is predictive of radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA) progression over 36 months.Entities:
Keywords: Case-control studies; Logistic models; Magnetic resonance imaging; Osteoarthritis, knee
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29721684 PMCID: PMC6182744 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5444-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 5.315
Fig. 1Study timeline for image assessments as part of the Osteoarthritis Initiative
Fig. 2Example coronal-oblique 3D FISP MR image demonstrating ROI placement in the medial tibial (red) and medial femoral (green) subchondral bone
Participant characteristics at initial timepoint and 12–18-month follow-up
| Variable | Initial | 12–18-Month follow-up | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases | Controls | Cases | Controls | |
| n = 61 | n = 61 | n = 53 | n = 52 | |
| Age, yearsa | 64 (49–81) | 65 (48–82) | 65 (50–82) | 66 (49–83) |
| Sex, no. females | 25 | 26 | 21 | 22 |
| BMI, kg/m2 b | 31.4 (4.7) | 31.1 (4.7) | 31.1 (4.5) | 30.8 (4.6) |
| Time between baseline and follow-up MRI (12/18 months) | – | – | 35/18 | 26/26 |
| Initial minJSW, mmb | 3.81 (1.20) | 3.78 (1.19) | 3.86 (1.19) | 3.75 (1.20) |
| Kellgren Lawrence grade (0/1/2/3) | 7/11/21/22 | 8/9/24/20 | 7/11/17/18 | 8/9/20/15 |
| OARSI medial JSN grade (0/1/2) | 17/22/22 | 23/18/20 | 15/20/18 | 21/16/15 |
| OARSI lateral JSN grade (0/1/2) | 60/1/0 | 58/3/0 | 52/1/0 | 50/2/0 |
| Femorotibial alignment, degreesc | –6.0 (1.9) | –5.7 (2.1) | –6.0 (1.8) | –5.7(2.1) |
| minJSW change, mmb | – | – | –1.29 (0.63) | 0 (0.44) |
aMean (range)
bMean (standard deviation)
cMean (standard deviation), negative values indicate varus alignment
Fig. 3Flow diagram for selection of study participants
Association between texture features and case vs. control status and classification performance
| Region | Initial | 12–18-Month change | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio (95% CI)a | Most important featuresb | Odds ratio (95% CI)a | Most important featuresb | |||
| Tibia | 1.43 (0.99, 2.09) | Gr. variance, variance | 0.58 (0.58, 0.58) | 2.31 (1.42, 4.12)*** | Gr. mean, Gr. variance, contrast | 0.65 (0.63, 0.69)** |
| Femur | 1.62 (1.12, 2.44)** | Mean, variance, ASM | 0.60 (0.59, 0.60)* | 1.80 (1.17, 2.92)** | ASM, contrast, variance | 0.63 (0.61, 0.65)** |
| Combined | 1.84 (1.25, 2.80)** | F variance, F mean, T variance | 0.64 (0.64, 0.65)** | 3.76 (2.04, 7.82)*** | T Gr. variance, F ASM, T entropy | 0.68 (0.68, 0.68)*** |
T – tibial feature, F – femoral feature, Gr – gradient, ASM – angular second moment
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
aOdds ratio of being a progressor for each o standard deviation increase in texture score
bThree texture features with largest standardised coefficients (β) in the logistic regression model (note initial tibial model only included two texture features)
Fig. 4Example coronal 3D FISP MR images through the medial tibiofemoral compartment of radiographic progressors and non-progressors at the initial timepoint. A, non-progressor, texture score (TS) –1.22, B, non-progressor, TS –1.44, C, progressor, TS +1.01, and D, progressor, TS +0.93. Higher texture scores correspond to less spatially organised subchondral bone