| Literature DB >> 32291499 |
Timothy J P Bray1, Naomi Sakai1, Alexandra Dudek1, Corinne Fisher2, Kannan Rajesparan1, Andre Lopes3, Coziana Ciurtin2, Debajit Sen2, Alan Bainbridge1,4, Margaret A Hall-Craggs5,6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate proof-of-concept for a quantitative MRI method using histographic analysis to assess bone marrow oedema and fat metaplasia in the sacroiliac joints.Entities:
Keywords: Arthritis; Inflammation; Magnetic resonance imaging; Spine
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32291499 PMCID: PMC7431434 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06785-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 5.315
Fig. 1Definition of polygonal ROIs on subchondral bone. The observer is asked to define the line of the sacroiliac joint and ‘anchor lines’ are added to define the angles made by the joint with the anterior and posterior cortex of the bone, thus enabling the automatically propagated ROIs to better fit the subchondral bone
Fig. 2Examples of histograms generated using the BEACH tool. Conventional MR images (a–c), PDFF maps (d–f) and PDFF histograms (g–i) are shown. In the normal patient’s histogram (g), PDFF values are clustered around 50%, corresponding to normal marrow. In the patient with inflammation, a number of low-PDFF pixels have emerged in the histogram (h). In the patient with fat metaplasia, there is an upward shift in PDFF values, with a large number of high-PDFF pixels (i)
Fig. 3Examples of ADC histograms in patients with sacroiliitis (a) and control patients (b). The red lines indicate the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles of the ADC distribution
Fig. 4ADC as an inflammatory marker. Representative BEACH parameters (ADCmedian and ADC90) are compared between inflamed and uninflamed groups. The displayed p values were obtained by logistic regression. ROC curves for all relevant parameters are shown in the bottom right
Fig. 5PDFF as an inflammatory marker. Representative BEACH parameters (PDFFmedian and PDFF10) are compared between inflamed and uninflamed groups. The displayed p values were obtained by logistic regression. ROC curves for all relevant parameters are shown in the bottom right
Comparison of inflammatory parameters between inflamed and non-inflamed patients. ADC75, ADC90, etc. refer to the 75th and 90th percentiles of ADC measurements in the defined ROI. Estimates from each group are displayed as mean (95% CI). Odds ratio (OR) and p values (*) were derived from logistic regression. The highest ROC AUC value for the evaluation of inflammation is shown in italics. Sensitivity and specificity values for the optimal cutoff values (far right) are provided in the main “Results” section. The right-hand p values (**) relate to the comparison of ROC AUC with the median value
| Inflammation | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Present ( | Absent ( | OR (95% CI) | ROC AUC (95% CI) | Optimal cutoff | |||
| ADCmean | 758 (629–887) | 578 (535–621) | 1.006 (1.001–1.011) | 0.011 | 0.709 (0.530–0.888) | – | 0.249 |
| ADCmedian | 747 (621–872) | 577 (534–620) | 1.006 (1.001–1.011) | 0.016 | 0.695 (0.512–0.877) | – | – |
| ADC75 | 964 (813–1115) | 733 (695–770) | 1.008 (1.002–1.014) | 0.011 | 0.763 (0.602–0.924) | – | 0.073 |
| ADC90 | 1172 (1007–1337) | 882 (842–921) | 1.010 (1.002–1.017) | 0.007 | 986 | 0.072 | |
| PDFFmean | 42.3 (37.2–47.4) % | 43.9 (40.0–47.8) % | 0.988 (0.934–1.041) | 0.650 | 0.505 (0.329–0.682) | – | 0.640 |
| PDFFmedian | 42.6 (37.8–47.6) % | 44.3 (40.2–48.4) % | 0.988 (0.937–1.040) | 0.639 | 0.514 (0.337–0.691) | – | – |
| PDFF25 | 32.8 (27.5–38.1) % | 37.1 (33.4–40.8) % | 0.964 (0.910–1.021) | 0.215 | 0.589 (0.414–0.763) | – | 0.010 |
| PDFF10 | 23.5 (17.8–29.2) % | 30.3 (26.6–34.0) % | 0.948 (0.895–1.004) | 0.067 | 0.657 (0.485–0.829) | – | 0.001 |
Fig. 6PDFF as a structural marker. Representative BEACH parameters (PDFFmedian and PDFF90) are compared between patients with and without fat metaplasia. The displayed p values were obtained by logistic regression. ROC curves for all relevant parameters are shown in the bottom right
Comparison of structural parameters between patients with and without fat metaplasia. PDFF75, PDFF90, etc. refer to the 75th and 90th percentiles of ADC measurements in the defined ROI. Estimates are displayed as mean (95% CI). Odds ratio (OR) and p values (*) were derived from logistic regression. The highest ROC AUC value for the evaluation of fat metaplasia is shown in italics. Sensitivity and specificity values for the optimal cutoff values (far right) are provided in the main “Results” section. The right-hand p values (**) relate to the comparison of ROC AUC with the median value
| Fat metaplasia | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Present ( | Absent ( | OR (95% CI) | ROC AUC (95% CI) | Optimal cutoff | ||||
| PDFFmean | 48.2 (43.9–52.5) % | 37.4 (33.7–41.1) % | 1.110 (1.035–1.119) | 0.003 | 0.759 (0.629–0.889) | – | 0.061 | |
| PDFFmedian | 48.2 (44.1–52.3) % | 38.0 (34.0–41.9) % | 1.100 (1.030–1.174) | 0.004 | 0.735 (0.597–0.872) | – | – | |
| PDFF75 | 57.1 (52.0–62.2) % | 44.5 (48.2–40.8) % | 1.105 (1.034–1.182) | 0.003 | 0.759 (0.630–0.888) | – | 0.254 | |
| PDFF90 | 64.3 (59.2–69.4) % | 50.4 (46.5–54.3) % | 1.111 (1.037–1.189) | 0.002 | 55.7% | 0.263 | ||
| ADCmean | 606 (541–671) | 652 (571–732) | 0.999 (0.996–1.002) | 0.380 | 0.567 (0.407–0.726) | – | 0.669 | |
| ADCmedian | 602 (535–669) | 648 (572–724) | 0.999 (0.996–1.002) | 0.380 | 0.572 (0.413–0.731) | – | – | |
Inter-observer and intra-observer variability statistics for selected (most relevant) parameters. The intra-class correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman limits of agreement are shown
| Inter-observer variability | Intra-observer variability (observer 1) | Intra-observer variability (observer 2) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICC | 95% LoA | ICC | 95% LoA | ICC | 95% LoA | |
| ADCmean | 0.962 | 8.4 ± 103 mm2/s | 0.949 | − 27.6 ± 128 mm2/s | 0.949 | − 0.19 ± 112 mm2/s |
| ADCmedian | 0.943 | 8.4 ± 111 mm2/s | 0.954 | − 20.6 ± 124 mm2/s | 0.898 | 11 ± 156 mm2/s |
| ADC90 | 0.918 | − 10.1 ± 188 mm2/s | 0.918 | − 38.1 ± 210 mm2/s | 0.961 | 3.9 ± 123 mm2/s |
| PDFFmean | 0.982 | − 1.03 ± 4.42% | 0.994 | 0.15 ± 2.40% | 0.986 | − 1.08 ± 3.69% |
| PDFFmedian | 0.974 | − 0.97 ± 5.08% | 0.989 | 0.34 ± 3.20% | 0.968 | − 0.87 ± 5.45% |
| PDFF90 | 0.986 | − 0.31 ± 4.70% | 0.990 | − 0.41 ± 3.60% | 0.968 | 0.05 ± 6.52% |
| Visual inflammation score | 0.944 | 0.6 ± 6.4 | – | – | – | – |
| Visual fat metaplasia score | 0.534 | − 6.8 ± 18.3 | – | – | – | – |