| Literature DB >> 34919677 |
Benjamin G Faber1,2, Raja Ebsim3, Fiona R Saunders4, Monika Frysz1,2, Claudia Lindner3, Jennifer S Gregory4, Richard M Aspden4, Nicholas C Harvey5, George Davey Smith2, Timothy Cootes3, Jonathan H Tobias1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Conventional scoring methods for radiographic hip OA (rHOA) are subjective and show inconsistent relationships with clinical outcomes. To provide a more objective rHOA scoring method, we aimed to develop a semi-automated classifier based on DXA images and confirm its relationships with clinical outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: OA; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; hip pain; total joint replacement
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 34919677 PMCID: PMC9434243 DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab927
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) ISSN: 1462-0324 Impact factor: 7.046
A DXA scan from UK Biobank with features of rHOA
Left image is the raw image. Right image is marked with outline points and osteophytes (green: acetabular osteophyte; red: superior femoral head osteophyte; blue: inferior femoral head osteophyte).
Descriptive results
| Males | Females | All | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | Mean [Range] | Mean [Range] | Mean [Range] |
| Age (years) | 64.4 [44–81] | 63.0 [45–82] | 63.7 [44–82] |
| Weight (kg) | 83.2 [47–171] | 68.2 [34–169] | 75.4 [34–171] |
| Height (cm) | 177.2 [150–204] | 163.6 [135–198] | 170.1 [135–204] |
|
| Prevalence [%] | Prevalence [%] | Prevalence [%] |
| Hip pain >3 months | 1193 [6.2] | 2058 [9.8] | 3251 [8.1] |
| HES OA | 220 [1.1] | 307 [1.5] | 527 [1.3] |
| THR | 106 [0.6] | 153 [0.7] | 259 [0.6] |
| Duration from DXA to THR/end of study (mean days [range]) | 1183 [3–2437] | 1174 [3–2436] | 1179 [3–2437] |
|
| Prevalence [%] | Prevalence [%] | Prevalence [%] |
| White | 18 650 [96.7] | 20 396 [96.9] | 39 046 [96.8] |
| Asian | 266 [1.4] | 171 [0.8] | 437 [1.1] |
| Black | 119 [0.6] | 134 [0.6] | 253 [0.6] |
| Mixed heritage | 61 [0.3] | 119 [0.6] | 180 [0.5] |
| Chinese | 51 [0.3] | 65 [0.3] | 116 [0.3] |
| Unknown | 147 [0.8] | 161 [0.8] | 308 [0.8] |
|
| Prevalence [%] | Prevalence [%] | Prevalence [%] |
| Any osteophyte (OP) | 2570 [13.3] | 1443 [6.9] | 4013 [10.0] |
| Acetabular OP | 1544 [8.0] | 1036 [4.9] | 2580 [6.4] |
| Superior femoral OP | 991 [5.1] | 502 [2.4] | 1493 [3.7] |
| Inferior femoral OP | 810 [4.2] | 256 [1.2] | 1066 [2.6] |
| OP at all locations | 134 [0.7] | 62 [0.3] | 196 [0.5] |
| JSN | 2983 [15.5] | 1573 [7.5] | 4556 [11.3] |
|
| Mean [range] | Mean [range] | Mean [range] |
| Total osteophyte area | 24.8 [0.7–438.1] | 20.2 [1.4–296.2] | 23.2 [0.7–438.1] |
| Acetabular osteophyte area | 16.6 [0.7–200.7] | 11.6 [1.4–175.6] | 14.6 [0.7–200.7] |
| Sup femoral osteophyte area | 22.2 [2.0–219.9] | 23.8 [1.5–140.2] | 22.8 [1.5–219.9] |
| Inf femoral osteophyte area | 19.9 [1.7–270.4] | 20.2 [1.7–176.1] | 20.0 [1.7–270.4] |
| Minimum JSW | 2.97 [0.1–5.9] | 2.81 [0.0–5.1] | 2.89 [0.0–5.9] |
|
| 19 294 | 21 046 | 40 340 |
Adjusted logistic regression results showing the associations between grade ≥1 osteophytes and JSN with hip pain and HES OA
| Hip pain >3months | HES OA | THR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR [95% CI] |
| OR [95% CI] |
| HR [95% CI] |
| |
| Any osteophyte (OP) | 2.05 [1.85, 2.27] | 2.00 × 10−43 | 4.98 [4.13, 6.01] | 1.70 × 10−63 | 6.17 [4.80, 7.94] | 1.10 × 10−45 |
| Acetabular OP | 1.83 [1.62, 2.07] | 6.02 × 10−22 | 3.76 [3.02, 4.68] | 2.31 × 10−32 | 4.30 [3.23, 5.71] | 1.04 × 10−23 |
| Superior femoral OP | 3.04 [2.64, 3.49] | 4.00 × 10−55 | 8.65 [6.97, 10.73] | 8.80 × 10−86 | 10.31 [7.83, 13.57] | 3.00 × 10−62 |
| Inferior femoral OP | 3.45 [2.94, 4.05] | 2.20 × 10−52 | 8.29 [6.47, 10.6] | 2.60 × 10−63 | 11.76 [8.68, 15.93] | 5.10 × 10−57 |
| OP at all locations | 6.95 [5.14, 9.39] | 2.51 × 10−36 | 20.53 [14.22, 29.64] | 1.60 × 10−58 | 21.79 [14.35, 33.08] | 2.10 × 10−47 |
| JSN | 1.37 [1.23, 1.53] | 1.60 × 10−08 | 3.48 [2.85, 4.23] | 4.18 × 10−35 | 3.91 [3.00, 5.09] | 6.50 × 10−24 |
Adjusted Cox proportional hazard modelling showing the associations between grade ≥1 osteophytes and JSN with THR. Adjusted for age, sex, height and weight.
denotes a sex interaction term with P-value <0.1.
HES OA: hospital diagnosed hip OA; HR: hazard ratio; JSN: joint space narrowing; OR: odds ratio, THR: total hip replacement.
Logistic regression results for the associations between different grades of osteophyte and JSN with hip pain and HES OA
Cox proportional hazard modelling results for the associations between grades of osteophyte and JSN with THR. Odds ratios and hazard ratios are plotted with 95% CIs either side comparing each grade of deformity to a reference group of those without that deformity. Results for different clinical outcomes are presented in three different windows. In each graph, triangles represent grade 1 features, circles represent grade 2 features and squares represent grade 3 features. Unadjusted results are shown by hollow shapes and results adjusted for age, height, weight and sex are shown by filled shapes. Y-axis is natural log based.
Example UK Biobank DXA scans representing each grade of radiographic hip OA based on the proposed scoring system
Logistic regression results for the associations between different grades of rHOA and hip pain and HES OA
Cox proportional hazard modelling results for the associations between different grades of rHOA and THR. Odds ratios and hazard ratios are plotted with 95% CIs either side comparing each grade to baseline (rHOA grade=0). Results for four different grades of rHOA are presented: triangles represent grade 1, circles represent grade 2, squares represent grade 3 and diamonds represent grade 4. Unadjusted results are shown by hollow shapes and results adjusted for age, height, weight and sex are shown by filled shapes. Y-axis is natural log based.