Detection of Differences in Longitudinal Cartilage Thickness Loss Using a Deep-Learning Automated Segmentation Algorithm: Data From the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Study of the Osteoarthritis Initiative

Felix Eckstein, Akshay S Chaudhari, David Fuerst, Martin Gaisberger, Jana Kemnitz, Christian F Baumgartner, Ender Konukoglu, David J Hunter, Wolfgang Wirth, Felix Eckstein, Akshay S Chaudhari, David Fuerst, Martin Gaisberger, Jana Kemnitz, Christian F Baumgartner, Ender Konukoglu, David J Hunter, Wolfgang Wirth

Abstract

Objective: To study the longitudinal performance of fully automated cartilage segmentation in knees with radiographic osteoarthritis (OA), we evaluated the sensitivity to change in progressor knees from the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health OA Biomarkers Consortium between the automated and previously reported manual expert segmentation, and we determined whether differences in progression rates between predefined cohorts can be detected by the fully automated approach.

Methods: The OA Initiative Biomarker Consortium was a nested case-control study. Progressor knees had both medial tibiofemoral radiographic joint space width loss (≥0.7 mm) and a persistent increase in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain scores (≥9 on a 0-100 scale) after 2 years from baseline (n = 194), whereas non-progressor knees did not have either of both (n = 200). Deep-learning automated algorithms trained on radiographic OA knees or knees of a healthy reference cohort (HRC) were used to automatically segment medial femorotibial compartment (MFTC) and lateral femorotibial cartilage on baseline and 2-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. Findings were compared with previously published manual expert segmentation.

Results: The mean ± SD MFTC cartilage loss in the progressor cohort was -181 ± 245 μm by manual segmentation (standardized response mean [SRM] -0.74), -144 ± 200 μm by the radiographic OA-based model (SRM -0.72), and -69 ± 231 μm by HRC-based model segmentation (SRM -0.30). Cohen's d for rates of progression between progressor versus the non-progressor cohort was -0.84 (P < 0.001) for manual, -0.68 (P < 0.001) for the automated radiographic OA model, and -0.14 (P = 0.18) for automated HRC model segmentation.

Conclusion: A fully automated deep-learning segmentation approach not only displays similar sensitivity to change of longitudinal cartilage thickness loss in knee OA as did manual expert segmentation but also effectively differentiates longitudinal rates of loss of cartilage thickness between cohorts with different progression profiles.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00080171.

© 2020 The Authors. Arthritis Care & Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.

References

    1. Wright EA, Katz JN, Cisternas MG, Kessler CL, Wagenseller A, Losina E. Impact of knee osteoarthritis on health care resource utilization in a US population‐based national sample. Med Care 2010;48:785–91.
    1. Hochberg MC, Guermazi A, Guehring H, Aydemir A, Wax S, Fleuranceau‐Morel P, et al. Effect of intra‐articular sprifermin vs placebo on femorotibial joint cartilage thickness in patients with osteoarthritis. JAMA 2019;322:1360.
    1. Conaghan PG, Bowes MA, Kingsbury SR, Brett A, Guillard G, Rizoska B, et al. Disease‐modifying effects of a novel cathepsin k inhibitor in osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2020;172:86–95.
    1. Cai G, Aitken D, Laslett LL, Pelletier JP, Martel‐Pelletier J, Hill C, et al. Effect of intravenous zoledronic acid on tibiofemoral cartilage volume among patients with knee osteoarthritis with bone marrow lesions: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2020;323:1456–66.
    1. Hunter DJ, Nevitt M, Losina E, Kraus V. Biomarkers for osteoarthritis: current position and steps towards further validation. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2014;28:61–71.
    1. Eckstein F, Collins JE, Nevitt MC, Lynch JA, Kraus VB, Katz JN, et al. Cartilage thickness change as an imaging biomarker of knee osteoarthritis progression: data from the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Osteoarthritis Biomarkers Consortium. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015;67:3184–9.
    1. Liu F, Zhou Z, Jang H, Samsonov A, Zhao G, Kijowski R. Deep convolutional neural network and 3D deformable approach for tissue segmentation in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2018;79:2379–91.
    1. Ronneberger O, Fischer P, Brox T. U‐Net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. Int Conf Med image Comput Comput Interv 2015:234–41.
    1. Wirth W, Eckstein F, Kemnitz J, Baumgartner CF, Konukoglu E, Fuerst D, et al. Accuracy and longitudinal reproducibility of quantitative femorotibial cartilage measures derived from automated U‐Net–based segmentation of two different MRI contrasts: data from the osteoarthritis initiative healthy reference cohort. MAGMA 2021;34:337–54.
    1. Eckstein F, Kwoh CK, Link TM. Imaging research results from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI): a review and lessons learned 10 years after start of enrolment. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:1289–300.
    1. Hunter D, Nevitt M, Lynch J, Kraus VB, Katz JN, Collins JE, et al. Longitudinal validation of periarticular bone area and 3D shape as biomarkers for knee OA progression? Data from the FNIH OA Biomarkers Consortium. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75:1607–14.
    1. Baumgartner CF, Koch LM, Pollefeys M, Konukoglu E. An exploration of 2D and 3D deep learning techniques for cardiac MR image segmentation. In: Pop M, Sermesant M, Jodoin PM, Lalande A, Zhuang X, Yang G, et al, editors. Statistical atlases and computational models of the heart: ACDC and MMWHS challenges. Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 111–9.
    1. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta‐analysis. Elsevier; 1985.
    1. Wirth W, Larroque S, Davies RY, Nevitt M, Gimona A, Baribaud F, et al. Comparison of 1‐year vs 2‐year change in regional cartilage thickness in osteoarthritis results from 346 participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011;19:74–83.
    1. Bowes MA, Guillard GA, Vincent GR, Brett AD, Wolstenholme CB, Conaghan PG. Precision, reliability, and responsiveness of a novel automated quantification tool for cartilage thickness: data from the osteoarthritis initiative. J Rheumatol 2020;47:282–9.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren