Deep Learning Predicts Total Knee Replacement from Magnetic Resonance Images

Aniket A Tolpadi, Jinhee J Lee, Valentina Pedoia, Sharmila Majumdar, Aniket A Tolpadi, Jinhee J Lee, Valentina Pedoia, Sharmila Majumdar

Abstract

Knee Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common musculoskeletal disorder in the United States. When diagnosed at early stages, lifestyle interventions such as exercise and weight loss can slow OA progression, but at later stages, only an invasive option is available: total knee replacement (TKR). Though a generally successful procedure, only 2/3 of patients who undergo the procedure report their knees feeling "normal" post-operation, and complications can arise that require revision. This necessitates a model to identify a population at higher risk of TKR, particularly at less advanced stages of OA, such that appropriate treatments can be implemented that slow OA progression and delay TKR. Here, we present a deep learning pipeline that leverages MRI images and clinical and demographic information to predict TKR with AUC 0.834 ± 0.036 (p < 0.05). Most notably, the pipeline predicts TKR with AUC 0.943 ± 0.057 (p < 0.05) for patients without OA. Furthermore, we develop occlusion maps for case-control pairs in test data and compare regions used by the model in both, thereby identifying TKR imaging biomarkers. As such, this work takes strides towards a pipeline with clinical utility, and the biomarkers identified further our understanding of OA progression and eventual TKR onset.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Pipeline predicting if patient will undergo TKR within 5 years from MRI/X-ray images and non-imaging variables. MRI and X-ray images are center-cropped and cropped to a region centered around the joint, respectively, and normalized. DenseNet-121 is pretrained to predict OA and fine-tuned to predict TKR. Image-based predictions and clinical information are fed to a logistic regression (LR) ensemble based on OA severity. Each ensemble, whose hyperparameters were optimized for Youden’s index in a hyperparameter search, averages predictions of LR models in its OA severity for final TKR prediction. Pipeline is subsequently analyzed through occlusion map analysis to identify imaging biomarkers of TKR.
Figure 2
Figure 2
ROC curves for X-ray and MRI architectures on test data. X-ray pipeline ROC curves are shown in (a), with AUCs as follows, p < 0.05: 0.848 ± 0.039 (image only), 0.868 ± 0.028 (non-imaging info. only), 0.890 ± 0.021 (integrated model). MRI pipeline ROC curves are shown in (b), with AUCs as follows, p < 0.05: 0.886 ± 0.020 (image only), 0.868 ± 0.028 (non-imaging info. only), 0.834 ± 0.036 (integrated model). Standard deviations used to calculate confidence intervals. ROC curves with AUCs within 1 standard deviation of the mean for each model type during bootstrapping are also shown on plots.
Figure 3
Figure 3
ROC curves for MRI and X-ray pipelines at selected OA classifications and pipeline versions in which MRI performance was significantly better than that of X-ray. MRI pipeline outperforms X-ray pipeline at no OA for both image-only and integrated models, as seen in (a,c). As shown in (b), integrated MRI pipeline also outperformed integrated X-ray pipeline for patients with severe OA, while (d) shows image-only MRI pipeline outperformed image-only X-ray pipeline across all OA stages. AUCs are displayed in the figure with p < 0.05. Standard deviations used to calculate confidence intervals. ROC curves with AUCs within 1 standard deviation of the mean for each pipeline version during bootstrapping are also shown on plots.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Slices of occlusion map of true positive detected by MRI pipeline, overlaid on corresponding slices of DESS MRI. Such maps were generated and analyzed for all 124 true positives and corresponding true negative controls of the integrated MRI pipeline.

References

    1. Kremers HM, et al. Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2015;97:1386–1397. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.01141.
    1. Deshpande BR, et al. The number of persons with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in the United States: impact of race/ethnicity, age, sex, and obesity. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken) 2016;68:1743–1750. doi: 10.1002/acr.22897.
    1. Cross M, et al. The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2014;73:1323–1330. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204763.
    1. Murphy LB, Cisternas MG, Pasta DJ, Helmick CG, Yelin EH. Medical expenditures and earnings losses among US adults with arthritis in 2013. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken) 2018;70:869–876. doi: 10.1002/acr.23425.
    1. Lawrence RC, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58:26–35. doi: 10.1002/art.23176.
    1. Ostrander RV, Leddon CE, Hackel JG, O’Grady CP, Roth CA. Efficacy of unloader bracing in reducing symptoms of knee osteoarthritis. Am. J. Orthop. (Belle Mead N. J.) 2016;45:306–311.
    1. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 1957;16:494–502. doi: 10.1136/ard.16.4.494.
    1. Ringdahl E, Pandit S. Treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Am. Fam. Physician. 2011;83:1287–1292.
    1. Tiulpin A, Thevenot J, Rahtu E, Lehenkari P, Saarakkala S. Automatic knee osteoarthritis diagnosis from plain radiographs: a deep learning-based approach. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:1727. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-20132-7.
    1. Nguyen LC, Lehil MS, Bozic KJ. Trends in total knee arthroplasty implant utilization. J. Arthroplasty. 2015;30:739–742. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.12.009.
    1. Inacio MCS, Paxton EW, Graves SE, Namba RS, Nemes S. Projected increase in total knee arthroplasty in the United States – an alternate projection model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017;25:1797–1803. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2017.07.022.
    1. Tanzer M, Makdhom AM. Preoperative planning in primary total knee arthroplasty. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2016;24:220–230. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00332.
    1. Sassoon A, Nam D, Nunley R, Barrack R. Systematic review of patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: new but not improved. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2015;473:151–158. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3804-6.
    1. Parvizi J, et al. High level of residual symptoms in young patients after total knee arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2014;472:133–137. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3229-7.
    1. Chang MJ, Lim H, Lee NR, Moon Y. Diagnosis, causes and treatments of instability following total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg. Relat. Res. 2014;26:61–67. doi: 10.5792/ksrr.2014.26.2.61.
    1. Kim KT, et al. Causes of failure after total knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis patients 55 years of age or younger. Knee Surg. Relat. Res. 2014;26:13–19. doi: 10.5792/ksrr.2014.26.1.13.
    1. Raynauld JP, et al. Correlation between bone lesion changes and cartilage volume loss in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee as assessed by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging over a 24-month period. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2008;67:683–688. doi: 10.1136/ard.2007.073023.
    1. Raynauld JP, et al. Total knee replacement as a knee osteoarthritis outcome: predictors derived from a 4-year long-term observation following a randomized clinical trial using chondroitin sulfate. Cartilage. 2013;4:219–226. doi: 10.1177/1947603513483547.
    1. Everhart JS, Abouljoud MM, Kirven JC, Flanigan DC. Full-thickness cartilage defects are important independent predictive factors for progression to total knee arthroplasty in older adults with minimal to moderate osteoarthritis: data from the osteoarthritis initiative. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2019;101:56–63. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.17.01657.
    1. Riddle DL, Kong X, Jiranek WA. Two-year incidence and predictors of future knee arthroplasty in persons with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: preliminary analysis of longitudinal data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Knee. 2009;16:494–500. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.04.002.
    1. Hawker GA, et al. A prospective population-based study of the predictors of undergoing total joint arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:3212–3220. doi: 10.1002/art.22146.
    1. Lewis JR, Dhaliwal SS, Zhu K, Prince RL. A predictive model for knee joint replacement in older women. PLoS One. 2013;8:e83665. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083665.
    1. Yu D, et al. Development and validation of prediction models to estimate risk of primary total hip and knee replacements using data from the UK: two prospective open cohorts using the UK clinical practice research datalink. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2019;78:91–99. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213894.
    1. Wang, T., Leung, K., Cho, K., Chang, G. & Deniz, C.M. Total knee replacement prediction using structural MRIs and 3D convolutional neural networks. In International Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning – Extended Abstract Track, 79 (2019).
    1. Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta. Paediatr. 2007;96:644–647. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00178.x.
    1. He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 770-778 (2016).
    1. Huang, G., Lui, Z., van der Maaten, L. & Weinberger, K. Q. Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2261-2269 (2017).
    1. Russakovsky O, et al. ImageNet large scale visual recognition challenge. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2015;115:211–252. doi: 10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y.
    1. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nat. Rev. 2015;521:436–444.
    1. Peterfy CG, Schneider E, Nevitt M. The osteoarthritis initiative: report on the design rationale for the magnetic resonance imaging protocol for the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16:1433–1441. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2008.06.016.
    1. Antony, J., McGuinness, K., O’Connor, N. E. & Moran, K. Quantifying radiographic knee osteoarthritis severity using deep convolutional neural networks. In 23rd International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), 1195-1200 (2016).
    1. Norman B, Pedoia V, Noworolski A, Link TM, Majumdar S. Applying densely connected convolutional neural networks for staging osteoarthritis severity from plain radiographs. J. Digit. Imaging. 2019;32:471–477. doi: 10.1007/s10278-018-0098-3.
    1. Tiulpin A, et al. Multimodal machine learning-based knee osteoarthritis progression prediction from plain radiographs and clinical data. Sci Rep. 2019;9:20038. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56527-3.
    1. Heidari B. Knee osteoarthritis prevalence, risk factors, pathogenesis, and features. Caspian J. Intern. Med. 2011;2:205–12.
    1. Cooper C, et al. Risk factors for the incidence and progression of radiographic knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43:995–1000. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(200005)43:5<995::AID-ANR6>;2-1.
    1. Pisters MF, et al. The course of limitations in activities over 5 years in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis with moderate functional limitations: risk factors for future functional decline. Osteoarthr. Cartilage. 2012;20:503–10. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2012.02.002.
    1. Sharma L, et al. Physical functioning over three years in knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48:3359–70. doi: 10.1002/art.11420.
    1. Dietrich S, et al. Random survival forest in practice: a method for modelling complex metabolomics data in time to event analysis. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2016;45:1406–20. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw145.
    1. Chen, C. & Breiman, L. Using random forest to learn imbalanced data. University of California, Berkeley (2004).
    1. Hara, K., Kataoka, H. & Satoh, Y. Can spatiotemporal 3D CNNs retrace the history of 2D CNNs and ImageNet? In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 6546-6555 (2018).
    1. Youden WJ. Index rating for diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950;3:32–35. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>;2-3.
    1. Salzberg SL. On comparing classifiers: pitfalls to avoid and a recommended approach. Data Min. Knowl. Disc. 1997;1:317–328. doi: 10.1023/A:1009752403260.
    1. Dietterich TG. Approximate statistical tests for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms. Neural Comput. 1998;10:1895–1923. doi: 10.1162/089976698300017197.
    1. Lawson R. Small sample confidence intervals for the odds ratio. Commun. Stat-Simul. C. 2004;33:1095–113. doi: 10.1081/SAC-200040691.
    1. Upton GJG. Fisher’s exact test. J. R. Statist. Soc. A. 1992;155:395–402. doi: 10.2307/2982890.
    1. Roos EM, Arden NK. Strategies for the prevention of knee osteoarthritis. Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 2016;12:92–101. doi: 10.1038/nrrheum.2015.135.
    1. Menashe L, et al. The diagnostic performance of MRI in osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012;20:13–21. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2011.10.003.
    1. Collins JE, et al. Semi-quantitative imaging biomarkers of knee osteoarthritis progression: data from the FNIH OA biomarkers consortium. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68:2422–2431. doi: 10.1002/art.39731.
    1. Khan T, et al. ACL and meniscal injuries increase the risk of primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis: a matched case-control study using the clinical practice research datalink (CPRD) Br. J. Sports Med. 2019;53:965–968. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-097762.
    1. Simon D, et al. The relationship between anterior cruciate ligament injury and osteoarthritis of the knee. Adv. Orthop. 2015;2015:928301. doi: 10.1155/2015/928301.
    1. Diederichs G, Issever AS, Scheffler S. MR imaging of patellar instability: injury patterns and assessment of risk factors. RadioGraphics. 2010;30:961–81. doi: 10.1148/rg.304095755.
    1. Moatshe G, et al. High prevalence of knee osteoarthritis at a minimum 10-year follow-up after knee dislocation surgery. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2017;25:3914–22. doi: 10.1007/s00167-017-4443-8.
    1. Figueroa D, Garin A, Figuera F. Total knee replacement in patients with osteoarthritis and concomitant inveterate patellar dislocation. Arthroplast. Today. 2019;5:68–72. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2018.04.003.
    1. Souza, R. B. & Doan, R. Anatomy and physiology of the knee in Advances in MRI of the Knee for Osteoarthritis (ed. Majumdar, S.) 1-26 (World Scientific, 2010).
    1. Spina AA. The plantaris muscle: anatomy, injury, imaging, and treatment. J. Can. Chiropr. Assoc. 2007;51:158–65.
    1. Zetaruk, M. & Hyman, J. Leg injuries in Clinical Sports Medicine (ed. Frontera, W. R., Herring, S. A., Micheli, L. J., Silver, J. K. & Young, T. P.) 441-57 (Saunders, 2007).

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever