Top

Published in:

01-05-2009 | Scientific Article

Magnetic resonance image segmentation using semi-automated software for quantification of knee articular cartilage—initial evaluation of a technique for paired scans

Authors: M. H. Brem, P. K. Lang, G. Neumann, P. M. Schlechtweg, E. Schneider, R. Jackson, J. Yu, C. B. Eaton, F. F. Hennig, H. Yoshioka, G. Pappas, J. Duryea

Published in: Skeletal Radiology | Issue 5/2009

Abstract

Purpose

Software-based image analysis is important for studies of cartilage changes in knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study describes an evaluation of a semi-automated cartilage segmentation software tool capable of quantifying paired images for potential use in longitudinal studies of knee OA. We describe the methodology behind the analysis and demonstrate its use by determination of test–retest analysis precision of duplicate knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data sets.

Methods

Test–retest knee MR images of 12 subjects with a range of knee health were evaluated from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) pilot MR study. Each subject was removed from the magnet between the two scans. The 3D DESS (sagittal, 0.456 mm × 0.365 mm, 0.7 mm slice thickness, TR 16.5 ms, TE 4.7 ms) images were obtained on a 3-T Siemens Trio MR system with a USA Instruments quadrature transmit–receive extremity coil. Segmentation of one 3D-image series was first performed and then the corresponding retest series was segmented by viewing both image series concurrently in two adjacent windows. After manual registration of the series, the first segmentation cartilage outline served as an initial estimate for the second segmentation. We evaluated morphometric measures of the bone and cartilage surface area (tAB and AC), cartilage volume (VC), and mean thickness (ThC.me) for medial/lateral tibia (MT/LT), total femur (F) and patella (P). Test–retest reproducibility was assessed using the root-mean square coefficient of variation (RMS CV%).

Results

For the paired analyses, RMS CV % ranged from 0.9% to 1.2% for VC, from 0.3% to 0.7% for AC, from 0.6% to 2.7% for tAB and 0.8% to 1.5% for ThC.me.

Conclusion

Paired image analysis improved the measurement precision of cartilage segmentation. Our results are in agreement with other publications supporting the use of paired analysis for longitudinal studies of knee OA.

Cisternas M, Yelin E, Trupin L, Murphy L, Helmick CG. Direct and indirect costs of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions - United States, 1997. Report. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2003 November 21, 2003 Contract No.: Document Number.

Pientka L. Arthrose als Volkskrankheit. Klin Forsch 2000; 6(Suppl 2): 2–3.

Link TM, Steinbach LS, Ghosh S, Ries M, Lu Y, Lane N, et al. Osteoarthritis: MR imaging findings in different stages of disease and correlation with clinical findings. Radiology 2003; 226(2): 373–381.PubMedCrossRef

Kornaat PR, Bloem JL, Ceulemans RY, Riyazi N, Rosendaal FR, Nelissen RG, et al. Osteoarthritis of the knee: association between clinical features and MR imaging findings. Radiology 2006; 239(3): 811–817.PubMedCrossRef

Peterfy CG, van Dijke CF, Janzen DL, Gluer CC, Namba R, Majumdar S, et al. Quantification of articular cartilage in the knee with pulsed saturation transfer subtraction and fat-suppressed MR imaging: optimization and validation. Radiology 1994; 192(2): 485–491.PubMed

Biswal S, Hastie T, Andriacchi TP, Bergman GA, Dillingham MF, Lang P. Risk factors for progressive cartilage loss in the knee: a longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging study in forty-three patients. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 46(11): 2884–2892.PubMedCrossRef

Yoshioka H, Stevens K, Genovese M, Dillingham MF, Lang P. Articular cartilage of knee: normal patterns at MR imaging that mimic disease in healthy subjects and patients with osteoarthritis. Radiology 2004; 231(1): 31–38.PubMedCrossRef

Peterfy CG, Guermazi A, Zaim S, Tirman PF, Miaux Y, White D, et al. Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (WORMS) of the knee in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 2004; 12(3): 177–190.PubMedCrossRef

Hunter DJ, Lo GH, Gale D, Grainger AJ, Guermazi A, Conaghan PG. The reliability of a new scoring system for knee osteoarthritis MRI and the validity of bone marrow lesion assessment: BLOKS (Boston Leeds Osteoarthritis Knee Score). Ann Rheum Dis 2008; 67(2): 206–211.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Lo JY, Williford ME, Floyd CE Jr. Breast cancer: prediction with artificial neural network based on BI-RADS standardized lexicon. Radiology 1995; 196(3): 817–822.PubMed

11.

Stammberger T, Eckstein F, Michaelis M, Englmeier KH, Reiser M. Interobserver reproducibility of quantitative cartilage measurements: comparison of B-spline snakes and manual segmentation. Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 17(7): 1033–1042.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Solloway S, Hutchinson CE, Waterton JC, Taylor CJ. The use of active shape models for making thickness measurements of articular cartilage from MR images. Magn Reson Med 1997; 37(6): 943–952.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Kshirsagar AA, Watson PJ, Tyler JA, Hall LD. Measurement of localized cartilage volume and thickness of human knee joints by computer analysis of three-dimensional magnetic resonance images. Invest Radiol 1998; 33(5): 289–299.PubMedCrossRef

14.

McWalter EJ, Wirth W, Siebert M, von Eisenhart-Rothe RM, Hudelmaier M, Wilson DR, et al. Use of novel interactive input devices for segmentation of articular cartilage from magnetic resonance images. Osteoarthr Cartil 2005; 13(1): 48–53.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Duryea J, Neumann G, Brem MH, Koh W, Noorbakhsh F, Jackson RD, et al. Novel fast semi-automated software to segment cartilage for knee MR acquisitions. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007; 15(5): 487–492.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Raynauld JP, Kauffmann C, Beaudoin G, Berthiaume MJ, de Guise JA, Bloch DA, et al. Reliability of a quantification imaging system using magnetic resonance images to measure cartilage thickness and volume in human normal and osteoarthritic knees. Osteoarthr Cartil 2003; 11(5): 351–360.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Fripp J, Crozier S, Warfield SK, Ourselin S. Automatic segmentation of the bone and extraction of the bone-cartilage interface from magnetic resonance images of the knee. Phys Med Biol 2007; 52(6): 1617–1631.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Eckstein F, Ateshian G, Burgkart R, Burstein D, Cicuttini F, Dardzinski B, et al. Proposal for a nomenclature for magnetic resonance imaging based measures of articular cartilage in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 2006; 14(10): 974–983.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Wirth W, Hellio Le Graverand MP, Wyman BT, Maschek S, Hudelmaier M, Hitzl W, et al. Regional analysis of femorotibial cartilage loss in a subsample from the Osteoarthritis Initiative progression subcohort. Osteoarthr Cartil 2008 Sep 11 (in press).

20.

Hunter DJ, Zhang YQ, Niu JB, Felson DT, Kwoh K, Newman A, et al. Patella malalignment, pain and patellofemoral progression: the Health ABC Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007; 15(10): 1120–1127.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Neogi T, Nevitt M, Niu J, LaValley MP, Hunter DJ, Terkeltaub R, et al. Lack of association between chondrocalcinosis and increased risk of cartilage loss in knees with osteoarthritis: results of two prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging studies. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54(6): 1822–1828.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Neogi T, Booth SL, Zhang YQ, Jacques PF, Terkeltaub R, Aliabadi P, et al. Low vitamin K status is associated with osteoarthritis in the hand and knee. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54(4): 1255–1261.PubMedCrossRef

23.

http://www.oai.ucsf.edu/datarelease/.

24.

Eckstein F, Kunz M, Hudelmaier M, Jackson R, Yu J, Eaton CB, et al. Impact of coil design on the contrast-to-noise ratio, precision, and consistency of quantitative cartilage morphometry at 3 Tesla: a pilot study for the osteoarthritis initiative. Magn Reson Med 2007; 57(2): 448–454.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Eckstein F, Maschek S, Wirth W, Hudelmaier M, Hitzl W, Wyman B, et al. One year change of knee cartilage morphology in the first release of participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative Progression Subcohort—association with sex, Body Mass Index, symptoms, and radiographic OA status. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008 Jul 7 (in press).

26.

Kothari M, Guermazi A, von Ingersleben G, Miaux Y, Sieffert M, Block JE, et al. Fixed-flexion radiography of the knee provides reproducible joint space width measurements in osteoarthritis. Eur Radiol 2004; 14(9): 1568–1573.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Kass M, Witkin A, Terzopoulos D. Snakes: active contour models. Int J Comput Vis 1987; 1(4): 321–331.CrossRef

28.

Gluer CC, Blake G, Lu Y, Blunt BA, Jergas M, Genant HK. Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporos Int 1995; 5(4): 262–270.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Eckstein F, Heudorfer L, Faber SC, Burgkart R, Englmeier KH, Reiser M. Long-term and resegmentation precision of quantitative cartilage MR imaging (qMRI). Osteoarthr Cartil 2002; 10(12): 922–928.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Eckstein F, Charles HC, Buck RJ, Kraus VB, Remmers AE, Hudelmaier M, et al. Accuracy and precision of quantitative assessment of cartilage morphology by magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0T. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52(10): 3132–3136.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Glaser C, Burgkart R, Kutschera A, Englmeier KH, Reiser M, Eckstein F. Femoro-tibial cartilage metrics from coronal MR image data: technique, test-retest reproducibility, and findings in osteoarthritis. Magn Reson Med 2003; 50(6): 1229–1236.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Brem MH, Pauser J, Yoshioka H, Brenning A, Stratmann J, Hennig FF, et al. Longitudinal in vivo reproducibility of cartilage volume and surface in osteoarthritis of the knee. Skeletal Radiol 2007; 36(4): 315–320.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Eckstein FCF, Raynauld JP, Waterton JC, Peterfy CG, eds. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of articular cartilage in knee osteoarthritis (OA): Morphological assessment; 2006. Osteoarthr Cartil.

34.

Koo S, Gold GE, Andriacchi TP. Consideration in measuring cartilage thickness using MRI: factors including reproducibility and accuracy. Osteoarthr Cartil 2005; 13: 782–789.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Eckstein F, Buck RJ, Burstein D, Charles HC, Crim J, Hudelmaier M, et al. Precision of 3.0 Tesla quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage morphology in a multicentre clinical trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2008; 67(12): 1683–1688.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Magnetic resonance image segmentation using semi-automated software for quantification of knee articular cartilage—initial evaluation of a technique for paired scans
Authors: M. H. Brem
P. K. Lang
G. Neumann
P. M. Schlechtweg
E. Schneider
R. Jackson
J. Yu
C. B. Eaton
F. F. Hennig
H. Yoshioka
G. Pappas
J. Duryea
Publication date: 01-05-2009
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Skeletal Radiology / Issue 5/2009
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-009-0658-1

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Magnetic resonance image segmentation using semi-automated software for quantification of knee articular cartilage—initial evaluation of a technique for paired scans

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2009

Osteoarthritis revisited—again!

Transient medial patellar dislocation: injury patterns at US and MR imaging

Osteochondral lesions of the humeral trochlea in the young athlete

Synovial fold of the posterior shoulder joint capsule

Prediction of erosion progression using ultrasound in established rheumatoid arthritis: a 2-year follow-up study

Dual-time point PET/CT with F-18 FDG for the differentiation of malignant and benign bone lesions