A novel approach to studying early knee osteoarthritis illustrates that bilateral medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis is a heritable phenotype: an offspring study

Knee cartilage change on magnetic resonance imaging: Should we lump or split topographical regions? A 2-year study of data from the osteoarthritis initiative

OBJECTIVE

We challenge the paradigm that a simplistic approach evaluating anatomic regions (e.g., medial femur or tibia) is ideal for assessing articular cartilage loss on magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. We used a data-driven approach to explore whether specific topographical locations of knee cartilage loss may identify novel patterns of cartilage loss over time that current assessment strategies miss.

DESIGN

We assessed 60 location-specific measures of articular cartilage on a sample of 99 knees with baseline and 24-month MR images from the Osteoarthritis Initiative, selected as a group with a high likelihood to change. We performed factor analyses of the change in these measures in two ways: (1) summing the measures to create one measure for each of the six anatomically regional-based summary (anatomic regions; e.g., medial tibia) and (2) treating each location separately for a total of 60 measures (location-specific measures).

RESULTS

The first analysis produced three factors accounting for 66% of the variation in the articular cartilage changes that occur over 24 months of follow-up: (1) medial tibiofemoral, (2) medial and lateral patellar, and (3) lateral tibiofemoral. The second produced 20 factors accounting for 75% of the variance in cartilage changes. Twelve factors only involved one anatomic region. Five factors included locations from adjoining regions (defined by the first analysis; e.g., medial tibiofemoral). Three factors included articular cartilage loss from disparate locations.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel patterns of cartilage loss occur within each anatomic region and across these regions, including in disparate regions. The traditional anatomic regional approach is simpler to implement and interpret but may obscure meaningful patterns of change.

Structural phenotypes of knee osteoarthritis: potential clinical and research relevance

A joint contains many different tissues that can exhibit pathological changes, providing many potential targets for treatment. Researchers are increasingly suggesting that osteoarthritis (OA) comprises several phenotypes or subpopulations. Consequently, a treatment for OA that targets only one pathophysiologic abnormality is unlikely to be similarly efficacious in preventing or delaying the progression of all the different phenotypes of structural OA. Five structural phenotypes have been proposed, namely the inflammatory, meniscus-cartilage, subchondral bone, and atrophic and hypertrophic phenotypes. The inflammatory phenotype is characterized by marked synovitis and/or joint effusion, while the meniscus-cartilage phenotype exhibits severe meniscal and cartilage damage. Large bone marrow lesions characterize the subchondral bone phenotype. The hypertrophic and atrophic OA phenotype are defined based on the presence large osteophytes or absence of any osteophytes, respectively, in the presence of concomitant cartilage damage. Limitations of the concept of structural phenotyping are that they are not mutually exclusive and that more than one phenotype may be present. It must be acknowledged that a wide range of views exist on how best to operationalize the concept of structural OA phenotypes and that the concept of structural phenotypic characterization is still in its infancy. Structural phenotypic stratification, however, may result in more targeted trial populations with successful outcomes and practitioners need to be aware of the heterogeneity of the disease to personalize their treatment recommendations for an individual patient. Radiologists should be able to define a joint at risk for progression based on the predominant phenotype present at different disease stages.