Imaging of OA – From disease modification to clinical utility

The role of imaging in osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is a complex whole-organ disorder that involves molecular, anatomic, and physiologic derangement. Advances in imaging techniques have expanded the role of imaging in evaluating osteoarthritis and functional changes. Radiography, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography (CT), and ultrasonography are commonly used imaging modalities, each with advantages and limitations in evaluating osteoarthritis. Radiography comprehensively analyses alignment and osseous features, while MRI provides detailed information about cartilage damage, bone marrow edema, synovitis, and soft tissue abnormalities. Compositional imaging derives quantitative data for detecting cartilage and tendon degeneration before structural damage occurs. Ultrasonography permits real-time scanning and dynamic joint evaluation, whereas CT is useful for assessing final osseous detail. Imaging plays an essential role in the diagnosis, management, and research of osteoarthritis. The use of imaging can help differentiate osteoarthritis from other diseases with similar symptoms, and recent advances in deep learning have made the acquisition, management, and interpretation of imaging data more efficient and accurate. Imaging is useful in monitoring and predicting the prognosis of osteoarthritis, expanding our understanding of its pathophysiology. Ultimately, this enables early detection and personalized medicine for patients with osteoarthritis. This article reviews the current state of imaging in osteoarthritis, focusing on the strengths and limitations of various imaging modalities, and introduces advanced techniques, including deep learning, applied in clinical practice.

Exploring Anatomo-Morphometric Characteristics of Infrapatellar, Suprapatellar Fat Pad, and Knee Ligaments in Osteoarthritis Compared to Post-Traumatic Lesions

Several studies have investigated cartilage degeneration and inflammatory subchondral bone and synovial membrane changes using magnetic resonance (MR) in osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Conversely, there is a paucity of data exploring the role of knee ligaments, infrapatellar fat pad (IFP), and suprapatellar fat pad (SFP) in knee OA compared to post-traumatic cohorts of patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the volumetric and morphometric characteristics of the following joint tissues: IFP (volume, surface, depth, femoral and tibial arch lengths), SFP (volume, surface, oblique, antero−posterior, and cranio−caudal lengths), anterior (ACL) and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) (volume, surface, and length), and patellar ligament (PL) (volume, surface, arc, depth, and length). Eighty-nine MR images were collected in the following three groups: (a) 32 patients with meniscal tears, (b) 29 patients with ACL rupture (ACLR), and (c) 28 patients affected by end-stage OA. Volume, surface, and length of both ACL and PCL were determined in groups a and c. A statistical decrease of IFP volume, surface, depth, femoral and tibial arch lengths was found in end-stage OA compared to patients with meniscal tear (p = 0.002, p = 0.008, p < 0.0001, p = 0.028 and p < 0.001, respectively) and patients with ACLR (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, p = 0.008 and p = 0.011, respectively). An increment of volume and surface SFP was observed in group b compared to both groups a and c, while no differences were found in oblique, antero−posterior, and cranio−caudal lengths of SFP among the groups. No statistical differences were highlighted comparing volume, surface, arc, and length of PL between the groups, while PL depth was observed to be decreased in end-OA patients compared with meniscal tear patients (p = 0.023). No statistical differences were observed comparing ACL and PCL lengths between patients undergoing meniscectomy and TKR. Our study confirms that IFP MR morphometric characteristics are different between controls and OA, supporting an important role of IFP in OA pathology and progression in accordance with previously published studies. In addition, PL depth changes seem to be associated with OA pathology. Multivariate analysis confirmed that OA patients had a smaller IFP compared to patients with meniscal tears, confirming its involvement in OA.

How to effectively utilize imaging in disease-modifying treatments for osteoarthritis clinical trials: the radiologist's perspective

Introduction: One of the reasons for failures of disease-modifying osteoarthritis drug clinical trials has been the radiography-based definition of structural eligibility criteria. Imaging, particularly MRI, has a critical role in planning and conducting clinical trials of osteoarthritis.Areas covered: A literature search was performed using keywords including 'osteoarthritis,' 'knee,' 'MRI,' 'intra-articular injection,' 'semiquantitative scoring,' 'clinical trial,' and other specific terms where relevant. The core concepts of using MRI in osteoarthritis clinical trials are explained focusing on knee osteoarthritis, including its role in determining patient eligibility and inclusion/exclusion criteria as well as outcome measures from the expert musculoskeletal radiologist's perspective. A brief overview of statistical analyses that should be deployed in clinical trials utilizing semiquantitative MRI analyses is discussed.Expert opinion: In order to increase chances to detect measurable efficacy effects, investigators should consider utilizing MRI from screening to outcome assessment. Recognition of several phenotypes of osteoarthritis helps in participant stratification and will lead to more targeted clinical trials. Inclusion and exclusion criteria need to be defined using not only radiography but also MRI. Correct intra-articular injection of investigational compounds is critically important if intra-articular drug delivery is required, and such procedure should be performed and documented using appropriate imaging guidance.