Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2020; 24(04): 460-474
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1710356
Review Article

The Value of Quantitative Musculoskeletal Imaging

Jacob J. Visser 
1   Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Stacy K. Goergen 
2   Department of Imaging, Monash Imaging, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
3   School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
,
Stefan Klein 
1   Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Teodoro Martín Noguerol 
4   MRI Unit, Department of Radiology, HT Médica, Jaén, Spain
,
Perry J. Pickhardt 
5   Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Laura M. Fayad 
6   The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology & Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Patrick Omoumi 
7   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Erratum: The Value of Quantitative Musculoskeletal ImagingSemin Musculoskelet Radiol 2020; 24(04): e1-e1
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1719097

Abstract

Musculoskeletal imaging is mainly based on the subjective and qualitative analysis of imaging examinations. However, integration of quantitative assessment of imaging data could increase the value of imaging in both research and clinical practice. Some imaging modalities, such as perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion MRI, or T2 mapping, are intrinsically quantitative. But conventional morphological imaging can also be analyzed through the quantification of various parameters. The quantitative data retrieved from imaging examinations can serve as biomarkers and be used to support diagnosis, determine patient prognosis, or monitor therapy.

We focus on the value, or clinical utility, of quantitative imaging in the musculoskeletal field. There is currently a trend to move from volume- to value-based payments. This review contains definitions and examines the role that quantitative imaging may play in the implementation of value-based health care. The influence of artificial intelligence on the value of quantitative musculoskeletal imaging is also discussed.

Keywords

quantitative imaging - musculoskeletal imaging - imaging biomarkers - clinical utility - value-based health care


Publication History

Article published online:
29 September 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 

  • References

  • 1 Buckler AJ, Bresolin L, Dunnick NR, Sullivan DC. Group. A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging. Radiology 2011; 258 (03) 906-914
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Porter ME. What is value in health care?. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 (26) 2477-2481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sullivan DC, Obuchowski NA, Kessler LG. , et al; RSNA-QIBA Metrology Working Group. Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers. Radiology 2015; 277 (03) 813-825
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Peterfy CG, Guermazi A, Zaim S. , et al. Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (WORMS) of the knee in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2004; 12 (03) 177-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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 (02) 206-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lambin P, Leijenaar RTH, Deist TM. , et al. Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017; 14 (12) 749-762
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Litjens G, Kooi T, Bejnordi BE. , et al. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Med Image Anal 2017; 42: 60-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ahlawat S, Fritz J, Morris CD, Fayad LM. Magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers in musculoskeletal soft tissue tumors: review of conventional features and focus on nonmorphologic imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019; 50 (01) 11-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Fayad LM, Jacobs MA, Wang X, Carrino JA, Bluemke DA. Musculoskeletal tumors: how to use anatomic, functional, and metabolic MR techniques. Radiology 2012; 265 (02) 340-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pettersson H, Gillespy III T, Hamlin DJ. , et al. Primary musculoskeletal tumors: examination with MR imaging compared with conventional modalities. Radiology 1987; 164 (01) 237-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Zajick Jr DC, Morrison WB, Schweitzer ME, Parellada JA, Carrino JA. Benign and malignant processes: normal values and differentiation with chemical shift MR imaging in vertebral marrow. Radiology 2005; 237 (02) 590-596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kumar NM, Ahlawat S, Fayad LM. Chemical shift imaging with in-phase and opposed-phase sequences at 3 T: what is the optimal threshold, measurement method, and diagnostic accuracy for characterizing marrow signal abnormalities?. Skeletal Radiol 2018; 47 (12) 1661-1671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ahlawat S, Khandheria P, Subhawong TK, Fayad LM. Differentiation of benign and malignant skeletal lesions with quantitative diffusion weighted MRI at 3T. Eur J Radiol 2015; 84 (06) 1091-1097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Oka K, Yakushiji T, Sato H, Hirai T, Yamashita Y, Mizuta H. The value of diffusion-weighted imaging for monitoring the chemotherapeutic response of osteosarcoma: a comparison between average apparent diffusion coefficient and minimum apparent diffusion coefficient. Skeletal Radiol 2010; 39 (02) 141-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Soldatos T, Ahlawat S, Montgomery E, Chalian M, Jacobs MA, Fayad LM. Multiparametric assessment of treatment response in high-grade soft-tissue sarcomas with anatomic and functional MR imaging sequences. Radiology 2016; 278 (03) 831-840
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sujlana P, Skrok J, Fayad LM. Review of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: technical aspects and applications in the musculoskeletal system. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 47 (04) 875-890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lang N, Yuan H, Yu HJ, Su MY. Diagnosis of spinal lesions using heuristic and pharmacokinetic parameters measured by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Acad Radiol 2017; 24 (07) 867-875
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Alic L, van Vliet M, Wielopolski PA. , et al. Regional heterogeneity changes in DCE-MRI as response to isolated limb perfusion in experimental soft-tissue sarcomas. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2013; 8 (04) 340-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nagata S, Nishimura H, Uchida M. , et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of soft tissue tumors: usefulness of the apparent diffusion coefficient for differential diagnosis. Radiat Med 2008; 26 (05) 287-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Razek A, Nada N, Ghaniem M, Elkhamary S. Assessment of soft tissue tumours of the extremities with diffusion echoplanar MR imaging. Radiol Med (Torino) 2012; 117 (01) 96-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lee SY, Jee WH, Jung JY. , et al. Differentiation of malignant from benign soft tissue tumours: use of additive qualitative and quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging to standard MR imaging at 3.0 T. Eur Radiol 2016; 26 (03) 743-754
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Del Grande F, Ahlawat S, Subhawong T, Fayad LM. Characterization of indeterminate soft tissue masses referred for biopsy: what is the added value of contrast imaging at 3.0 Tesla?. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 45 (02) 390-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 van Rijswijk CS, Geirnaerdt MJ, Hogendoorn PC. , et al. Soft-tissue tumors: value of static and dynamic gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging in prediction of malignancy. Radiology 2004; 233 (02) 493-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Del Grande F, Subhawong T, Weber K, Aro M, Mugera C, Fayad LM. Detection of soft-tissue sarcoma recurrence: added value of functional MR imaging techniques at 3.0 T. Radiology 2014; 271 (02) 499-511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fayad LM, Barker PB, Bluemke DA. Molecular characterization of musculoskeletal tumors by proton MR spectroscopy. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2007; 11 (03) 240-245
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Fayad LM, Wang X, Salibi N. , et al. A feasibility study of quantitative molecular characterization of musculoskeletal lesions by proton MR spectroscopy at 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195 (01) W69-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Subhawong TK, Wang X, Durand DJ. , et al. Proton MR spectroscopy in metabolic assessment of musculoskeletal lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198 (01) 162-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fayad LM, Wang X, Blakeley JO. , et al. Characterization of peripheral nerve sheath tumors with 3T proton MR spectroscopy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014; 35 (05) 1035-1041
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Oei EH, van Tiel J, Robinson WH, Gold GE. Quantitative radiologic imaging techniques for articular cartilage composition: toward early diagnosis and development of disease-modifying therapeutics for osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2014; 66 (08) 1129-1141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tiulpin A, Klein S, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA. , et al. Multimodal machine learning-based knee osteoarthritis progression prediction from plain radiographs and clinical data. Sci Rep 2019; 9 (01) 20038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Chen P, Gao L, Shi X, Allen K, Yang L. Fully automatic knee osteoarthritis severity grading using deep neural networks with a novel ordinal loss. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2019; 75: 84-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Jang S, Graffy PM, Ziemlewicz TJ, Lee SJ, Summers RM, Pickhardt PJ. Opportunistic osteoporosis screening at routine abdominal and thoracic CT: normative L1 trabecular attenuation values in more than 20 000 adults. Radiology 2019; 291 (02) 360-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lee SJ, Pickhardt PJ. Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using body CT scans obtained for other indications: the UW experience. Clin Rev Bone Miner Metab 2017; 15: 128-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Pickhardt PJ, Pooler BD, Lauder T, del Rio AM, Bruce RJ, Binkley N. Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using abdominal computed tomography scans obtained for other indications. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158 (08) 588-595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Pickhardt PJ, Lee LJ, del Rio AM. , et al. Simultaneous screening for osteoporosis at CT colonography: bone mineral density assessment using MDCT attenuation techniques compared with the DXA reference standard. J Bone Miner Res 2011; 26 (09) 2194-2203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Pickhardt PJ, Lee SJ, Liu J. , et al. Population-based opportunistic osteoporosis screening: Validation of a fully automated CT tool for assessing longitudinal BMD changes. Br J Radiol 2019; 92 (1094): 20180726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Graffy PM, Lee SJ, Ziemlewicz TJ, Pickhardt PJ. Prevalence of vertebral compression fractures on routine CT Scans according to L1 trabecular attenuation: determining relevant thresholds for opportunistic osteoporosis screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 209 (03) 491-496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Lee SJ, Graffy PM, Zea RD, Ziemlewicz TJ, Pickhardt PJ. Future osteoporotic fracture risk related to lumbar vertebral trabecular attenuation measured at routine body CT. J Bone Miner Res 2018; 33 (05) 860-867
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Murray TE, Williams D, Lee MJ. Osteoporosis, obesity, and sarcopenia on abdominal CT: a review of epidemiology, diagnostic criteria, and management strategies for the reporting radiologist. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017; 42 (09) 2376-2386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Graffy PM, Liu J, Pickhardt PJ, Burns JE, Yao J, Summers RM. Deep learning-based muscle segmentation and quantification at abdominal CT: application to a longitudinal adult screening cohort for sarcopenia assessment. Br J Radiol 2019; 92 (1100): 20190327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Lee SJ, Liu J, Yao J, Kanarek A, Summers RM, Pickhardt PJ. Fully automated segmentation and quantification of visceral and subcutaneous fat at abdominal CT: application to a longitudinal adult screening cohort. Br J Radiol 2018; 91 (1089): 20170968
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Han TS, Lean MEJ. A clinical perspective of obesity, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. JRSM Cardiovasc Dis 2016; 5: 2048004016633371
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Graffy PM, Pickhardt PJ. Quantification of hepatic and visceral fat by CT and MR imaging: relevance to the obesity epidemic, metabolic syndrome and NAFLD. Br J Radiol 2016; 89 (1062): 20151024
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Pickhardt PJ, Jee Y, O'Connor SD, del Rio AM. Visceral adiposity and hepatic steatosis at abdominal CT: association with the metabolic syndrome. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198 (05) 1100-1107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Abraham TM, Pedley A, Massaro JM, Hoffmann U, Fox CS. Association between visceral and subcutaneous adipose depots and incident cardiovascular disease risk factors. Circulation 2015; 132 (17) 1639-1647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Boutin RD, Yao L, Canter RJ, Lenchik L. Sarcopenia: current concepts and imaging implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 205 (03) W255-W266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Lenchik L, Boutin RD. Sarcopenia: beyond muscle atrophy and into the new frontiers of opportunistic imaging, precision medicine, and machine learning. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2018; 22 (03) 307-322
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Beaman FD, von Herrmann PF, Kransdorf MJ. , et al; Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® suspected osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, or soft tissue infection (excluding spine and diabetic foot). J Am Coll Radiol 2017; 14 (5S): S326-S337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Bhojwani N, Szpakowski P, Partovi S. , et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in musculoskeletal radiology-clinical applications and future directions. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2015; 5 (05) 740-753
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Nguyen A, Ledoux JB, Omoumi P, Becce F, Forget J, Federau C. Selective microvascular muscle perfusion imaging in the shoulder with intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM). Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 35: 91-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Liao D, Xie L, Han Y. , et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating osteomyelitis from acute neuropathic arthropathy in the complicated diabetic foot. Skeletal Radiol 2018; 47 (10) 1337-1347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Ozgen B, Oguz KK, Cila A. Diffusion MR imaging features of skull base osteomyelitis compared with skull base malignancy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32 (01) 179-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 European Society of Radiology (ESR). ESR concept paper on value-based radiology. Insights Imaging 2017; 8 (05) 447-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Tsevat J, Moriates C. Value-based health care meets cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169 (05) 329-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Roberts ET, Zaslavsky AM, McWilliams JM. The value-based payment modifier: program outcomes and implications for disparities. Ann Intern Med 2018; 168 (04) 255-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Levin DC, Rao VM, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Sunshine JH. Bending the curve: the recent marked slowdown in growth of noninvasive diagnostic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196 (01) W25-W29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK. Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA 2018; 319 (10) 1024-1039
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Jones DN, Thomas MJ, Mandel CJ. , et al. Where failures occur in the imaging care cycle: lessons from the radiology events register. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7 (08) 593-602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Sarwar A, Boland G, Monks A, Kruskal JB. Metrics for radiologists in the era of value-based health care delivery. Radiographics 2015; 35 (03) 866-876
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991; 11 (02) 88-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Gazelle GS, Kessler L, Lee DW. , et al; Working Group on Comparative Effectiveness Research for Imaging. A framework for assessing the value of diagnostic imaging in the era of comparative effectiveness research. Radiology 2011; 261 (03) 692-698
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Hirschmann A, Cyriac J, Stieltjes B, Kober T, Richiardi J, Omoumi P. Artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal imaging: review of current literature, challenges, and trends. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2019; 23 (03) 304-311
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Bach Cuadra M, Favre J, Omoumi P. Quantification in musculoskeletal imaging using computational analysis and machine learning: segmentation and radiomics. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2020; 24 (01) 50-64 (in press)
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Omoumi PFM. Imaging Informatics: Artificial intelligence, structured reporting and beyond. In: Veira AL. , ed. Imaging of Motion & Performance: Stress & Strain. Vienna, Austria: European Society of Radiology; 2019: 197-201
    Google Scholar