Advertisement

Reproducibility of T and T2 quantification in a multi-vendor multi-site study

  • Author Footnotes
    a Co-first author with equal contribution.
    R. Lartey
    Footnotes
    a Co-first author with equal contribution.
    Affiliations
    Program of Advanced Musculoskeletal Imaging (PAMI), Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    a Co-first author with equal contribution.
    A. Nanavati
    Footnotes
    a Co-first author with equal contribution.
    Affiliations
    Program of Advanced Musculoskeletal Imaging (PAMI), Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • J. Kim
    Affiliations
    Program of Advanced Musculoskeletal Imaging (PAMI), Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • M. Li
    Affiliations
    Program of Advanced Musculoskeletal Imaging (PAMI), Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • K. Xu
    Affiliations
    Program of Advanced Musculoskeletal Imaging (PAMI), Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • K. Nakamura
    Affiliations
    Program of Advanced Musculoskeletal Imaging (PAMI), Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • W. Shin
    Affiliations
    Program of Advanced Musculoskeletal Imaging (PAMI), Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA

    Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • C.S. Winalski
    Affiliations
    Program of Advanced Musculoskeletal Imaging (PAMI), Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA

    Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • N. Obuchowski
    Affiliations
    Program of Advanced Musculoskeletal Imaging (PAMI), Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA

    Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • E. Bahroos
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), CA, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • T.M. Link
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), CA, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • P.A. Hardy
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Q. Peng
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • J. Kim
    Affiliations
    Arthritis Foundation, GA, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • K. Liu
    Affiliations
    Siemens Medical Solution Inc., USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • M. Fung
    Affiliations
    GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • C. Wu
    Affiliations
    Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • X. Li
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence and reprint requests to: X. Li, Program of Advanced Musculoskeletal Imaging (PAMI), Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, ND20, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
    Affiliations
    Program of Advanced Musculoskeletal Imaging (PAMI), Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA

    Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    a Co-first author with equal contribution.
Published:November 09, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2022.10.017

      Summary

      Objective

      To evaluate the multi-vendor multi-site reproducibility of two-dimensional (2D) multi-echo spin-echo (MESE) T2 mapping (product sequences); and to evaluate the longitudinal reproducibility of three-dimensional (3D) magnetization-prepared angle-modulated partitioned k-space spoiled gradient echo snapshots (MAPSS) T and T2 mapping (research sequences), and 2D MESE T2 mapping, separated by 6 months, in a multi-vendor multi-site setting.

      Methods

      Phantoms and volunteers (n = 5 from each site, n = 20 in total) were scanned on four 3 T magnetic resonance (MR) systems from four sites and three vendors (Siemens, General Electric, and Phillips). Two traveling volunteers (3 knees) scanned at all 4 sites at baseline and 6-month follow-up. Data was transferred to one site for centralized processing. Coefficients of variation (CVs) were calculated to evaluate reproducibility.

      Results

      For baseline 2D MESE T2 measures, average CV were 0.37–2.45% (intra-site) and 5.96% (inter-site) for phantoms, and 3.15–8.49% (intra-site) and 14.16% (inter-site) for volunteers. For longitudinal phantom data, intra-site CVs were 1.42–3.48% for 3D MAPSS T, 1.77–3.56% for 3D MAPSS T2, and 1.02–2.54% for 2D MESE T2. For the longitudinal volunteer data, the intra-site CVs were 2.60–4.86% for 3D MAPSS T, 3.33–7.25% for 3D MAPSS T2, and 3.11–8.77% for 2D MESE T2.

      Conclusion

      This study demonstrated excellent intra-site reproducibility of 2D MESE T2 imaging, while its inter-site variation was slightly higher than 3D MAPSS T2 imaging (10.06% as previously reported). This study also showed excellent reproducibility of longitudinal T and T2 cartilage quantification, in a multi-vendor multi-site setting for both product 2D MESE T2 and 3D MAPSS T1p/T2 research sequences.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Li X.
        • Majumdar S.
        Quantitative MRI of articular cartilage and its clinical applications.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013; 38: 991-1008https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24313
        • Roemer F.W.
        • Demehri S.
        • Omoumi P.
        • Link T.M.
        • Kijowski R.
        • Saarakkala S.
        • et al.
        State of the art: imaging of osteoarthritis-revisited 2020.
        Radiology. 2020; 296: 5-21https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020192498
        • Emanuel K.S.
        • Kellner L.J.
        • Peters M.
        • Haartmans M.
        • Hooijmans M.T.
        • Emans P.J.
        The relation between the biochemical composition of knee articular cartilage and quantitative MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Osteoarthr Cartil. 2022; 30: 650-662https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2021.10.016
        • MacKay J.W.
        • Low S.
        • Smith T.O.
        • Toms A.P.
        • McCaskie A.W.
        • Gilbert F.J.
        Systematic review and meta-analysis of the reliability and discriminative validity of cartilage compositional MRI in knee osteoarthritis.
        Osteoarthr Cartil. 2018; 26: 1140-1152https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2017.11.018
        • Atkinson H.F.
        • Birmingham T.B.
        • Moyer R.F.
        • Yacoub D.
        • Kanko L.E.
        • Bryant D.M.
        • et al.
        MRI T2 and T1ρ relaxation in patients at risk for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019; 20: 182https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2547-7
        • Li X.
        • Pedoia V.
        • Kumar D.
        • Rivoire J.
        • Wyatt C.
        • Lansdown D.
        • et al.
        Cartilage T1ρ and T2 relaxation times: longitudinal reproducibility and variations using different coils, MR systems and sites.
        Osteoarthr Cartil. 2015; 23: 2214-2223https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2015.07.006
        • Dardzinski B.J.
        • Schneider E.
        Radiofrequency (RF) coil impacts the value and reproducibility of cartilage spin-spin (T2) relaxation time measurements.
        Osteoarthr Cartil. 2013; 21: 710-720https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.01.006
        • Kim J.
        • Mamoto K.
        • Lartey R.
        • Xu K.
        • Nakamura K.
        • Shin W.
        • et al.
        Multi-vendor multi-site T and T2 quantification of knee cartilage.
        Osteoarthr Cartil. 2020; 28: 1539-1550https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2020.07.005
        • Verschueren J.
        • Eijgenraam S.M.
        • Klein S.
        • Poot D.
        • Bierma-Zeinstra S.
        • Hernandez Tamames J.A.
        • et al.
        T2 mapping of healthy knee cartilage: multicenter multivendor reproducibility.
        Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2021; 11: 1247-1255https://doi.org/10.21037/qims-20-674
        • Balamoody S.
        • Williams T.G.
        • Wolstenholme C.
        • Waterton J.C.
        • Bowes M.
        • Hodgson R.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance transverse relaxation time T2 of knee cartilage in osteoarthritis at 3-T: a cross-sectional multicentre, multivendor reproducibility study.
        Skelet Radiol. 2013; 42: 511-520https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-012-1511-5
        • Saxena V.
        • D'Aquilla K.
        • Marcoon S.
        • Krishnamoorthy G.
        • Gordon J.A.
        • Carey J.L.
        • et al.
        T1ρ magnetic resonance imaging to assess cartilage damage after primary shoulder dislocation.
        Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44: 2800-2806https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516655338
        • Dixon W.T.
        • Oshinski J.N.
        • Trudeau J.D.
        • Arnold B.C.
        • Pettigrew R.I.
        Myocardial suppression in vivo by spin locking with composite pulses.
        Magn Reson Med. 1996; 36: 90-94https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.1910360116
        • Schneider E.
        • Nessaiver M.
        The Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) magnetic resonance imaging quality assurance update.
        Osteoarthr Cartil. 2013; 21: 110-116https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2012.10.011
        • Li X.
        • Wyatt C.
        • Rivoire J.
        • Han E.
        • Chen W.
        • Schooler J.
        • et al.
        Simultaneous acquisition of T1ρ and T2 quantification in knee cartilage: repeatability and diurnal variation.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014; 39: 1287-1293https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24253
        • Taylor K.A.
        • Collins A.T.
        • Heckelman L.N.
        • Kim S.Y.
        • Utturkar G.M.
        • Spritzer C.E.
        • et al.
        Activities of daily living influence tibial cartilage T1rho relaxation times.
        J Biomech. 2019; 82: 228-233https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.10.029