Cargando…

Knee dGEMRIC at 7 T: comparison against 1.5 T and evaluation of T(1)-mapping methods

BACKGROUND: dGEMRIC (delayed Gadolinium Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Image of Cartilage) is a well-established technique for cartilage quality assessment in osteoarthritis at clinical field strengths. The method is robust, but requires injection of contrast agent and a cumbersome examination procedur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peterson, Pernilla, Tiderius, Carl Johan, Olsson, Emma, Lundin, Björn, Olsson, Lars E., Svensson, Jonas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5956845/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29769051
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2071-1
_version_ 1783323963370242048
author Peterson, Pernilla
Tiderius, Carl Johan
Olsson, Emma
Lundin, Björn
Olsson, Lars E.
Svensson, Jonas
author_facet Peterson, Pernilla
Tiderius, Carl Johan
Olsson, Emma
Lundin, Björn
Olsson, Lars E.
Svensson, Jonas
author_sort Peterson, Pernilla
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: dGEMRIC (delayed Gadolinium Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Image of Cartilage) is a well-established technique for cartilage quality assessment in osteoarthritis at clinical field strengths. The method is robust, but requires injection of contrast agent and a cumbersome examination procedure. New non-contrast-agent-based techniques for cartilage quality assessment are currently being developed at 7 T. However, dGEMRIC remains an important reference technique during this development. The aim of this work was to compare T(1) mapping for dGEMRIC at 7 T and 1.5 T, and to evaluate three T(1)-mapping methods at 7 T. METHODS: The knee of 10 healthy volunteers and 9 patients with early signs of cartilage degradation were examined at 1.5 T and 7 T after a single (one) contrast agent injection (Gd-(DTPA)(2−)). Inversion recovery (IR) sequences were acquired at both field strengths, and at 7 T variable flip angle (VFA) and Look-Locker (LL) sequences were additionally acquired. T(1) maps were calculated and average T(1) values were estimated within superficial and deep regions-of-interest (ROIs) in the lateral and medial condyles, respectively. RESULTS: T(1) values were 1.8 (1.4–2.3) times longer at 7 T. A strong correlation was detected between 1.5 T and 7 T T(1) values (r = 0.80). For IR, an additional inversion time was required to avoid underestimation (bias±limits of agreement − 127 ± 234 ms) due to the longer T(1) values at 7 T. Out of the two 3D sequences tested, LL resulted in more accurate and precise T(1) estimation compared to VFA (average bias±limits of agreement LL: 12 ± 202 ms compared to VFA: 25 ± 622 ms). For both, B(1) correction improved agreement to IR. CONCLUSION: With an adapted sampling scheme, dGEMRIC T(1) mapping is feasible at 7 T and correlates well to 1.5 T. If 3D is to be used for T(1) mapping of the knee at 7 T, LL is preferred and VFA is not recommended. For VFA and LL, B(1) correction is necessary for accurate T(1) estimation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5956845
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59568452018-05-24 Knee dGEMRIC at 7 T: comparison against 1.5 T and evaluation of T(1)-mapping methods Peterson, Pernilla Tiderius, Carl Johan Olsson, Emma Lundin, Björn Olsson, Lars E. Svensson, Jonas BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: dGEMRIC (delayed Gadolinium Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Image of Cartilage) is a well-established technique for cartilage quality assessment in osteoarthritis at clinical field strengths. The method is robust, but requires injection of contrast agent and a cumbersome examination procedure. New non-contrast-agent-based techniques for cartilage quality assessment are currently being developed at 7 T. However, dGEMRIC remains an important reference technique during this development. The aim of this work was to compare T(1) mapping for dGEMRIC at 7 T and 1.5 T, and to evaluate three T(1)-mapping methods at 7 T. METHODS: The knee of 10 healthy volunteers and 9 patients with early signs of cartilage degradation were examined at 1.5 T and 7 T after a single (one) contrast agent injection (Gd-(DTPA)(2−)). Inversion recovery (IR) sequences were acquired at both field strengths, and at 7 T variable flip angle (VFA) and Look-Locker (LL) sequences were additionally acquired. T(1) maps were calculated and average T(1) values were estimated within superficial and deep regions-of-interest (ROIs) in the lateral and medial condyles, respectively. RESULTS: T(1) values were 1.8 (1.4–2.3) times longer at 7 T. A strong correlation was detected between 1.5 T and 7 T T(1) values (r = 0.80). For IR, an additional inversion time was required to avoid underestimation (bias±limits of agreement − 127 ± 234 ms) due to the longer T(1) values at 7 T. Out of the two 3D sequences tested, LL resulted in more accurate and precise T(1) estimation compared to VFA (average bias±limits of agreement LL: 12 ± 202 ms compared to VFA: 25 ± 622 ms). For both, B(1) correction improved agreement to IR. CONCLUSION: With an adapted sampling scheme, dGEMRIC T(1) mapping is feasible at 7 T and correlates well to 1.5 T. If 3D is to be used for T(1) mapping of the knee at 7 T, LL is preferred and VFA is not recommended. For VFA and LL, B(1) correction is necessary for accurate T(1) estimation. BioMed Central 2018-05-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5956845/ /pubmed/29769051 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2071-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Peterson, Pernilla
Tiderius, Carl Johan
Olsson, Emma
Lundin, Björn
Olsson, Lars E.
Svensson, Jonas
Knee dGEMRIC at 7 T: comparison against 1.5 T and evaluation of T(1)-mapping methods
title Knee dGEMRIC at 7 T: comparison against 1.5 T and evaluation of T(1)-mapping methods
title_full Knee dGEMRIC at 7 T: comparison against 1.5 T and evaluation of T(1)-mapping methods
title_fullStr Knee dGEMRIC at 7 T: comparison against 1.5 T and evaluation of T(1)-mapping methods
title_full_unstemmed Knee dGEMRIC at 7 T: comparison against 1.5 T and evaluation of T(1)-mapping methods
title_short Knee dGEMRIC at 7 T: comparison against 1.5 T and evaluation of T(1)-mapping methods
title_sort knee dgemric at 7 t: comparison against 1.5 t and evaluation of t(1)-mapping methods
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5956845/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29769051
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2071-1
work_keys_str_mv AT petersonpernilla kneedgemricat7tcomparisonagainst15tandevaluationoft1mappingmethods
AT tideriuscarljohan kneedgemricat7tcomparisonagainst15tandevaluationoft1mappingmethods
AT olssonemma kneedgemricat7tcomparisonagainst15tandevaluationoft1mappingmethods
AT lundinbjorn kneedgemricat7tcomparisonagainst15tandevaluationoft1mappingmethods
AT olssonlarse kneedgemricat7tcomparisonagainst15tandevaluationoft1mappingmethods
AT svenssonjonas kneedgemricat7tcomparisonagainst15tandevaluationoft1mappingmethods