Literature DB >> 18708855

In vivo biochemical 7.0 Tesla magnetic resonance: preliminary results of dGEMRIC, zonal T2, and T2* mapping of articular cartilage.

Goetz H Welsch1, Tallal C Mamisch, Timothy Hughes, Christoph Zilkens, Sebastian Quirbach, Klaus Scheffler, Oliver Kraff, Mark E Schweitzer, Pavol Szomolanyi, Siegfried Trattnig.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Ultra-high-field whole-body systems (7.0 T) have a high potential for future human in vivo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In musculoskeletal MRI, biochemical imaging of articular cartilage may benefit, in particular. Delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) and T2 mapping have shown potential at 3.0 T. Although dGEMRIC, allows the determination of the glycosaminoglycan content of articular cartilage, T2 mapping is a promising tool for the evaluation of water and collagen content. In addition, the evaluation of zonal variation, based on tissue anisotropy, provides an indicator of the nature of cartilage ie, hyaline or hyaline-like articular cartilage.Thus, the aim of our study was to show the feasibility of in vivo dGEMRIC, and T2 and T2* relaxation measurements, at 7.0 T MRI; and to evaluate the potential of T2 and T2* measurements in an initial patient study after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT) in the knee.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI was performed on a whole-body 7.0 T MR scanner using a dedicated circular polarization knee coil. The protocol consisted of an inversion recovery sequence for dGEMRIC, a multiecho spin-echo sequence for standard T2 mapping, a gradient-echo sequence for T2* mapping and a morphologic PD SPACE sequence. Twelve healthy volunteers (mean age, 26.7 +/- 3.4 years) and 4 patients (mean age, 38.0 +/- 14.0 years) were enrolled 29.5 +/- 15.1 months after MACT. For dGEMRIC, 5 healthy volunteers (mean age, 32.4 +/- 11.2 years) were included. T1 maps were calculated using a nonlinear, 2-parameter, least squares fit analysis. Using a region-of-interest analysis, mean cartilage relaxation rate was determined as T1 (0) for precontrast measurements and T1 (Gd) for postcontrast gadopentate dimeglumine [Gd-DTPA(2-)] measurements. T2 and T2* maps were obtained using a pixelwise, monoexponential, non-negative least squares fit analysis; region-of-interest analysis was carried out for deep and superficial cartilage aspects. Statistical evaluation was performed by analyses of variance.
RESULTS: Mean T1 (dGEMRIC) values for healthy volunteers showed slightly different results for femoral [T1 (0): 1259 +/- 277 ms; T1 (Gd): 683 +/- 141 ms] compared with tibial cartilage [T1 (0): 1093 +/- 281 ms; T1 (Gd): 769 +/- 150 ms]. Global mean T2 relaxation for healthy volunteers showed comparable results for femoral (T2: 56.3 +/- 15.2 ms; T2*: 19.7 +/- 6.4 ms) and patellar (T2: 54.6 +/- 13.0 ms; T2*: 19.6 +/- 5.2 ms) cartilage, but lower values for tibial cartilage (T2: 43.6 +/- 8.5 ms; T2*: 16.6 +/- 5.6 ms). All healthy cartilage sites showed a significant increase from deep to superficial cartilage (P < 0.001). Within healthy cartilage sites in MACT patients, adequate values could be found for T2 (56.6 +/- 13.2 ms) and T2* (18.6 +/- 5.3 ms), which also showed a significant stratification. Within cartilage repair tissue, global mean values showed no difference, with 55.9 +/- 4.9 ms for T2 and 16.2 +/- 6.3 ms for T2*. However, zonal assessment showed only a slight and not significant increase from deep to superficial cartilage (T2: P = 0.174; T2*: P = 0.150).
CONCLUSION: In vivo T1 dGEMRIC assessment in healthy cartilage, and T2 and T2* mapping in healthy and reparative articular cartilage, seems to be possible at 7.0 T MRI. For T2 and T2*, zonal variation of articular cartilage could also be evaluated at 7.0 T. This zonal assessment of deep and superficial cartilage aspects shows promising results for the differentiation of healthy and affected articular cartilage. In future studies, optimized protocol selection, and sophisticated coil technology, together with increased signal at ultra-high-field MRI, may lead to advanced biochemical cartilage imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18708855     DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31817e9122

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  53 in total

1.  Cartilage quality in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of T2* mapping, native T1 mapping, dGEMRIC, ΔR1 and value of pre-contrast imaging.

Authors:  Christian Buchbender; Axel Scherer; Patric Kröpil; Birthe Körbl; Michael Quentin; Dorothea Ch Reichelt; Rotem S Lanzman; Christian Mathys; Dirk Blondin; Bernd Bittersohl; Christoph Zilkens; Matthias Hofer; Hans-Jörg Wittsack; Matthias Schneider; Gerald Antoch; Benedikt Ostendorf; Falk Miese
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee at 3 and 7 tesla: a comparison using dedicated multi-channel coils and optimised 2D and 3D protocols.

Authors:  Goetz H Welsch; Vladimir Juras; Pavol Szomolanyi; Tallal C Mamisch; Peter Baer; Claudia Kronnerwetter; Matthias Blanke; Hiroyuki Fujita; Siegfried Trattnig
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Biochemical (T2, T2* and magnetisation transfer ratio) MRI of knee cartilage: feasibility at ultra-high field (7T) compared with high field (3T) strength.

Authors:  Goetz H Welsch; Sebastian Apprich; Stefan Zbyn; Tallal C Mamisch; Vladimir Mlynarik; Klaus Scheffler; Oliver Bieri; Siegfried Trattnig
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-12-12       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Ultra-high-field magnetic resonance: Why and when?

Authors:  Ewald Moser
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2010-01-28

5.  Repair tissue quality after arthroscopic autologous collagen-induced chondrogenesis (ACIC) assessed via T2* mapping.

Authors:  David Stelzeneder; Ananthram A Shetty; Seok-Jung Kim; Siegfried Trattnig; Stephan E Domayer; Vishvas Shetty; Praveen Bilagi
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  7 Tesla quantitative hip MRI: T1, T2 and T2* mapping of hip cartilage in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Andrea Lazik; Jens M Theysohn; Christina Geis; Sören Johst; Mark E Ladd; Harald H Quick; Oliver Kraff
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Image interpolation improves the zonal analysis of cartilage T2 relaxation in MRI.

Authors:  Farid Badar; Yang Xia
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2017-04

8.  In vivo 7.0-tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist and hand: technical aspects and applications.

Authors:  Klaus M Friedrich; Gregory Chang; Renata L R Vieira; Ligong Wang; Graham C Wiggins; Mark E Schweitzer; Ravinder R Regatte
Journal:  Semin Musculoskelet Radiol       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 1.777

9.  Initial results of in vivo high-resolution morphological and biochemical cartilage imaging of patients after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT) of the ankle.

Authors:  Sebastian Quirbach; Siegfried Trattnig; Stefan Marlovits; Valentin Zimmermann; Stephan Domayer; Ronald Dorotka; Tallal C Mamisch; Klaus Bohndorf; Goetz H Welsch
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  Does joint alignment affect the T2 values of cartilage in patients with knee osteoarthritis?

Authors:  Klaus M Friedrich; Timothy Shepard; Gregory Chang; Ligong Wang; James S Babb; Mark Schweitzer; Ravinder Regatte
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.