OBJECTIVE: To compare precision and evaluate equivalence of femorotibial cartilage volume (VC) and mean cartilage thickness over total area of bone (ThCtAB.Me) from independent segmentation teams using identical Magnetic Resonance (MR) images from three series: sagittal 3D Dual Echo in the Steady State (DESS), coronal multi-planar reformat (DESS-MPR) of DESS and coronal 3D Fast Low Angle SHot (FLASH). DESIGN: Nineteen subjects underwent test-retest MR imaging at 3 T. Four teams segmented the cartilage using prospectively defined plate regions and rules. Mixed models analysis of the pooled data were used to evaluate the effect of acquisition, team and plate on precision and Pearson correlations and mixed models were used to evaluate equivalence. RESULTS: Segmentation team differences dominated measurement variability in most cartilage regions for all image series. Precision of VC and ThCtAB.Me differed significantly by team and cartilage plate, but not between FLASH and DESS. Mean values of VC and ThCtAB.Me differed by team (P < 0.05) for DESS, FLASH and DESS-MPR. FLASH VC was 4-6% larger than DESS in the medial tibia and lateral central femur, and FLASH ThCtAB.Me was 5-6% larger in the medial tibia, but 4-8% smaller in the medial central femur. Correlations between DESS and FLASH for VC and ThCtAB.Me were high (r = 0.90-0.97), except for DESS vs FLASH medial central femur ThCtAB.Me (r = 0.81-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Cartilage morphology metrics from different image contrasts had similar precision, were generally equivalent, and may be combined for cross-sectional analyses if potential systematic offsets are accounted for. Data from different teams should not be pooled unless equivalence is demonstrated for cartilage metrics of interest.
OBJECTIVE: To compare precision and evaluate equivalence of femorotibial cartilage volume (VC) and mean cartilage thickness over total area of bone (ThCtAB.Me) from independent segmentation teams using identical Magnetic Resonance (MR) images from three series: sagittal 3D Dual Echo in the Steady State (DESS), coronal multi-planar reformat (DESS-MPR) of DESS and coronal 3D Fast Low Angle SHot (FLASH). DESIGN: Nineteen subjects underwent test-retest MR imaging at 3 T. Four teams segmented the cartilage using prospectively defined plate regions and rules. Mixed models analysis of the pooled data were used to evaluate the effect of acquisition, team and plate on precision and Pearson correlations and mixed models were used to evaluate equivalence. RESULTS: Segmentation team differences dominated measurement variability in most cartilage regions for all image series. Precision of VC and ThCtAB.Me differed significantly by team and cartilage plate, but not between FLASH and DESS. Mean values of VC and ThCtAB.Me differed by team (P < 0.05) for DESS, FLASH and DESS-MPR. FLASH VC was 4-6% larger than DESS in the medial tibia and lateral central femur, and FLASH ThCtAB.Me was 5-6% larger in the medial tibia, but 4-8% smaller in the medial central femur. Correlations between DESS and FLASH for VC and ThCtAB.Me were high (r = 0.90-0.97), except for DESS vs FLASH medial central femur ThCtAB.Me (r = 0.81-0.83). CONCLUSIONS:Cartilage morphology metrics from different image contrasts had similar precision, were generally equivalent, and may be combined for cross-sectional analyses if potential systematic offsets are accounted for. Data from different teams should not be pooled unless equivalence is demonstrated for cartilage metrics of interest.
Authors: W Wirth; S Larroque; R Y Davies; M Nevitt; A Gimona; F Baribaud; J H Lee; O Benichou; B T Wyman; M Hudelmaier; S Maschek; F Eckstein Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2010-10-31 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Flavia M Cicuttini; Anita E Wluka; Yuanyuan Wang; Susan R Davis; Judith Hankin; Peter Ebeling Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: R Altman; K Brandt; M Hochberg; R Moskowitz; N Bellamy; D A Bloch; J Buckwalter; M Dougados; G Ehrlich; M Lequesne; S Lohmander; W A Murphy; T Rosario-Jansen; B Schwartz; S Trippel Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 1996-12 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: D T Felson; R C Lawrence; M C Hochberg; T McAlindon; P A Dieppe; M A Minor; S N Blair; B M Berman; J F Fries; M Weinberger; K R Lorig; J J Jacobs; V Goldberg Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2000-11-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: M Hudelmaier; W Wirth; B Wehr; V Kraus; B T Wyman; M-P Hellio Le Graverand; F Eckstein Journal: Cells Tissues Organs Date: 2010-07-02 Impact factor: 2.481
Authors: W Wirth; M Nevitt; M-P Hellio Le Graverand; O Benichou; D Dreher; R Y Davies; J Lee; K Picha; A Gimona; S Maschek; M Hudelmaier; F Eckstein Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: F Eckstein; S Maschek; W Wirth; M Hudelmaier; W Hitzl; B Wyman; M Nevitt; M-P Hellio Le Graverand Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2008-06-02 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Beth G Ashinsky; Mustapha Bouhrara; Christopher E Coletta; Benoit Lehallier; Kenneth L Urish; Ping-Chang Lin; Ilya G Goldberg; Richard G Spencer Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: F Eckstein; J E Collins; M C Nevitt; J A Lynch; V B Kraus; J N Katz; E Losina; W Wirth; A Guermazi; F W Roemer; D J Hunter Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: F Eckstein; A Guermazi; G Gold; J Duryea; M-P Hellio Le Graverand; W Wirth; C G Miller Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Hongqiang Guo; Thomas J Santner; Tony Chen; Hongsheng Wang; Caroline Brial; Susannah L Gilbert; Matthew F Koff; Amy L Lerner; Suzanne A Maher Journal: J Biomech Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 2.712