OBJECTIVE: The transverse relaxation time (T2) in MR imaging has been identified as a potential biomarker of hyaline cartilage pathology. This study investigates whether MR assessments of T2 are comparable between 3-T scanners from three different vendors. DESIGN: Twelve subjects with symptoms of knee osteoarthritis and one or more risk factors had their knee scanned on each of the three vendors' scanners located in three sites in the U.K. MR data acquisition was based on the United States National Institutes of Health Osteoarthritis Initiative protocol. Measures of cartilage T2 and R2 (inverse of T2) were computed for precision error assessment. Intrascanner reproducibility was also assessed with a phantom (all three scanners) and a cohort of 5 subjects (one scanner only). RESULTS: Whole-organ magnetic resonance (WORM) semiquantitative cartilage scores ranged from minimal to advanced degradation. Intrascanner R2 root-mean-square coefficients of variation (RMSCOV) were low, within the range 2.6 to 6.3% for femoral and tibial regions. For one scanner pair, mean T2 differences ranged from -1.2 to 2.8 ms, with no significant difference observed for the medial tibia and patella regions (p < 0.05). T2 values from the third scanner were systematically lower, producing interscanner mean T2 differences within the range 5.4 to 10.0 ms. CONCLUSION: Significant interscanner cartilage T2 differences were found and should be accounted for before data from scanners of different vendors are compared.
OBJECTIVE: The transverse relaxation time (T2) in MR imaging has been identified as a potential biomarker of hyaline cartilage pathology. This study investigates whether MR assessments of T2 are comparable between 3-T scanners from three different vendors. DESIGN: Twelve subjects with symptoms of knee osteoarthritis and one or more risk factors had their knee scanned on each of the three vendors' scanners located in three sites in the U.K. MR data acquisition was based on the United States National Institutes of Health Osteoarthritis Initiative protocol. Measures of cartilage T2 and R2 (inverse of T2) were computed for precision error assessment. Intrascanner reproducibility was also assessed with a phantom (all three scanners) and a cohort of 5 subjects (one scanner only). RESULTS: Whole-organ magnetic resonance (WORM) semiquantitative cartilage scores ranged from minimal to advanced degradation. Intrascanner R2 root-mean-square coefficients of variation (RMSCOV) were low, within the range 2.6 to 6.3% for femoral and tibial regions. For one scanner pair, mean T2 differences ranged from -1.2 to 2.8 ms, with no significant difference observed for the medial tibia and patella regions (p < 0.05). T2 values from the third scanner were systematically lower, producing interscanner mean T2 differences within the range 5.4 to 10.0 ms. CONCLUSION: Significant interscanner cartilage T2 differences were found and should be accounted for before data from scanners of different vendors are compared.
Authors: M T Nieminen; J Rieppo; J Töyräs; J M Hakumäki; J Silvennoinen; M M Hyttinen; H J Helminen; J S Jurvelin Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: D J Hunter; W Zhang; P G Conaghan; K Hirko; L Menashe; W M Reichmann; E Losina Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: W Wirth; M-P Hellio Le Graverand; B T Wyman; S Maschek; M Hudelmaier; W Hitzl; M Nevitt; F Eckstein Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2008-09-11 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: E Schneider; M NessAiver; D White; D Purdy; L Martin; L Fanella; D Davis; M Vignone; G Wu; R Gullapalli Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: E Lammentausta; P Kiviranta; M J Nissi; M S Laasanen; I Kiviranta; M T Nieminen; J S Jurvelin Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: G B Joseph; C E McCulloch; M C Nevitt; U Heilmeier; L Nardo; J A Lynch; F Liu; T Baum; T M Link Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Gabby B Joseph; Charles E McCulloch; Michael C Nevitt; Alexandra S Gersing; Benedikt J Schwaiger; Martin Kretzschmar; Ursula Heilmeier; Thomas M Link Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: G E Gold; F Cicuttini; M D Crema; F Eckstein; A Guermazi; R Kijowski; T M Link; E Maheu; J Martel-Pelletier; C G Miller; J-P Pelletier; C G Peterfy; H G Potter; F W Roemer; D J Hunter Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Cyrus Behzadi; Goetz H Welsch; Azien Laqmani; Frank O Henes; Michael G Kaul; Gerhard Schoen; Gerhard Adam; Marc Regier Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Joost Verschueren; Susanne M Eijgenraam; Stefan Klein; Dirk H J Poot; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra; Juan A Hernandez Tamames; Piotr A Wielopolski; Max Reijman; Edwin H G Oei Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-04
Authors: J Kim; K Mamoto; R Lartey; K Xu; K Nakamura; W Shin; C S Winalski; N Obuchowski; M Tanaka; E Bahroos; T M Link; P A Hardy; Q Peng; R Reddy; A Botto-van Bemden; K Liu; R D Peters; C Wu; X Li Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 6.576