Taiki Nozaki1, Yasuhito Kaneko1, Hon J Yu1, Kayleigh Kaneshiro2, Ran Schwarzkopf3, Hiroshi Yoshioka4. 1. Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA. 2. School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA. 4. Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA. Electronic address: hiroshi@uci.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the difference in T1rho profiles of the entire femoral cartilage between SPGR and b-FFE sequences at 3.0T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 20 healthy volunteers were enrolled in this study. T1rho images of each subject were acquired with two types of pulse sequences: SPGR and b-FFE. Femoral cartilage segmentation was performed by two independent raters slice-by-slice using Matlab. Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility between the two imaging protocols was calculated. The relative signal intensity (SI) of cartilage, subchondral bone marrow, joint effusion, and the relative signal contrast between structures of the knee were quantitatively measured. The difference in T1rho values between SPGR and b-FFE sequences was statistically analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: The average T1rho value of the entire femoral cartilage with b-FFE was significantly higher compared to SPGR (p<0.05). The reproducibility of the segmented area and T1rho values was superior with SPGR compared to b-FFE. The inter-class correlation coefficient was 0.846 on SPGR and 0.824 on b-FFE. The intra-class correlation coefficient of T1rho values was 0.878 on SPGR and 0.836 on b-FFE. The two imaging techniques demonstrated different signal and contrast characteristics. The relative SI of fluid was significantly higher on SPGR, while the relative SI of subchondral bone was significantly higher on b-FFE (p<0.001). There were also significant differences in the relative contrast between fluid-cartilage, fluid-subchondral bone, and cartilage-subchondral bone between the two sequences (all p<0.001). CONCLUSION: We need to pay attention to differences in T1rho values between SPGR and b-FFE in clinical applications.
PURPOSE: To investigate the difference in T1rho profiles of the entire femoral cartilage between SPGR and b-FFE sequences at 3.0T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 20 healthy volunteers were enrolled in this study. T1rho images of each subject were acquired with two types of pulse sequences: SPGR and b-FFE. Femoral cartilage segmentation was performed by two independent raters slice-by-slice using Matlab. Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility between the two imaging protocols was calculated. The relative signal intensity (SI) of cartilage, subchondral bone marrow, joint effusion, and the relative signal contrast between structures of the knee were quantitatively measured. The difference in T1rho values between SPGR and b-FFE sequences was statistically analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: The average T1rho value of the entire femoral cartilage with b-FFE was significantly higher compared to SPGR (p<0.05). The reproducibility of the segmented area and T1rho values was superior with SPGR compared to b-FFE. The inter-class correlation coefficient was 0.846 on SPGR and 0.824 on b-FFE. The intra-class correlation coefficient of T1rho values was 0.878 on SPGR and 0.836 on b-FFE. The two imaging techniques demonstrated different signal and contrast characteristics. The relative SI of fluid was significantly higher on SPGR, while the relative SI of subchondral bone was significantly higher on b-FFE (p<0.001). There were also significant differences in the relative contrast between fluid-cartilage, fluid-subchondral bone, and cartilage-subchondral bone between the two sequences (all p<0.001). CONCLUSION: We need to pay attention to differences in T1rho values between SPGR and b-FFE in clinical applications.
Authors: D G Disler; T R McCauley; C G Kelman; M D Fuchs; L M Ratner; C R Wirth; P P Hospodar Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: S V Akella; R R Regatte; A J Gougoutas; A Borthakur; E M Shapiro; J B Kneeland; J S Leigh; R Reddy Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hiroshi Yoshioka; Kathryn Stevens; Brian A Hargreaves; Daniel Steines; Mark Genovese; Michael F Dillingham; Carl S Winalski; Philipp Lang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: T Sasho; J Katsuragi; S Yamaguchi; H Haneishi; T Aizimu; T Tanaka; A Watanabe; Y Sato; R Akagi; K Matsumoto; T Uno; K Motoori Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2017-04-29 Impact factor: 2.980