BACKGROUND: T2 mapping is increasingly used to quantify cartilage degeneration in knee osteoarthritis (OA), yet reproducibility studies in a multicenter setting are limited. The purpose of this study was to determine the longitudinal reproducibility and multicenter variation of cartilage T2 mapping, using various MRI equipment and acquisition protocols. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter study, four traveling, healthy human subjects underwent T2 mapping twice at five different centers with a 6-month-interval. Centers had various MRI scanners, field strengths, and T2 mapping acquisition protocols. Mean T2 values were calculated in six cartilage regions of interest (ROIs) as well as an average value per patient. A phantom was scanned once at each center. To evaluate longitudinal reproducibility, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), root-mean-square coefficient of variation (RMS-CV), and a Bland-Altman plot were used. To assess the variation of in vivo and phantom T2 values across centers, ANOVA was performed. RESULTS: ICCs of the T2 mapping measurements per ROI and the ROI's combined ranged from 0.73 to 0.91, indicating good to excellent longitudinal reproducibility. RMS-CVs ranged from 1.1% to 1.5% (per ROI) and 0.6% to 1.6% (ROIs combined) across the centers. A Bland-Altman plot did not reveal a systematic error. Evident, but consistent, discrepancies in T2 values were observed across centers, both in vivo and in the phantom. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that T2 mapping can be used to longitudinal assess cartilage degeneration in multicenter studies. Given the differences in absolute cartilage T2 values across centers, absolute T2 values derived from various centers in multicenter multivendor trials should not be pooled. 2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: T2 mapping is increasingly used to quantify cartilage degeneration in knee osteoarthritis (OA), yet reproducibility studies in a multicenter setting are limited. The purpose of this study was to determine the longitudinal reproducibility and multicenter variation of cartilage T2 mapping, using various MRI equipment and acquisition protocols. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter study, four traveling, healthy human subjects underwent T2 mapping twice at five different centers with a 6-month-interval. Centers had various MRI scanners, field strengths, and T2 mapping acquisition protocols. Mean T2 values were calculated in six cartilage regions of interest (ROIs) as well as an average value per patient. A phantom was scanned once at each center. To evaluate longitudinal reproducibility, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), root-mean-square coefficient of variation (RMS-CV), and a Bland-Altman plot were used. To assess the variation of in vivo and phantom T2 values across centers, ANOVA was performed. RESULTS: ICCs of the T2 mapping measurements per ROI and the ROI's combined ranged from 0.73 to 0.91, indicating good to excellent longitudinal reproducibility. RMS-CVs ranged from 1.1% to 1.5% (per ROI) and 0.6% to 1.6% (ROIs combined) across the centers. A Bland-Altman plot did not reveal a systematic error. Evident, but consistent, discrepancies in T2 values were observed across centers, both in vivo and in the phantom. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that T2 mapping can be used to longitudinal assess cartilage degeneration in multicenter studies. Given the differences in absolute cartilage T2 values across centers, absolute T2 values derived from various centers in multicenter multivendor trials should not be pooled. 2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Knee; T2 mapping; cartilage; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); reproducibility
Authors: Sharon Balamoody; Tomos G Williams; Chris Wolstenholme; John C Waterton; Michael Bowes; Richard Hodgson; Sha Zhao; Marietta Scott; Chris J Taylor; Charles E Hutchinson Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Xiaojuan Li; Jonathan Cheng; Katrina Lin; Ehsan Saadat; Radu I Bolbos; Björn Jobke; Michael D Ries; Andrew Horvai; Thomas M Link; Sharmila Majumdar Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Timothy J Mosher; Zheng Zhang; Ravinder Reddy; Sanaa Boudhar; Barton N Milestone; William B Morrison; C Kent Kwoh; Felix Eckstein; Walter R T Witschey; Arijitt Borthakur Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gregory Chang; Graham C Wiggins; Ding Xia; Riccardo Lattanzi; Guillaume Madelin; Jose G Raya; Matthew Finnerty; Hiroyuki Fujita; Michael P Recht; Ravinder R Regatte Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Esther E Bron; Jasper van Tiel; Henk Smit; Dirk H J Poot; Wiro J Niessen; Gabriel P Krestin; Harrie Weinans; Edwin H G Oei; Gyula Kotek; Stefan Klein Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-08-04 Impact factor: 5.315