Yunping Jiang1,2, Wenjuan Li1, Jing Zheng3, Ke Zhang1, Chaoran Liu1, Guobin Hong1. 1. Department of Radiology, the Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, China. 2. Department of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China. 3. Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, the Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, China.
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the diagnostic value of quantitative parameters [T1, T2, and proton density (PD) value] generated from magnetic resonance image compilation (MAGiC) sequence for active sacroiliitis in the patients with axial spondyloarthritis (ax-SpA). Methods: A total of 90 consecutive ax-SpA patients were recruited and divided into an active group (n=48) and inactive group (n=42) based on the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium Canada (SPARCC) score in this prospective study. In addition, 47 healthy volunteers were recruited as the control group. All participants underwent magnetic resonance (MR) scanning (including MAGiC sequence and T2 mapping sequence) to obtain the T1 value, T2 value, PD value of MAGiC sequence (MAGiC T1 value, T2 value, PD value), and the T2 value of T2 mapping sequence (T2 map T2 value). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess the inter‑ and intra‑observer agreement. The correlation between the MAGiC T2 value and the T2 map T2 value was analyzed using Spearman's Rho. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were performed for all parameters. Results: For the active group, inactive group, and control group, the MAGiC T1 value, T2 value, PD value, and T2 map T2 value were (1,700.91±725.40, 546.58±59.49, 640.25±95.79 ms), (129.37±23.85, 117.16±20.37, 90.52±12.05 ms), (76.47±15.92, 82.69±9.51, 75.51±9.17 pu), and (96.75±16.06, 87.96±9.27, 82.03±10.17 ms), respectively. The difference of the MAGiC T1 value and the MAGiC T2 value in the three groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). The MAGiC PD value was only statistically significant between inactive and control groups (P=0.001). When comparing the ROC curves of quantitative values among the three groups, MAGiC T1 value showed higher diagnostic efficacy than MAGiC T2 value between the active and inactive groups (MAGiC T1AUC: 0.971, MAGiC T2AUC: 0.655, P<0.0001), and the MAGiC T2 value showed higher diagnostic efficacy than T2 map T2 value between the active group and control group, and the inactive group and control group (MAGiC T2AUC: 0.940, T2 map T2AUC: 0.784, P=0.0021; MAGiC T2AUC: 0.877, T2 map T2AUC: 0.644, P=0.0011). The consistency of measurements was excellent (ICC =0.972-0.998). The MAGiC T2 value was positively correlated with the T2 map T2 value, but with a low correlation (r=0.402; P<0.001). Conclusions: A significant difference was detected between the MAGiC T1 and T2 values among the three groups, while MAGiC PD value had limited diagnostic value. MAGiC T1 value was better at differentiating the active group and inactive group than MAGiC T2 value. MAGiC T2 value was better at differentiating the active group and control group, the inactive group and control group than T2 map T2 value. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Background: To evaluate the diagnostic value of quantitative parameters [T1, T2, and proton density (PD) value] generated from magnetic resonance image compilation (MAGiC) sequence for active sacroiliitis in the patients with axial spondyloarthritis (ax-SpA). Methods: A total of 90 consecutive ax-SpA patients were recruited and divided into an active group (n=48) and inactive group (n=42) based on the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium Canada (SPARCC) score in this prospective study. In addition, 47 healthy volunteers were recruited as the control group. All participants underwent magnetic resonance (MR) scanning (including MAGiC sequence and T2 mapping sequence) to obtain the T1 value, T2 value, PD value of MAGiC sequence (MAGiC T1 value, T2 value, PD value), and the T2 value of T2 mapping sequence (T2 map T2 value). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess the inter‑ and intra‑observer agreement. The correlation between the MAGiC T2 value and the T2 map T2 value was analyzed using Spearman's Rho. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were performed for all parameters. Results: For the active group, inactive group, and control group, the MAGiC T1 value, T2 value, PD value, and T2 map T2 value were (1,700.91±725.40, 546.58±59.49, 640.25±95.79 ms), (129.37±23.85, 117.16±20.37, 90.52±12.05 ms), (76.47±15.92, 82.69±9.51, 75.51±9.17 pu), and (96.75±16.06, 87.96±9.27, 82.03±10.17 ms), respectively. The difference of the MAGiC T1 value and the MAGiC T2 value in the three groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). The MAGiC PD value was only statistically significant between inactive and control groups (P=0.001). When comparing the ROC curves of quantitative values among the three groups, MAGiC T1 value showed higher diagnostic efficacy than MAGiC T2 value between the active and inactive groups (MAGiC T1AUC: 0.971, MAGiC T2AUC: 0.655, P<0.0001), and the MAGiC T2 value showed higher diagnostic efficacy than T2 map T2 value between the active group and control group, and the inactive group and control group (MAGiC T2AUC: 0.940, T2 map T2AUC: 0.784, P=0.0021; MAGiC T2AUC: 0.877, T2 map T2AUC: 0.644, P=0.0011). The consistency of measurements was excellent (ICC =0.972-0.998). The MAGiC T2 value was positively correlated with the T2 map T2 value, but with a low correlation (r=0.402; P<0.001). Conclusions: A significant difference was detected between the MAGiC T1 and T2 values among the three groups, while MAGiC PD value had limited diagnostic value. MAGiC T1 value was better at differentiating the active group and inactive group than MAGiC T2 value. MAGiC T2 value was better at differentiating the active group and control group, the inactive group and control group than T2 map T2 value. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Neil M Kumar; Benjamin Fritz; Steven E Stern; J B Marcel Warntjes; Yen Mei Lisa Chuah; Jan Fritz Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J Sieper; M Rudwaleit; X Baraliakos; J Brandt; J Braun; R Burgos-Vargas; M Dougados; K-G Hermann; R Landewé; W Maksymowych; D van der Heijde Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Walter P Maksymowych; Praveena Chiowchanwisawakit; Tracey Clare; Susanne J Pedersen; Mikkel Østergaard; Robert G W Lambert Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2009-01
Authors: Scott Fernquest; Antony Palmer; Bonnie Gammer; Emma Hirons; Benjamin Kendrick; Adrian Taylor; Henry De Berker; Neal Bangerter; Andrew Carr; Sion Glyn-Jones Journal: Cartilage Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 4.634