Sensitivity to change of cartilage morphometry using coronal FLASH, sagittal DESS, and coronal MPR DESS protocols - comparative data from the osteoarthritis initiative (OAI)

Osteoarthritis and Cartilage

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 547-554

  Wirth, W ^a,b   Nevitt, M ^c   Hellio Le Graverand, M P ^d   Benichou, O ^e   Dreher, D ^f   Davies, R Y ^g   Lee, J ^h   Picha, K ⁱ   Gimona, A ^j   Maschek, S ^a   Hudelmaier, M ^a,b   Eckstein, F ^a,b  

^a Chondrometrics GmbH   (Germany)

^b PARACELSUS MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d PFIZER GLOBAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

^e ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^f MERCK SERONO S A   (Switzerland)

^g GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

^h PFIZER INC   (United States)

ⁱ CENTOCOR INC   (United States)

^j NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

more..

Author keywords

Cartilage thickness; Double echo at steady state; Magnetic resonance imaging; Osteoarthritis; Progression

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ARTICULAR CARTILAGE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; FEMUR CONDYLE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORPHOMETRICS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STANDARDIZATION;

AGED; CARTILAGE, ARTICULAR; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; KNEE JOINT; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 77950022397     PISSN: 10634584     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2009.12.003     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Peterfy C., Kothari M. Imaging osteoarthritis: magnetic resonance imaging versus x-ray. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2006, 8:16-21.
2. Peterfy C.G., Schneider E., Nevitt M. The osteoarthritis initiative: report on the design rationale for the magnetic resonance imaging protocol for the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008, 16:1433-1441.
3. Burgkart R., Glaser C., Hyhlik-Durr A., Englmeier K.H., Reiser M., Eckstein F. Magnetic resonance imaging-based assessment of cartilage loss in severe osteoarthritis: accuracy, precision, and diagnostic value. Arthritis Rheum 2001, 44:2072-2077.
4. Graichen H., Eisenhart-Rothe R., Vogl T., Englmeier K.H., Eckstein F. Quantitative assessment of cartilage status in osteoarthritis by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging: technical validation for use in analysis of cartilage volume and further morphologic parameters. Arthritis Rheum 2004, 50:811-816.
5. Eckstein F., Cicuttini F., Raynauld J.P., Waterton J.C., Peterfy C. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of articular cartilage in knee osteoarthritis (OA): morphological assessment. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006, 14(Suppl 1):46-75.
6. Eckstein F., Burstein D., Link T.M. Quantitative MRI of cartilage and bone: degenerative changes in osteoarthritis. NMR Biomed 2006, 19:822-854.
7. Eckstein F., Charles H.C., Buck R.J., Kraus V.B., Remmers A.E., Hudelmaier M., et al. Accuracy and precision of quantitative assessment of cartilage morphology by magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T. Arthritis Rheum 2005, 52:3132-3136.
8. Eckstein F., Hudelmaier M., Wirth W., Kiefer B., Jackson R., Yu J., et al. Double echo steady state magnetic resonance imaging of knee articular cartilage at 3 Tesla: a pilot study for the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2006, 65:433-441.
9. Eckstein F., Buck R.J., Burstein D., Charles H.C., Crim J., Hudelmaier M., et al. Precision of 3.0 Tesla quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage morphology in a multicentre clinical trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2008, 67:1683-1688.
10. Gold G.E., Hargreaves B.A., Reeder S.B., Vasanawala S.S., Beaulieu C.F. Controversies in protocol selection in the imaging of articular cartilage. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2005, 9:161-172.
11. Gold G.E., Hargreaves B.A., Stevens K.J., Beaulieu C.F. Advanced magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage. Orthop Clin North Am 2006, 37:331-347. vi.
12. Hardy P.A., Recht M.P., Piraino D., Thomasson D. Optimization of a dual echo in the steady state (DESS) free-precession sequence for imaging cartilage. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996, 6:329-335.
13. Mosher T.J., Pruett S.W. Magnetic resonance imaging of superficial cartilage lesions: role of contrast in lesion detection. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999, 10:178-182.
14. Eckstein F., Kunz M., Hudelmaier M., Jackson R., Yu J., Eaton C.B., et al. Impact of coil design on the contrast-to-noise ratio, precision, and consistency of quantitative cartilage morphometry at 3 Tesla: a pilot study for the osteoarthritis initiative. Magn Reson Med 2007, 57:448-454.
15. Eckstein F., Kunz M., Schutzer M., Hudelmaier M., Jackson R.D., Yu J., et al. Two year longitudinal change and test-retest-precision of knee cartilage morphology in a pilot study for the osteoarthritis initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007, 15:1326-1332.
16. Eckstein F., Maschek S., Wirth W., Hudelmaier M., Hitzl W., Wyman B., et al. One year change of knee cartilage morphology in the first release of participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative progression subcohort: association with sex, body mass index, symptoms and radiographic osteoarthritis status. Ann Rheum Dis 2009, 68:674-679.
17. Hunter D.J., Niu J., Zhang Y., Totterman S., Tamez J., Dabrowski C., et al. Change in cartilage morphometry: a sample of the progression cohort of the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2009, 68:349-356.
18. Eckstein F., Benichou O., Wirth W., Nelson D.R., Maschek S., Hudelmaier M., et al. Osteoarthritis Initiative Investigators. Arthritis Rheum 2009, 61(9):1218-1225.
19. Altman R.D., Gold G.E. Atlas of individual radiographic features in osteoarthritis, revised. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007, 15(Suppl A):1-56.
20. Altman R.D., Hochberg M., Murphy W.A., Wolfe F., Lequesne M. Atlas of individual radiographic features in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 1995, 3(Suppl A):3-70.
21. Koo S., Gold G.E., Andriacchi T.P. Considerations in measuring cartilage thickness using MRI: factors influencing reproducibility and accuracy. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005, 13:782-789.
22. Pelletier J.P., Raynauld J.P., Berthiaume M.J., Abram F., Choquette D., Haraoui B., et al. Risk factors associated with the loss of cartilage volume on weight-bearing areas in knee osteoarthritis patients assessed by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging: a longitudinal study. Arthritis Res Ther 2007, 9:R74.
23. Wirth W., Eckstein F. A technique for regional analysis of femorotibial cartilage thickness based on quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2008, 27:737-744.
24. Wirth W., Hellio Le Graverand M.P., Wyman B.T., Maschek S., Hudelmaier M., Hitzl W., et al. Regional analysis of femorotibial cartilage loss in a subsample from the Osteoarthritis Initiative progression subcohort. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009, 17:291-297.
25. Buck R.J., Wyman B.T., Le Graverand M.P., Hudelmaier M., Wirth W., Eckstein F. Does the use of ordered values of subregional change in cartilage thickness improve the detection of disease progression in longitudinal studies of osteoarthritis?. Arthritis Rheum 2009, 61:917-924.
26. Bae K.T., Shim H., Tao C., Chang S., Wang J.H., Boudreau R., et al. Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of volume measurement of knee cartilage segmented from the OAI MR image set using a novel semi-automated segmentation method. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009, 12:1589-1597.
27. Gold G.E., Hargreaves B.A., Reeder S.B., Block W.F., Kijowski R., Vasanawala S.S., et al. Balanced SSFP imaging of the musculoskeletal system. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007, 25:270-278.
28. Kijowski R., Blankenbaker D.G., Klaers J.L., Shinki K., De Smet A.A., Block W.F. Vastly undersampled isotropic projection steady-state free precession imaging of the knee: diagnostic performance compared with conventional MR. Radiology 2009, 251:185-194.
29. Kijowski R., Davis K.W., Woods M.A., Lindstrom M.J., De Smet A.A., Gold G.E., et al. Knee joint: comprehensive assessment with 3D isotropic resolution fast spin-echo MR imaging-diagnostic performance compared with that of conventional MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology 2009, 252:486-495.