Contribution of regional 3D meniscus and cartilage morphometry byMRI to joint space width in fixed flexion knee radiography-Abetween-knee comparison in subjects with unilateral jointspace narrowing

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 82, Issue 12, 2013, Pages

  Bloecker, K ^a   Wirth, W ^a,b   Hunter, D J ^d   Duryea, J ^e   Guermazi, A ^f,h   Kwoh, C K ^b,g   Resch, H ^a   Eckstein, F ^a,c  

^a PARACELSUS MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^c Chondrometrics GmbH   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^e BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^f BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g Boston Imaging Core Lab BICL   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

3D; Cartilage morphometry; Fixed flexion knee radiography; Joint space width; Meniscus morphometry; MRI quantitative imaging

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARTILAGE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; JOINT CAVITY; JOINT SPACE NARROWING; KNEE FUNCTION; KNEE MENISCUS; KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; MORPHOMETRICS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOGRAPHY; THICKNESS; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

3D MRI QUANTITATIVE IMAGING; CARTILAGE MORPHOMETRY; FIXED FLEXION KNEE RADIOGRAPHY; JOINT SPACE WIDTH; MENISCUS MORPHOMETRY;

AGED; ARTHROGRAPHY; CARTILAGE, ARTICULAR; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MENISCI, TIBIAL; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; PATIENT POSITIONING; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84890806084     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: 18727727     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.08.041     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Geetha N, Jayaprakash M, Rekhanair A, Ramachandran K, Rajan B. Plasma cellneoplasms in the young. British Journal of Radiology 1999;72:1012-5.
2. Bird JM, Owen RG, D'Sa S, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and managementof multiple myeloma 2011. British Journal of Haematology 2011;154:32-75.
3. Landgren O, Kyle RA, Pfeiffer RM, et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of unde-termined significance (MGUS) consistently precedes multiple myeloma: aprospective study. Blood 2009;113(May (22)):5412-7.
4. Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification andresponse assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2009;23(1):3-9.
5. Hughes M, Soutar R, Lucraft H, Owen R, Bird J. Guidelines on the diagnosisand management of solitary plasmacytoma of bone, extramedullary plasma-cytoma and multiple solitary plasmacytomas: 2009 update. London, UK: BritishCommittee for Standards in Haematology; 2009. p. 14.
6. Bird JM, Fuge R, Sirohi B, et al. The clinical outcome and toxicity of high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in patientswith myeloma or amyloid and severe renal impairment: a British Societyof Blood and Marrow Transplantation study. British Journal of Haematology2006;134:385-90.
7. Dimopoulos M, Terpos E, Comenzo RL, et al. International myeloma work-ing group consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current role ofimaging techniques in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma.Role of imaging techniques in multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2009;23:1545-56.
8. Durie BG, Salmon SE. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Correla-tion of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, responseto treatment, and survival. Cancer 1975;36(September (3)):842-54.
9. Hess T, Egerer G, Kasper B, Rasul KI, Goldschmidt H, Kauffmann GW. Atyp-ical manifestations of multiple myeloma: radiological appearance. EuropeanJournal of Radiology 2006;58:280-5.
10. Horger M, Pereira P, Claussen CD, et al. Hyperattenuating bone marrowabnormalities in myeloma patients using whole-body non-enhanced low-doseMDCT: correlation with haematological parameters. British Journal of Radiol-ogy 2008;81(965):386-96.
11. Horger M, Claussen CD, Bross-Bach U, et al. Whole-body low-dose multidetec-tor row-CT in the diagnosis of multiple myeloma: an alternative to conventionalradiography. European Journal of Radiology 2005;54(May (2)):289-97.
12. Gleeson TG, Moriarty J, Shortt CP, et al. Accuracy of whole-body low-dose mul-tidetector CT (WBLDCT) versus skeletal survey in the detection of myelomatouslesions, and correlation of disease distribution with whole-body MRI (WBMRI).Skeletal Radiology 2009;38(March (3)):225-36.
13. Lütje S, de Rooy JW, Croockewit S, Koedam E, Oyen WJ, Raymakers RA. Roleof radiography MRI and FDG-PET/CT in diagnosing, staging and therapeu-tical evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. Annals of Hematology2009; 88(December (12)):1161-8.
14. Mahnken AH, Wildberger JE, Gehbauer G, et al. Multidetector CT of the spine inmultiple myeloma: comparison with MR imaging and radiography. AmericanJournal of Roentgenology 2002;178:1429-30.
15. Hur J, Yoon CS, Ryu YH, Yun MJ, Suh JS. Efficacy of multidetector row com-puted tomography of the spine in patients with multiple myeloma: comparisonwith magnetic resonance imaging and fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emissiontomography. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 2007;31:342-7.
16. Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Becker C, et al. Whole-body MRI versuswhole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. American Journal ofRoentgenology 2008;190(April (4)):1097-104.
17. Horger M, Kanz L, Denecke B, et al. The benefit of using whole-body, low-dose, nonenhanced, multidetector computed tomography for follow-up andtherapy response monitoring in patients with multiple myeloma. Cancer2007;109(April (8)):1617-26.
18. Spira D, Weisel K, Brodoefel H, Schulze M, Kaufmann S, Horger M. Can whole-body low-dose multidetector CT exclude the presence of myeloma bonedisease in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined signifi-cance (MGUS)? Academic Radiology 2012;19(January (1)):89-94.
19. Delorme S, Baur-Melnyk A. Imaging in multiple myeloma. European Journal ofRadiology 2009;70:401-8.
20. Kröpil P, Fenk R, Fritz LB, et al. Comparison of whole-body 64-slice multidetec-tor computed tomography and conventional radiography in staging of multiplemyeloma. European Radiology 2008;18(January (1)):51-8.
21. D'Sa S, Abildgaard N, Tighe J, Shaw P, Hall M. Guidelines for the use of imagingin the management of myeloma. British Journal of Haematology 2007;137:49-63.
22. Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratificationand response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2009;23(January(1)):3-9.
23. Durie BG. The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: descriptionof Durie/Salmon PLUS staging system. European Journal of Cancer 2006;July(42):1539-43.
24. Snapper I, Khan A. Myelomatosis: fundamentals and clinical features. Annalsof Internal Medicine 1971;75(September (3)):487-8.
25. Scane AC, Masud T, Johnson FJ, Francis RM. The reliability of diagnosing osteo-porosis from spinal radiographs. Age and Ageing 1994;23(July (4)):283-6.
26. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography - an increasing source of radiationexposure. New England Journal of Medicine 2007;357:84-2277.
27. Harvey CJ, Blomley MJK. Principles precautions of conventional radiography.Surgery 2003;21(July (7)):175-8.
28. Lecouvet FE, Malghem J, Michaux L, et al. Skeletal survey in advanced multiplemyeloma: radiographic versus MR imaging survey. British Journal of Haema-tology 1999;106:35-9.
29. Shortt CP, Breen KA, McHugh J, O'Connell MJ, O'Gorman PJ, Eustace SJ. Whole-body MRI versus PET in assessment of multiple myeloma disease activity.American Journal of Roentgenology 2009;192(April (4)):980-6.