Advanced

Repeatability of T1-quantification in dGEMRIC for three different acquisition techniques: two-dimensional inversion recovery, three-dimensional look locker, and three-dimensional variable flip angle.

Siversson, Carl LU ; Tiderius, Carl Johan LU ; Neuman, Paul LU ; Dahlberg, Leif LU and Svensson, Jonas LU (2010) In Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 31(5). p.1203-1209
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the repeatability of the dGEMRIC (delayed gadolinium enhanced MRI of cartilage) method in osteoarthritis-prone knee joints for three different T1 quantification techniques: two-dimensional inversion recovery (2D-IR), three-dimensional Look-Locker (3D-LL), and three-dimensional variable flip angle (3D-VFA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine subjects were examined twice, with a 2-week interval, using all three measurement techniques. Four regions of interest were defined in the central medial and lateral femoral cartilage. The repeatability was evaluated for each measurement technique. For the 3D techniques, the variation between different slices was also evaluated. RESULTS: Repeatability expressed by root-mean-square... (More)
PURPOSE: To evaluate the repeatability of the dGEMRIC (delayed gadolinium enhanced MRI of cartilage) method in osteoarthritis-prone knee joints for three different T1 quantification techniques: two-dimensional inversion recovery (2D-IR), three-dimensional Look-Locker (3D-LL), and three-dimensional variable flip angle (3D-VFA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine subjects were examined twice, with a 2-week interval, using all three measurement techniques. Four regions of interest were defined in the central medial and lateral femoral cartilage. The repeatability was evaluated for each measurement technique. For the 3D techniques, the variation between different slices was also evaluated. RESULTS: Repeatability expressed by root-mean-square coefficient of variation (CV(RMS)) showed similar results for 2D-IR and 3D-LL (5.4-8.4%). For 3D-VFA CV(RMS) was higher (9.3-15.2%). Intraclass correlation coefficient showed both 2D-IR and 3D-LL reliability to be moderate, while 3D-VFA reliability was low. Inter-slice CV(RMS) and ICC was of the same magnitude as the repeatability. No clear differences could be interpreted between the condyles. CONCLUSION: Both 2D-IR and 3D-LL perform well in generating repeatable dGEMRIC results, while 3D-VFA results are somewhat inferior. Furthermore, repeatability results in this study are similar to previously published results for healthy subjects. Finally, the positioning of the analyzed images is crucial to generate reliable repeatability results. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
volume
31
issue
5
pages
1203 - 1209
publisher
John Wiley & Sons
external identifiers
  • wos:000277397100021
  • pmid:20432357
  • scopus:77951573905
ISSN
1522-2586
DOI
10.1002/jmri.22159
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
689b2116-0da0-4dbe-a380-c8036cb9a2e2 (old id 1610692)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20432357?dopt=Abstract
date added to LUP
2010-06-01 08:42:52
date last changed
2018-06-03 04:31:36
@article{689b2116-0da0-4dbe-a380-c8036cb9a2e2,
  abstract     = {PURPOSE: To evaluate the repeatability of the dGEMRIC (delayed gadolinium enhanced MRI of cartilage) method in osteoarthritis-prone knee joints for three different T1 quantification techniques: two-dimensional inversion recovery (2D-IR), three-dimensional Look-Locker (3D-LL), and three-dimensional variable flip angle (3D-VFA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine subjects were examined twice, with a 2-week interval, using all three measurement techniques. Four regions of interest were defined in the central medial and lateral femoral cartilage. The repeatability was evaluated for each measurement technique. For the 3D techniques, the variation between different slices was also evaluated. RESULTS: Repeatability expressed by root-mean-square coefficient of variation (CV(RMS)) showed similar results for 2D-IR and 3D-LL (5.4-8.4%). For 3D-VFA CV(RMS) was higher (9.3-15.2%). Intraclass correlation coefficient showed both 2D-IR and 3D-LL reliability to be moderate, while 3D-VFA reliability was low. Inter-slice CV(RMS) and ICC was of the same magnitude as the repeatability. No clear differences could be interpreted between the condyles. CONCLUSION: Both 2D-IR and 3D-LL perform well in generating repeatable dGEMRIC results, while 3D-VFA results are somewhat inferior. Furthermore, repeatability results in this study are similar to previously published results for healthy subjects. Finally, the positioning of the analyzed images is crucial to generate reliable repeatability results.},
  author       = {Siversson, Carl and Tiderius, Carl Johan and Neuman, Paul and Dahlberg, Leif and Svensson, Jonas},
  issn         = {1522-2586},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {1203--1209},
  publisher    = {John Wiley & Sons},
  series       = {Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging},
  title        = {Repeatability of T1-quantification in dGEMRIC for three different acquisition techniques: two-dimensional inversion recovery, three-dimensional look locker, and three-dimensional variable flip angle.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22159},
  volume       = {31},
  year         = {2010},
}