4.7 Article

T2 Relaxation time quantitation differs between pulse sequences in articular cartilage

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 42, Issue 1, Pages 105-113

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24757

Keywords

cartilage; magnetic resonance imaging; T-2 relaxation time mapping; pulse sequence

Funding

  1. NIH [EB002524, AR062068, CA159992]
  2. GE Healthcare

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundTo compare T-2 relaxation time measurements between MR pulse sequences at 3 Tesla in agar phantoms and in vivo patellar, femoral, and tibial articular cartilage. MethodsT(2) relaxation times were quantified in phantoms and knee articular cartilage of eight healthy individuals using a single echo spin echo (SE) as a reference standard and five other pulse sequences: multi-echo SE (MESE), fast SE (2D-FSE), magnetization-prepared spoiled gradient echo (3D-MAPSS), three-dimensional (3D) 3D-FSE with variable refocusing flip angle schedules (3D vfl-FSE), and quantitative double echo steady state (qDESS). Cartilage was manually segmented and average regional T-2 relaxation times were obtained for each sequence. A regression analysis was carried out between each sequence and the reference standard, and root-mean-square error (RMSE) was calculated. ResultsPhantom measurements from all sequences demonstrated strong fits (R-2>0.8; P<0.05). For in vivo cartilage measurements, R-2 values, slope, and RMSE were: MESE: 0.25/0.42/5.0 ms, 2D-FSE: 0.64/1.31/9.3 ms, 3D-MAPSS: 0.51/0.66/3.8 ms, 3D vfl-FSE: 0.30/0.414.2 ms, qDESS: 0.60/0.90/4.6 ms. Conclusion2D-FSE, qDESS, and 3D-MAPSS demonstrated the best fits with SE measurements as well as the greatest dynamic ranges. The 3D-MAPSS, 3D vfl-FSE, and qDESS demonstrated the closest average measurements to SE. Discrepancies in T-2 relaxation time quantitation between sequences suggest that care should be taken when comparing results between studies. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015;42:105-113. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available