Hon J. Yu1, Alex Luk1, Jimmy Ton1, Edward Kuoy1, Jeff Russell2, Kelli Sharp3, and Hiroshi Yoshioka1
1Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States, 2Science and Health in Artistic Performance, Ohio University, Athens, OH, 3Arts-Dance, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States
Synopsis
This
study demonstrates feasibility in manual segmentation of talar dome using MRI
of the ankle and provides a systematic approach in assessment of image-based
segmentation utilizing purely geometrical attributes and subsequent validation of angle-dependent analysis of T2 and T1ρ mapping of the cartilage. The results clearly demonstrates the magic angle effect of the talar dome
cartilage on T2 mapping and also the important fact that repeatability assessment of segmentation should be made using the geometrical attributes rather than the underlying segmentation-based quantity.
Purpose
T2/T1ρ
mapping is a new physiologic/biochemical and quantitative MRI recently introduced
for evaluation of the knee or hip cartilage. However, it has rarely been used
in the ankle. The purpose of this study was to determine reproducibility of
quantitative measurement of T2/T1ρ mappings of healthy talar dome cartilage using
angle-dependent approach, and to investigate their regional variations within
the talar dome cartilage.Materials and Methods
The study protocol was approved by the institutional review
board, and all subjects gave written informed consent before any study-related
procedures were done. Ten healthy female volunteers (mean: 20.4 yrs, range:
19-24) were enrolled and scanned for the equal number of left and right ankles.
All MR studies were performed on a 3T scanner (Achieva, Philips Healthcare,
Netherlands) using an 8-channel, dedicated ankle/foot coil. Three sagittal
images were acquired including fat suppressed (FS) proton density-weighted
imaging (PDWI) sequence, T2 mapping sequence, and T1ρ mapping sequences with
true sagittal angulation parallel to the magnetic static field (B0). The
acquisition parameters were as follows. FS PDWI: 2D turbo spin-echo; repetition
time (TR)/echo time (TE)= 3958/30 ms, number of excitation (NEX)=1, and total
acquisition time=2.5 minutes. T2 mapping: 2D turbo spin-echo; TR/TE=3000/13,
26, 39, 52, 65, 78, 91 ms, NEX=1 and total acquisition time=11 minutes. T1ρ:
3D FS PROSET (PRinciple Of Selective Excitation Technique); TR/TE=7.5/3.8 ms,
flip angle=10°, NEX=1, spin-lock frequency=575 Hz, time of spin-lock (TSL)= 0, 10,
20, 40, and 80 ms, and acquisition time=3 minutes 51 seconds for each TSL. All
images were obtained with field of view (FOV)=140x140mm, slice thickness/gap=3/0
mm, image matrix=512×512, and number of slices=20.
Manual
cartilage segmentation of the entire talar dome on randomized T2 and T1ρ
images was performed by one reader using in-house developed and implemented
software in MatLab (MathWorks, Natick, USA). With an interval of two weeks,
cartilage segmentation was repeated by the same reader after another randomization
of data. T2 and T1ρ angle-dependent profiles of the entire talar dome were
created by angular segmentation in steps of 4-degrees over the length of the
segmented cartilage (with the angle 0 defined along B0 as shown Fig.1) using a
custom Matlab program. Intra-reader reproducibility was investigated using
Bland-Altman (BA) analysis on geometrical aspects of segmentation (the number
of pixel from and the radial-distance as shown in Fig. 1 to each segment) as well as T2 and T1ρ values from individual angular segmentation.Results
The
repeatability of segmentation was first assessed using correlation and BA plot
of the radial distance (Fig.2) and number of pixels (Fig.3), respectively, over
the common slices and angular ranges where the segmentation was repeated.
A relatively high repeatability was observed between the first and second segmentation
in terms of the geometrical attributes of each angular segment. A statistically
significant linear correlation (r > 0.999) was observed from both T2 and
T1ρ segmentation in terms of the radial distance. Segmentation using T2
yielded a slightly more consistent size of angular segment than that of T1ρ when
repeated (mean-difference in pixel-#: 0.36 vs. 0.54, respectively, for T2 and
T1ρ). T2 and T1ρ values from the individual angular segments were compared
using BA plot (Fig.4). An appreciably higher repeatability can be observed with
T1ρ than T2 (mean-difference: 0.23 vs. 0.50, respectively). Since a similar
segmentation repeatability was observed from both in terms of the geometrical
aspects, this is very likely due to a more homogeneous nature of T1ρ within
the cartilage in comparison to T2 as well as the chemical-shift artifact influencing
more on T2 than T1ρ mapping. The central segmented slice
from each subject was also pooled together to demonstrate the angular profile
in T2 and T1ρ as the average of and the difference from the repeated
segmentation for each quantity (Fig.5). The graph of mean T2 mapping
demonstrates minimum values near 180 degree parallel to the B0 direction, while
it increased over the anterior and posterior talar dome when it approached the
magic angle. On the other hand, the angular dependent changes were much more
subtle in T1ρ of talar dome cartilage.Conclusion
This
study demonstrates feasibility in manual segmentation of talar dome using MRI
of the ankle and provides a systematic approach in assessment of image-based
segmentation utilizing both purely geometrical attributes and the underlying
segmentation-based quantity (here, T2 and T1ρ). Angle-dependent
approach clearly demonstrated the magic angle effect of the talar dome
cartilage on T2 mapping. The results also demonstrate the important fact that repeatability
assessment in image-segmentation can be misleading when such assessment is based
on the underlying segmentation-based quantity rather than the geometrical
nature of segmentation.Acknowledgements
Funding source: Institute for Clinical & Translational Science (ICTS) at University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine/Clair Trevor School of Arts Grant: T2 and T1ρ cartilage mapping of the ankle joint of ballet dancers
References
No reference found.