Quantitative Imaging: MR Fingerprinting: Clinical Perspective
Riccardo Lattanzi1

1Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI2R) and Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States

Synopsis

Morphologic MRI can detect only macroscopic changes associated with advanced cartilage lesions. While quantitative MR parameters can enable early diagnosis, scan time limitations, inconsistency between measurements and unsettled diagnostic interpretation have prevented extensive clinical validation, restricting their use to research settings. Magnetic resonance fingerprinting provides robust and reliable reconstruction of multiple parameters from a single, fast MR acquisition, which could enable to translate quantitative imaging into clinical practice.

Target Audience

MR scientists and clinicians interested in using quantitative MRI for the diagnosis of musculoskeletal disorders.

Outcome/Objectives

This educational talk will review techniques based on the principles of MR Fingerprinting (MRF) that were recently proposed for musculoskeletal applications. Attendees will learn what are the challenges to translate MRF-based quantitative imaging into clinical practice. An example about the clinical application of MRF for early diagnosis of hip cartilage damage will be presented.

Purpose

MRI is a powerful tool for noninvasive evaluation of joints [1-4]. MRI, for example, has emerged as the preferred diagnostic modality to determine the presence and extent of lesions in the hip articular cartilage and acetabular labrum [2], due to its multiplanar image acquisition capability and its high soft tissue contrast. However, routine MRI can diagnose cartilage defects only if there are morphologic changes, whereas cartilage may already be irreversibly compromised at a biochemical level despite appearing as normal. Continued development in the field of quantitative MRI in recent years has seen the emergence of techniques able to probe the earliest biochemical changes in cartilage [5-11]. However, scan time limitations, inconsistency between measurements, and time‐consuming cartilage segmentation for diagnostic interpretation have prevented extensive clinical validation of quantitative MR techniques, restricting their common use to research settings. The introduction of magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) [12], a novel approach to data acquisition, postprocessing, and visualization, might enable robust and reliable reconstruction of multiple parameters from a single, fast MR acquisition.

Methods

We have recently developed an MRF technique for potentially reproducible T1 and T2 mapping in the hip with clinically acceptable resolution (0.6 × 0.6 mm2) and total scan time of approximately 7 minutes [13]. Since transmit field (B1+) nonuniformity can bias quantitative hip imaging at 3 T [14], our MRF implementation was designed to simultaneously measure B1+, in addition to proton density (PD), T1, and T2. To simplify workflow and enhance reproducibility, an automatic slice positioning system was implemented. We employed a multimodal multilabel classification strategy to segment the hip cartilage, exploiting the different contrasts provided by our MRF framework (T1, T2, PD). To assess the intrinsic reproducibility of our technique, we scanned a multicompartment phantom on three different clinical 3 T MR scanners. To assess the in vivo reproducibility of our quantitative hip cartilage evaluation method, we scanned three healthy volunteers six times on the same day, twice on each of the three clinical scanners used for phantom validation.

Results

The accuracy of the phantom T1 and T2 values was estimated using gold standard measurements as the reference. The estimation error was less than 3% for the range of relaxation times expected for cartilage. The average inter-scanner coefficient of variation (CV) among all phantom compartments was 1.5% and 0.9% for T1 and T2. The median of T1 and T2 within the segmented hip cartilage was consistent among repeated acquisitions with different scanners for all three volunteers. The intrascanner variability was ~1% and 3% for T1 and T2, respectively. Inter-scanner variability was 2% for T1 and 5.5% for T2.

Discussion/Conclusion

We introduced a new technique for clinically feasible quantitative imaging (PD, T1, and T2) of the hip articular cartilage. By combining model‐based parameter estimation together with automatic slice positioning and semiautomatic segmentation, we showed that quantitative cartilage evaluation could be highly reproducible. We have recently begun a longitudinal study on a large cohort of patients with hip pathologies, which is aimed at assessing the usefulness of quantitative cartilage evaluation with the long-term goal of translating quantitative cartilage assessment into routine hip imaging protocols.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the research grants NIH/NIBIB R21 EB020096 and NIH/NIAMS R01 AR070297, and was performed under the rubric of the Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI2R, www.cai2r.net), a NIBIB Biomedical Technology Resource Center (NIH P41 EB017183).

References

  1. Recht MP, Goodwin DW, Winalski CS, White LM. MRI of articular cartilage: revisiting current status and future directions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Oct;185(4):899-914.
  2. Anderson SE, Siebenrock KA, Mamisch TC, Tannast M. Femoroacetabular impingement magnetic resonance imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2009;20:123e8.
  3. Wang Y, Wluka AE, Jones G, Ding C, Cicuttini FM. Use magnetic resonance imaging to assess articular cartilage. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2012 Apr;4(2):77-97. doi: 10.1177/1759720X11431005. PubMed PMID: 22870497.
  4. Palmer AJ, Brown CP, McNally EG, Price AJ, Tracey I, Jezzard P, Carr AJ, Glyn-Jones S. Non-invasive imaging of cartilage in early osteoarthritis. Bone Joint J. 2013 Jun;95-B(6):738-46. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B6.31414.
  5. Kurkijärvi JE, Nissi MJ, Kiviranta I, Jurvelin JS, Nieminen MT. Delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) and T2 characteristics of human knee articular cartilage: topographical variation and relationships to mechanical properties. Magn Reson Med. 2004 Jul;52(1):41-6.
  6. Dunn TC, Lu Y, Jin H, Ries MD, Majumdar S. T2 relaxation time of cartilage at MR imaging: comparison with severity of knee osteoarthritis. Radiology. 2004 Aug;232(2):592-8.
  7. Lattanzi R, Petchprapa C, Ascani D, Babb JS, Chu D, Davidovitch RI, Youm T, Meislin RJ, Recht MP. Detection of cartilage damage in femoroacetabular impingement with standardized dGEMRIC at 3 T. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014 Mar;22(3):447-56.
  8. Wang L, Regatte RR. T₁ρ MRI of human musculoskeletal system. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Mar;41(3):586-600.
  9. Raya JG. Techniques and applications of in vivo diffusion imaging of articular cartilage. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Jun;41(6):1487-504. doi:10.1002/jmri.24767.
  10. Zibetti MVW, Baboli R, Chang G, Otazo R, Regatte RR. Rapid compositional mapping of knee cartilage with compressed sensing MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Nov;48(5):1185-1198.
  11. Tsai PH, Wong CC, Chan WP, Lu TW. The value of MR T2* measurements in normal and osteoarthritic knee cartilage: effects of age, sex, and location. Eur Radiol. 2019 Jan 7.
  12. Ma D, Gulani V, Seiberlich N, Liu K, Sunshine JL, Duerk JL, Griswold MA. Magnetic resonance fingerprinting. Nature. 2013 Mar 14;495(7440):187-92.
  13. Cloos MA, Assländer J, Abbas B, Fishbaugh J, Babb JS, Gerig G, Lattanzi R. Rapid Radial T1and T2Mapping of the Hip Articular Cartilage with Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Dec 24.
  14. Lattanzi R, Glaser C, Mikheev AV, et al. A B1‐insensitive high‐resolution 2D T1 mapping pulse sequence for dGEMRIC of the hip at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2011;66:348–355.
Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 27 (2019)