Gaining Insight into Updated MR Imaging for Quantitative Assessment of Cartilage Injury in Knee Osteoarthritis

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Knee Osteoarthritis (KOA) entails progressive cartilage degradation, reviewed via MRI for morphology, biochemical composition, and microtissue alterations, discussing clinical advantages, limitations, and research applicability.

RECENT FINDINGS

Compositional MRI, like T2/T2* mapping, T1rho mapping, gagCEST, dGEMRIC, sodium imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and diffusion-tensor imaging, provide insights into cartilage injury in KOA. These methods quantitatively measure collagen, glycosaminoglycans, and water content, revealing important information about biochemical compositional and microstructural alterations. Innovative techniques like hybrid multi-dimensional MRI and diffusion-relaxation correlation spectrum imaging show potential in depicting initial cartilage changes at a sub-voxel level. Integration of automated image analysis tools addressed limitations in manual cartilage segmentation, ensuring robust and reproducible assessments of KOA cartilage. Compositional MRI techniques reveal microstructural changes in cartilage. Multi-dimensional MR imaging assesses biochemical alterations in KOA-afflicted cartilage, aiding early degeneration identification. Integrating artificial intelligence enhances cartilage analysis, optimal diagnostic accuracy for early KOA detection and monitoring.

Biomarkers of Cartilage Composition

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has significantly advanced the understanding of osteoarthritis (OA) because it enables visualization of noncalcified tissues. Cartilage is avascular and nurtured by diffusion, so it has a very low turnover and limited capabilities of repair. Consequently, prevention of structural and detection of premorphological damage is key in maintaining cartilage health. The integrity of cartilage composition and ultrastructure determines its mechanical properties but is not accessible to morphological imaging. Therefore, various techniques of compositional MRI with and without use of intravenous contrast medium have been developed. Spin-spin relaxation time (T2) and spin-lattice relaxation time constant in rotating frame (T1rho) mapping, the most studied cartilage biomarkers, were included in the recent standardization effort by the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) that aims to make compositional MRI of cartilage clinically feasible and comparable. Additional techniques that are less frequently used include ultrashort echo time with T2*, delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC), glycosaminoglycan concentration by chemical exchange-dependent saturation transfer (gagCEST), sodium imaging, and diffusion-weighted MRI.

Update: Posttreatment Imaging of the Knee after Cartilage Repair

Focal cartilage lesions are common pathologies at the knee joint that are considered important risk factors for the premature development of osteoarthritis. A wide range of surgical options, including but not limited to marrow stimulation, osteochondral auto- and allografting, and autologous chondrocyte implantation, allows for targeted treatment of focal cartilage defects. Arthroscopy is the standard of reference for the assessment of cartilage integrity and quality before and after repair. However, deep cartilage layers, intrachondral composition, and the subchondral bone are only partially or not at all visualized with arthroscopy. In contrast, magnetic resonance imaging offers noninvasive evaluation of the cartilage repair site, the subchondral bone, and the soft tissues of the joint pre- and postsurgery. Radiologists need to be familiar with the different surgical procedures available and their characteristic postsurgical imaging appearances to assess treatment success and possible complications adequately. We provide an overview of the most commonly performed surgical procedures for cartilage repair at the knee and typical postsurgical imaging characteristics.

Dose-Lowering in Contrast-Enhanced MRI of the Central Nervous System: A Retrospective, Parallel-Group Comparison Using Gadobenate Dimeglumine

Background

Concerns over gadolinium (Gd) retention encourage the use of lower Gd doses. However, lower Gd doses may compromise imaging performance. Higher relaxivity gadobenate may be suited to reduced dose protocols.

Purpose

To compare 0.05 mmol/kg and 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate in patients undergoing enhanced MRI of the central nervous system (CNS).

Study Type

Retrospective, multicenter.

Population

Three hundred and fifty‐two patients receiving 0.05 (n = 181) or 0.1 (n = 171) mmol/kg gadobenate.

Field Strength/Sequences

1.5 T and 3.0 T/precontrast and postcontrast T1‐weighted spin echo/fast spin echo (SE/FSE) and/or gradient echo/fast field echo (GRE/FFE); precontrast T2‐weighted FSE and T2‐FLAIR.

Assessment

Images of patients with extra‐axial lesions at 1.5 T or any CNS lesion at 3.0 T were reviewed by three blinded, independent neuroradiologists for qualitative (lesion border delineation, internal morphology visualization, contrast enhancement; scores from 1 = poor to 4 = excellent) and quantitative (lesion‐to‐brain ratio [LBR], contrast‐to‐noise ratio [CNR]; SI measurements at regions‐of‐interest on lesion and normal parenchyma) enhancement measures. Noninferiority of 0.05 mmol/kg gadobenate was determined for each qualitative endpoint if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in precontrast + postcontrast means was above a noninferiority margin of −0.4.

Statistical Tests

Student's t‐test for comparison of mean qualitative endpoint scores, Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison of LBR and CNR values; Wilcoxon rank sum test for comparison of SI changes. Tests were significant for P < 0.05.

Results

The mean change from precontrast to precontrast + postcontrast was significant for all endpoints. Readers 1, 2, and 3 evaluated 304, 225, and 249 lesions for 0.05 mmol/kg gadobenate, and 382, 309, and 298 lesions for 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate. The lower limit of the 95% CI was above −0.4 for all comparisons. Significantly, higher LBR and CNR was observed with the higher dose.

Data Conclusion

0.05 mmol/kg gadobenate was noninferior to 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate for lesion visualization.

Evidence Level

2

Technical Efficacy

Stage 3