Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background Cartilage T 2 can detect joints at risk of developing osteoarthritis. The quantitative double‐echo steady state (qDESS) sequence is attractive for knee cartilage T 2 mapping because of its acquisition time of under 5 minutes. Understanding the reproducibility errors associated with qDESS T 2 is essential to profiling the technical performance of this biomarker. Purpose To examine the combined acquisition and segmentation reproducibility of knee cartilage qDESS T 2 using two different regional analysis schemes: 1) manual segmentation of subregions loaded during common activities and 2) automatic subregional segmentation. Study Type Prospective. Subjects 11 uninjured participants (age: 28 ± 3 years; 8 (73%) female). Field Strength/Sequence 3‐T, qDESS. Assessment Test–retest T 2 maps were acquired twice on the same day and with a 1‐week interval between scans. For each acquisition, average cartilage T 2 was calculated in four manually segmented regions encompassing tibiofemoral contact areas during common activities and 12 automatically segmented regions from the deep‐learning open‐source framework for musculoskeletal MRI analysis (DOSMA) encompassing medial and lateral anterior, central, and posterior tibiofemoral regions. Test–retest T 2 values from matching regions were used to evaluate reproducibility. Statistical Tests Coefficients of variation (%CV), root‐mean‐square‐average‐CV (%RMSA‐CV), and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) assessed test–retest T 2 reproducibility. The median of test–retest standard deviations was used for T 2 precision. Bland–Altman (BA) analyses examined test–retest biases. The smallest detectable difference (SDD) was defined as the BA limit of agreement of largest magnitude. Significance was accepted for P 0.75 were observed in the majority of regions but were more variable in interday tibial comparisons. Test–retest T 2 precision was 5% (3.8 msec) could represent changes to cartilage composition. Level of Evidence 2. Technical Efficacy Stage 2.
Williams et al. (Sat,) studied this question.