Quantitative ultrashort echo time magnetization transfer (UTE-MT) for diagnosis of early cartilage degeneration: Comparison with UTE-T2∗ and T2 mapping

Abstract

Background: To investigate the feasibility of using quantitative ultrashort echo time magnetization transfer (UTE-MT) technique in diagnosing early cartilage degeneration and to compare the technique's diagnostic efficacy with UTE-T2∗ mapping and T2 mapping. Methods: Twenty human anterolateral condyle specimens with degeneration were obtained from volunteers undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA); they then underwent magnetic resonance (MR) scan on a clinical 3.0T scanner (GE, MR750). Seventy-two regions of interest (ROI) were manually drawn on specimens for UTE-MT, UTE-T2∗, and T2 measurement, and the corresponding cartilage-bone regions were further divided into degeneration classifications of normal (n=11, Mankin scores 0-1), mild (n=28, Mankin scores 2-5), moderate (n=21, Mankin scores 6-9), and severe (n=12, Mankin scores 10-14) based on histological measures of degeneration (i.e., Mankin scores) as a reference standard. Differences among groups and correlations between quantitative MR parameters and Mankin scores were assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tamhane-T2, LSD, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Spearman's correlation coefficient. The receiveroperating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to compare the diagnostic efficacy of different quantitative MR parameters for the detection of mild cartilage degeneration. Results: The UTE magnetization transfer ratio (UTE-MTR) in the normal group was significantly different from the mild group (P=0.021), moderate group (P<0.001), and severe group (P<0.001). Significant differences were observed in the T2∗ values between both the normal group and the moderate group (P<0.032), and between the normal group and the severe group (P<0.001). For T2 values, the only significant difference was observed between the severe group and the normal group (P=0.011). The UTE-MTR, UTE-T2*, and T2 values were all significantly correlated with Mankin scores: UTE-MTR values were strongly (r=-0.678, P<0.001) correlated, UTE-T2∗ values were markedly correlated (r=-0.501, P<0.001), and T2 values were weakly correlated (r=0.337, P=0.004) correlated with Mankin scores. The diagnostic efficacy of UTE-MTR (AUC =0.828, P=0.002) was better than UTE T2∗ mapping and T2 mapping (AUC =0.604, P=0.318; AUC =0.644, P=0.165, respectively) for the diagnosis of early cartilage degeneration. Conclusions: UTE-MTR values were strongly correlated with histological grades of cartilage degeneration, and its diagnostic efficacy was better than both UTE T2*mapping and T2 mapping in detecting early cartilage degeneration. Once the clinical potential of the technique has been confirmed, UTE-MT may provide a promising imaging biomarker with potential application in a more comprehensive diagnosis and monitoring of cartilage degeneration.