Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 23, 2026

An Experimental and Finite Element Protocol to Investigate the Transport of Neutral and Charged Solutes across Articular Cartilage
Published on: April 23, 2017
Comparison of biochemical cartilage imaging techniques at 3 T MRI
C Rehnitz1, J Kupfer1, N A Streich2
1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Objective:
To prospectively compare chemical-exchange saturation-transfer (CEST) with delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) and T2 mapping to assess the biochemical cartilage properties of the knee.
Method:
Sixty-nine subjects were prospectively included (median age, 42 years; male/female = 32/37) in three cohorts: 10 healthy volunteers, 40 patients with clinically suspected cartilage lesions, and 19 patients about 1 year after microfracture therapy. T2 mapping, dGEMRIC, and CEST were performed at a 3 T MRI unit using a 15-channel knee coil. Parameter maps were evaluated using region-of-interest analysis of healthy cartilage, areas of chondromalacia and repair tissue. Differentiation of damaged from healthy cartilage was assessed using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
Results:
Chondromalacia grade 2-3 had significantly higher CEST values (P = 0.001), lower dGEMRIC (T1-) values (P < 0.001) and higher T2 values (P < 0.001) when compared to the normal appearing cartilage. dGEMRIC and T2 mapping correlated moderately negative (Spearman coefficient r = -0.56, P = 0.0018) and T2 mapping and CEST moderately positive (r = 0.5, P = 0.007), while dGEMRIC and CEST did not significantly correlate (r = -0.311, P = 0.07). The repair tissue revealed lower dGEMRIC values (P < 0.001) and higher CEST values (P < 0.001) with a significant negative correlation (r = -0.589, P = 0.01), whereas T2 values were not different (P = 0.54). In healthy volunteers' cartilage, CEST and dGEMRIC showed moderate positive correlation (r = 0.56), however not reaching significance (P = 0.09). ROC-analysis demonstrated non-significant differences of T2 mapping vs CEST (P = 0.14), CEST vs dGEMRIC (P = 0.89), and T2 mapping vs dGEMRIC (P = 0.12).
Conclusion:
CEST is able to detect normal and damaged cartilage and is non-inferior in distinguishing both when compared to dGEMRIC and T2 mapping.
Related Concept Videos
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Imaging Studies I: CT and MRI
Description of the Procedures
Computed Tomography (CT) scan:
Computed Tomography (CT) scans use X-ray technology to generate detailed images of bones, organs, and tissues. During the scan, the patient lies on a moving table...
Imaging Studies III: Computed Tomography
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System IV: CMRI
Imaging Studies IV: Magnetic Resonance Imaging

