Literature DB >> 18581393

Effects of intravenous gadolinium administration and flip angle on the assessment of liver fat signal fraction with opposed-phase and in-phase imaging.

Takeshi Yokoo1, Julie M Collins, Robert F Hanna, Mark Bydder, Michael S Middleton, Claude B Sirlin.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of intravenous gadolinium (Gd) and flip angle (FA) on liver fat quantification by opposed-phase (OP) and in-phase (IP) imaging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant, retrospective, clinical study. We identified 79 patients in whom abdominal OP and IP gradient-echoes were obtained at 1.5T before and after Gd administration. All 79 patients were imaged at high FA (> or =70 degrees ); 57 were also imaged at low FA (< or =20 degrees ). Fat signal fraction (FSF) was calculated from pre- and post-Gd liver images for each subject and FA using the formula, FSF = (S(IP) - S(OP))/2S(IP), where S(IP) and S(OP) are the OP and IP signal intensities, respectively. The dataset pairs (pre-Gd vs. post-Gd; high-FA vs. low-FA) were compared using linear regression analysis.
RESULTS: Before Gd, FSF was significantly greater at high FA than at low FA, with regression parameters (slope/intercept) of 1.27*/0.02*, where * indicates P value <0.01. After Gd, FSF was similar at high and low FA (0.99/-0.00). Gd administration caused an FA-dependent reduction in FSF, larger at high FA (0.68*/-0.03*) than at low FA (0.94, -0.01*).
CONCLUSION: FSF by OP-IP imaging is highly dependent on FA before Gd, but this dependency is eliminated after administration of Gd. Gd appears to minimize the effect of T1-weighting and may improve the accuracy of liver fat quantification. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18581393     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21375

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  15 in total

1.  Influence of Gd-EOB-DTPA on T1 dependence of the proton density fat fraction using magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

Authors:  Tatsuya Hayashi; Kei Fukuzawa; Hiroshi Kondo; Hiroshi Onodera; Rie Tojo; Shimpei Yano; Tosiaki Miyati; Jun'ichi Kotoku; Takahide Okamoto; Keiko Toyoda; Hiroshi Oba
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2018-06-01

2.  Agreement Between Magnetic Resonance Imaging Proton Density Fat Fraction Measurements and Pathologist-Assigned Steatosis Grades of Liver Biopsies From Adults With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis.

Authors:  Michael S Middleton; Elhamy R Heba; Catherine A Hooker; Mustafa R Bashir; Kathryn J Fowler; Kumar Sandrasegaran; Elizabeth M Brunt; David E Kleiner; Edward Doo; Mark L Van Natta; Joel E Lavine; Brent A Neuschwander-Tetri; Arun Sanyal; Rohit Loomba; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Robustness of fat quantification using chemical shift imaging.

Authors:  Katie H Hansen; Michael E Schroeder; Gavin Hamilton; Claude B Sirlin; Mark Bydder
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 2.546

4.  Hepatic R2* is more strongly associated with proton density fat fraction than histologic liver iron scores in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Authors:  Mustafa R Bashir; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony C Gamst; Kathryn J Fowler; Michael Ohliger; Shetal N Shah; Adina Alazraki; Andrew T Trout; Cynthia Behling; Daniela S Allende; Rohit Loomba; Arun Sanyal; Jeffrey Schwimmer; Joel E Lavine; Wei Shen; James Tonascia; Mark L Van Natta; Adrija Mamidipalli; Jonathan Hooker; Kris V Kowdley; Michael S Middleton; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-10-14       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Sources of systematic error in proton density fat fraction (PDFF) quantification in the liver evaluated from magnitude images with different numbers of echoes.

Authors:  Mark Bydder; Gavin Hamilton; Ludovic de Rochefort; Ajinkya Desai; Elhamy R Heba; Rohit Loomba; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Nikolaus M Szeverenyi; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2017-11-12       Impact factor: 4.044

6.  Estimation of hepatic proton-density fat fraction by using MR imaging at 3.0 T.

Authors:  Takeshi Yokoo; Masoud Shiehmorteza; Gavin Hamilton; Tanya Wolfson; Michael E Schroeder; Michael S Middleton; Mark Bydder; Anthony C Gamst; Yuko Kono; Alexander Kuo; Heather M Patton; Santiago Horgan; Joel E Lavine; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-01-06       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: diagnostic and fat-grading accuracy of low-flip-angle multiecho gradient-recalled-echo MR imaging at 1.5 T.

Authors:  Takeshi Yokoo; Mark Bydder; Gavin Hamilton; Michael S Middleton; Anthony C Gamst; Tanya Wolfson; Tarek Hassanein; Heather M Patton; Joel E Lavine; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-02-12       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Agreement between region-of-interest- and parametric map-based hepatic proton density fat fraction estimation in adults with chronic liver disease.

Authors:  Paul M Manning; Gavin Hamilton; Kang Wang; Chulhyun Park; Jonathan C Hooker; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony Gamst; William M Haufe; Alex N Schlein; Michael S Middleton; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-03

9.  Influence of Gd-EOB-DTPA on proton density fat fraction using the six-echo Dixon method in 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Tatsuya Hayashi; Kei Fukuzawa; Hiroshi Kondo; Hiroshi Onodera; Shuji Toyotaka; Rie Tojo; Shimpei Yano; Masakatsu Tano; Tosiaki Miyati; Jun'ichi Kotoku; Takahide Okamoto; Keiko Toyoda; Hiroshi Oba
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2017-09-11

10.  Effect of hepatocyte-specific gadolinium-based contrast agents on hepatic fat-fraction and R2(⁎).

Authors:  Diego Hernando; Shane A Wells; Karl K Vigen; Scott B Reeder
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 2.546

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.