BACKGROUND: Measurement of liver MRI T2* and R2* is emerging as a reliable alternative to liver biopsy for the quantitation of liver iron content. A systematic investigation of the influence of the region-of-interest size and placement has not been conducted. OBJECTIVE: To compare small and whole liver region-of-interest (ROI) MRI R2* values to each other and to biopsy liver iron content in patients with iron overload. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one iron-overloaded patients, ages 7-35 years, underwent biopsy for liver iron content quantitation and MRI for liver R2* measurement within 30 days. Three reviewers independently used small and whole liver ROIs to measure R2*. Inter-reviewer agreement was assessed with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Associations between R2* and liver iron content were investigated using Spearman's rank-order correlation and Monte Carlo estimated exact P values. RESULTS: Biopsy liver iron content and small and whole liver ROI R2* measurements were strongly associated for all reviewers (all P < 0.0001). Although inter-reviewer agreement was excellent for both ROI methods (ICC = 0.98-0.99), the small ROI technique more frequently led to inter-reviewer differences larger than 75 Hz, slightly higher R2* values, larger standard errors and greater range in values. CONCLUSION: Small and whole liver ROI techniques are strongly associated with biopsy liver iron content. We found slightly greater inter-reviewer variability in R2* values using the small ROI technique. Because such variability could adversely impact patient management when R2* values are near a threshold of iron chelation therapy, we recommend using a whole liver ROI.
BACKGROUND: Measurement of liver MRI T2* and R2* is emerging as a reliable alternative to liver biopsy for the quantitation of liver iron content. A systematic investigation of the influence of the region-of-interest size and placement has not been conducted. OBJECTIVE: To compare small and whole liver region-of-interest (ROI) MRI R2* values to each other and to biopsy liver iron content in patients with iron overload. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one iron-overloaded patients, ages 7-35 years, underwent biopsy for liver iron content quantitation and MRI for liver R2* measurement within 30 days. Three reviewers independently used small and whole liver ROIs to measure R2*. Inter-reviewer agreement was assessed with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Associations between R2* and liver iron content were investigated using Spearman's rank-order correlation and Monte Carlo estimated exact P values. RESULTS: Biopsy liver iron content and small and whole liver ROI R2* measurements were strongly associated for all reviewers (all P < 0.0001). Although inter-reviewer agreement was excellent for both ROI methods (ICC = 0.98-0.99), the small ROI technique more frequently led to inter-reviewer differences larger than 75 Hz, slightly higher R2* values, larger standard errors and greater range in values. CONCLUSION: Small and whole liver ROI techniques are strongly associated with biopsy liver iron content. We found slightly greater inter-reviewer variability in R2* values using the small ROI technique. Because such variability could adversely impact patient management when R2* values are near a threshold of iron chelation therapy, we recommend using a whole liver ROI.
Authors: L J Anderson; S Holden; B Davis; E Prescott; C C Charrier; N H Bunce; D N Firmin; B Wonke; J Porter; J M Walker; D J Pennell Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: José M Alústiza; José Artetxe; Agustín Castiella; Cristina Agirre; José I Emparanza; Pedro Otazua; Manuel García-Bengoechea; Jesús Barrio; Fernando Mújica; José A Recondo Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-12-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H G Kreeftenberg; B J Koopman; J R Huizenga; T van Vilsteren; B G Wolthers; C H Gips Journal: Clin Chim Acta Date: 1984-12-29 Impact factor: 3.786
Authors: Ruitian Song; Ralf B Loeffler; Joseph L Holtrop; M Beth McCarville; Jane S Hankins; Claudia M Hillenbrand Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Camilo A Campo; Diego Hernando; Tilman Schubert; Candice A Bookwalter; Andrew J Van Pay; Scott B Reeder Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: B Henninger; H Zoller; S Rauch; M Schocke; S Kannengiesser; X Zhong; G Reiter; W Jaschke; C Kremser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-12-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Aaryani Tipirneni-Sajja; Axel J Krafft; M Beth McCarville; Ralf B Loeffler; Ruitian Song; Jane S Hankins; Claudia M Hillenbrand Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ralf B Loeffler; M Beth McCarville; Anne W Wagstaff; Matthew P Smeltzer; Axel J Krafft; Ruitian Song; Jane S Hankins; Claudia M Hillenbrand Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2016-10-17
Authors: Aaryani Tipirneni-Sajja; Ralf B Loeffler; Axel J Krafft; Andrea N Sajewski; Robert J Ogg; Jane S Hankins; Claudia M Hillenbrand Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 4.813