PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the muscle fat fraction (MFF) measured with dual-echo dual-flip-angle spoiled gradient-recalled acquisition in the steady state (SPGR) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging technique by using muscle biopsy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After ethics approval, written informed consent from all patients was obtained. Twenty-seven consecutive patients, evaluated at the Neuromuscular Disorders Center with a possible diagnosis of neuromuscular disorder, were prospectively studied with MR imaging of the lower extremities to quantify muscle fatty infiltration by means of MFF calculation. Spin-density- and T1-weighted fast SPGR in-phase and opposed-phase dual-echo sequences were performed, respectively, with 20° and 80° flip angles. Round regions of interest were drawn by consensus on selected MR sections corresponding to anticipated biopsy sites. These were marked on the patient's skin with a pen by using the infrared spider light of the system, and subsequent muscle biopsy was performed. MR images with regions of interest were stored on a secondary console where the MFF calculation was performed by another radiologist blinded to the biopsy results. MFFs calculated with dual-echo dual-flip-angle SPGR MR imaging and biopsy were compared by using a paired t test, Pearson correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman plots. P value of < .05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. RESULTS: The mean MFFs obtained with dual-echo dual-flip-angle SPGR MR imaging and biopsy were 20.3% (range, 1.7%-45.1%) and 20.6% (range, 3%-46.1%), respectively. The mean difference, standard deviation of the difference, and t value were -0.3, 1.3, and -1.3 (P > .2), respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.995; with the Bland-Altman method, all data points were within the ± 2 SDs limits of agreement. CONCLUSION: The results show that dual-echo dual-flip-angle SPGR MR imaging technique provides reliable calculation of MFF, consistent with biopsy measurements. RSNA, 2011
PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the muscle fat fraction (MFF) measured with dual-echo dual-flip-angle spoiled gradient-recalled acquisition in the steady state (SPGR) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging technique by using muscle biopsy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After ethics approval, written informed consent from all patients was obtained. Twenty-seven consecutive patients, evaluated at the Neuromuscular Disorders Center with a possible diagnosis of neuromuscular disorder, were prospectively studied with MR imaging of the lower extremities to quantify muscle fatty infiltration by means of MFF calculation. Spin-density- and T1-weighted fast SPGR in-phase and opposed-phase dual-echo sequences were performed, respectively, with 20° and 80° flip angles. Round regions of interest were drawn by consensus on selected MR sections corresponding to anticipated biopsy sites. These were marked on the patient's skin with a pen by using the infrared spider light of the system, and subsequent muscle biopsy was performed. MR images with regions of interest were stored on a secondary console where the MFF calculation was performed by another radiologist blinded to the biopsy results. MFFs calculated with dual-echo dual-flip-angle SPGR MR imaging and biopsy were compared by using a paired t test, Pearson correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman plots. P value of < .05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. RESULTS: The mean MFFs obtained with dual-echo dual-flip-angle SPGR MR imaging and biopsy were 20.3% (range, 1.7%-45.1%) and 20.6% (range, 3%-46.1%), respectively. The mean difference, standard deviation of the difference, and t value were -0.3, 1.3, and -1.3 (P > .2), respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.995; with the Bland-Altman method, all data points were within the ± 2 SDs limits of agreement. CONCLUSION: The results show that dual-echo dual-flip-angle SPGR MR imaging technique provides reliable calculation of MFF, consistent with biopsy measurements. RSNA, 2011
Authors: James M Elliott; D Mark Courtney; Alfred Rademaker; Daniel Pinto; Michele M Sterling; Todd B Parrish Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Dimitrios C Karampinos; Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Thomas M Link; Sharmila Majumdar Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Lorenzo Maggi; Marco Moscatelli; Rita Frangiamore; Federica Mazzi; Mattia Verri; Alberto De Luca; Maria Barbara Pasanisi; Giovanni Baranello; Irene Tramacere; Luisa Chiapparini; Maria Grazia Bruzzone; Renato Mantegazza; Domenico Aquino Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: William T Triplett; Celine Baligand; Sean C Forbes; Rebecca J Willcocks; Donovan J Lott; Soren DeVos; Jim Pollaro; William D Rooney; H Lee Sweeney; Carsten G Bönnemann; Dah-Jyuu Wang; Krista Vandenborne; Glenn A Walter Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Alison M Barnard; Donovan J Lott; Abhinandan Batra; William T Triplett; Sean C Forbes; Samuel L Riehl; Rebecca J Willcocks; Barbara K Smith; Krista Vandenborne; Glenn A Walter Journal: J Neurol Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 4.849