OBJECTIVE: To assess whether in vivo dual-ratio Dixon discrimination can improve detection of diffuse liver disease, specifically steatosis, iron deposition and combined disease over traditional single-ratio in/opposed phase analysis. METHODS: Seventy-one patients with biopsy-proven (17.7 ± 17.0 days) hepatic steatosis (n = 16), iron deposition (n = 11), combined deposition (n = 3) and neither disease (n = 41) underwent MR examinations. Dual-echo in/opposed-phase MR with Dixon water/fat reconstructions were acquired. Analysis consisted of: (a) single-ratio hepatic region-of-interest (ROI)-based assessment of in/opposed ratios; (b) dual-ratio hepatic ROI assessment of in/opposed and fat/water ratios; (c) computer-aided dual-ratio assessment evaluating all hepatic voxels. Disease-specific thresholds were determined; statistical analyses assessed disease-dependent voxel ratios, based on single-ratio (a) and dual-ratio (b and c) techniques. RESULTS: Single-ratio discrimination succeeded in identifying iron deposition (I/O(Ironthreshold)<0.88) and steatosis (I/O(Fatthreshold>1.15)) from normal parenchyma, sensitivity 70.0%; it failed to detect combined disease. Dual-ratio discrimination succeeded in identifying abnormal hepatic parenchyma (F/W(Normalthreshold)>0.05), sensitivity 96.7%; logarithmic functions for iron deposition (I/O(Irondiscriminator)<e((0.01-F/W(Iron))/0.48)) and for steatosis (I/O(Fatdiscriminator)>e((F/W(Fat)-0.01)/0.48)) differentiated combined from isolated diseases, sensitivity 100.0%; computer-aided dual-ratio analysis was comparably sensitive but less specific, 90.2% vs. 97.6%. CONCLUSION: MR two-point-Dixon imaging using dual-ratio post-processing based on in/opposed and fat/water ratios improved in vivo detection of hepatic steatosis, iron deposition, and combined storage disease beyond traditional in/opposed analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether in vivo dual-ratio Dixon discrimination can improve detection of diffuse liver disease, specifically steatosis, iron deposition and combined disease over traditional single-ratio in/opposed phase analysis. METHODS: Seventy-one patients with biopsy-proven (17.7 ± 17.0 days) hepatic steatosis (n = 16), iron deposition (n = 11), combined deposition (n = 3) and neither disease (n = 41) underwent MR examinations. Dual-echo in/opposed-phase MR with Dixon water/fat reconstructions were acquired. Analysis consisted of: (a) single-ratio hepatic region-of-interest (ROI)-based assessment of in/opposed ratios; (b) dual-ratio hepatic ROI assessment of in/opposed and fat/water ratios; (c) computer-aided dual-ratio assessment evaluating all hepatic voxels. Disease-specific thresholds were determined; statistical analyses assessed disease-dependent voxel ratios, based on single-ratio (a) and dual-ratio (b and c) techniques. RESULTS: Single-ratio discrimination succeeded in identifying iron deposition (I/O(Ironthreshold)<0.88) and steatosis (I/O(Fatthreshold>1.15)) from normal parenchyma, sensitivity 70.0%; it failed to detect combined disease. Dual-ratio discrimination succeeded in identifying abnormal hepatic parenchyma (F/W(Normalthreshold)>0.05), sensitivity 96.7%; logarithmic functions for iron deposition (I/O(Irondiscriminator)<e((0.01-F/W(Iron))/0.48)) and for steatosis (I/O(Fatdiscriminator)>e((F/W(Fat)-0.01)/0.48)) differentiated combined from isolated diseases, sensitivity 100.0%; computer-aided dual-ratio analysis was comparably sensitive but less specific, 90.2% vs. 97.6%. CONCLUSION: MR two-point-Dixon imaging using dual-ratio post-processing based on in/opposed and fat/water ratios improved in vivo detection of hepatic steatosis, iron deposition, and combined storage disease beyond traditional in/opposed analysis.
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: Benjamin Henninger; Henninger Benjamin; Christian Kremser; Kremser Christian; Stefan Rauch; Rauch Stefan; Robert Eder; Eder Robert; Werner Judmaier; Judmaier Werner; Heinz Zoller; Zoller Heinz; Henrik Michaely; Michaely Henrik; Michael Schocke; Schocke Michael Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-01-19 Impact factor: 5.315