PURPOSE: To evaluate the reproducibility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-determined hepatic fat fraction (%) across imaging sites with different magnet types and field strength. Reproducibility among MRI platforms is unclear, even though evaluating hepatic fat fractions (FFs) using MRI-based methods is accurate against MR spectroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overweight subjects were recruited to undergo eight MRI examinations at five imaging centers with a range of magnet manufacturers and field strengths (1.5 and 3 T). FFs were estimated in liver and in fat-emulsion phantoms using three methods: 1) dual-echo images without correction (nominally out-of-phase [OP] and in-phase [IP]); 2) dual-dual-echo images (two sequences) with T2* correction (nominally OP/IP and IP/IP); and 3) six-echo images with spectral model and T2* correction, at sequential alternating OP and IP echo times (Methods 1, 2, and 3, respectively). RESULTS: Ten subjects were recruited. For Methods 1, 2, and 3, respectively, hepatic FF ranged from -2.5 to 27.0, 1.9 to 29.6, and 1.3 to 34.4%. Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.85, 0.89, and 0.91 for each method, and within-subject coefficients of variation were 18.5, 9.9, and 10.3%, respectively. Mean phantom FFs derived by Methods 2 and 3 were comparable to the known FF for each phantom. Method 1 underestimated phantom FF. CONCLUSION: Methods 2 and 3 accurately assess FF. Strong reproducibility across magnet type and strength render them suitable for use in multicenter trials and longitudinal assessments.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the reproducibility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-determined hepatic fat fraction (%) across imaging sites with different magnet types and field strength. Reproducibility among MRI platforms is unclear, even though evaluating hepatic fat fractions (FFs) using MRI-based methods is accurate against MR spectroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overweight subjects were recruited to undergo eight MRI examinations at five imaging centers with a range of magnet manufacturers and field strengths (1.5 and 3 T). FFs were estimated in liver and in fat-emulsion phantoms using three methods: 1) dual-echo images without correction (nominally out-of-phase [OP] and in-phase [IP]); 2) dual-dual-echo images (two sequences) with T2* correction (nominally OP/IP and IP/IP); and 3) six-echo images with spectral model and T2* correction, at sequential alternating OP and IP echo times (Methods 1, 2, and 3, respectively). RESULTS: Ten subjects were recruited. For Methods 1, 2, and 3, respectively, hepatic FF ranged from -2.5 to 27.0, 1.9 to 29.6, and 1.3 to 34.4%. Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.85, 0.89, and 0.91 for each method, and within-subject coefficients of variation were 18.5, 9.9, and 10.3%, respectively. Mean phantom FFs derived by Methods 2 and 3 were comparable to the known FF for each phantom. Method 1 underestimated phantom FF. CONCLUSION: Methods 2 and 3 accurately assess FF. Strong reproducibility across magnet type and strength render them suitable for use in multicenter trials and longitudinal assessments.
Authors: Kevin A Zand; Amol Shah; Elhamy Heba; Tanya Wolfson; Gavin Hamilton; Jessica Lam; Joshua Chen; Jonathan C Hooker; Anthony C Gamst; Michael S Middleton; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Claude B Sirlin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: S Pillai; S Duvvuru; P Bhatnagar; W Foster; M Farmen; S Shankar; C Harris; E Bastyr; B Hoogwerf; A Haupt Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 3.550
Authors: Takeshi Yokoo; Suraj D Serai; Ali Pirasteh; Mustafa R Bashir; Gavin Hamilton; Diego Hernando; Houchun H Hu; Holger Hetterich; Jens-Peter Kühn; Guido M Kukuk; Rohit Loomba; Michael S Middleton; Nancy A Obuchowski; Ji Soo Song; An Tang; Xinhuai Wu; Scott B Reeder; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Diego Hernando; Samir D Sharma; Mounes Aliyari Ghasabeh; Bret D Alvis; Sandeep S Arora; Gavin Hamilton; Li Pan; Jean M Shaffer; Keitaro Sofue; Nikolaus M Szeverenyi; E Brian Welch; Qing Yuan; Mustafa R Bashir; Ihab R Kamel; Mark J Rice; Claude B Sirlin; Takeshi Yokoo; Scott B Reeder Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Timothy J Colgan; Andrew J Van Pay; Samir D Sharma; Lu Mao; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Hannah I Awai; Kimberly P Newton; Claude B Sirlin; Cynthia Behling; Jeffrey B Schwimmer Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Vassili Valayannopoulos; Vera Malinova; Tomas Honzík; Manisha Balwani; Catherine Breen; Patrick B Deegan; Gregory M Enns; Simon A Jones; John P Kane; Eveline O Stock; Radhika Tripuraneni; Stephen Eckert; Eugene Schneider; Gavin Hamilton; Michael S Middleton; Claude Sirlin; Bruce Kessler; Christopher Bourdon; Simeon A Boyadjiev; Reena Sharma; Chris Twelves; Chester B Whitley; Anthony G Quinn Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 25.083