UNLABELLED: Inphase and out-of-phase magnetic resonance imaging is a robust and fast method which can provide similar vertebral bone marrow fat estimation as (1)H proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, indicating that this technique is a potentially useful tool in both research and clinical practice. INTRODUCTION: The importance of evaluating bone marrow fat lies in the fact that osteoporosis and obesity, two disorders of body composition, are growing in prevalence. Bone fat mass can be reliably assessed using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((1)H MRS), but this method is technically demanding and needs advanced post-processing unlike inphase and out-of-phase magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which is a robust and fast method. METHODS: We compared vertebral bone marrow fat (BMF) content assessed by inphase and out-of-phase MRI and (1)H MRS using a 1.5-T MRI scanner in mothers (n = 34, aged 49.4 years), fathers (n = 31, aged 53.1 years) and their daughters (n = 40, aged 20.3 years) who participated in the CALEX family study. Signal intensity on the inphase and out-of-phase MRI was analyzed from the same location and size of the single-voxel (1)H MRS measurement. RESULTS: Positive correlations were found between (1)H MRS and inphase and out-of-phase MRI in the axial plane (r = 0.746, p < 0.001) and sagittal plane (r = 0.804, p < 0.001). The mean differences between (1)H MRS and inphase and out-of-phase MRI in the axial and sagittal planes were relatively small, at 4.13 and 2.67 %, and the agreement between techniques was 89.4 and 93.2 %, respectively. Girls had a significantly lower vertebral BMF than mothers and fathers with both methods (for all, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that inphase and out-of-phase MRI can provide similar vertebral BMF estimation as (1)H MRS, indicating that this technique is a potentially useful tool in both research and clinical practice.
UNLABELLED: Inphase and out-of-phase magnetic resonance imaging is a robust and fast method which can provide similar vertebral bone marrow fat estimation as (1)H proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, indicating that this technique is a potentially useful tool in both research and clinical practice. INTRODUCTION: The importance of evaluating bone marrow fat lies in the fact that osteoporosis and obesity, two disorders of body composition, are growing in prevalence. Bone fat mass can be reliably assessed using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((1)H MRS), but this method is technically demanding and needs advanced post-processing unlike inphase and out-of-phase magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which is a robust and fast method. METHODS: We compared vertebral bone marrow fat (BMF) content assessed by inphase and out-of-phase MRI and (1)H MRS using a 1.5-T MRI scanner in mothers (n = 34, aged 49.4 years), fathers (n = 31, aged 53.1 years) and their daughters (n = 40, aged 20.3 years) who participated in the CALEX family study. Signal intensity on the inphase and out-of-phase MRI was analyzed from the same location and size of the single-voxel (1)H MRS measurement. RESULTS: Positive correlations were found between (1)H MRS and inphase and out-of-phase MRI in the axial plane (r = 0.746, p < 0.001) and sagittal plane (r = 0.804, p < 0.001). The mean differences between (1)H MRS and inphase and out-of-phase MRI in the axial and sagittal planes were relatively small, at 4.13 and 2.67 %, and the agreement between techniques was 89.4 and 93.2 %, respectively. Girls had a significantly lower vertebral BMF than mothers and fathers with both methods (for all, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that inphase and out-of-phase MRI can provide similar vertebral BMF estimation as (1)H MRS, indicating that this technique is a potentially useful tool in both research and clinical practice.
Authors: Mark Bydder; Takeshi Yokoo; Gavin Hamilton; Michael S Middleton; Alyssa D Chavez; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Joel E Lavine; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-02-21 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Jeffrey M Gimble; Sanjin Zvonic; Z Elizabeth Floyd; Moustapha Kassem; Mark E Nuttall Journal: J Cell Biochem Date: 2006-05-15 Impact factor: 4.429
Authors: James F Griffith; David K W Yeung; Anil T Ahuja; Carol W Y Choy; Wong Yin Mei; Sherlock S L Lam; T P Lam; Zhen-Yu Chen; Ping C Leung Journal: Bone Date: 2009-03-05 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Zachary L Sebo; Elizabeth Rendina-Ruedy; Gene P Ables; Dieter M Lindskog; Matthew S Rodeheffer; Pouneh K Fazeli; Mark C Horowitz Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 19.871
Authors: Gregory Chang; Sean Boone; Dimitri Martel; Chamith S Rajapakse; Robert S Hallyburton; Mitch Valko; Stephen Honig; Ravinder R Regatte Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Christian Cordes; Thomas Baum; Michael Dieckmeyer; Stefan Ruschke; Maximilian N Diefenbach; Hans Hauner; Jan S Kirschke; Dimitrios C Karampinos Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Wu Yi Liu; Da Jiang Lu; Xia Ming Du; Jian Qin Sun; Jun Ge; Ren Wei Wang; Ru Wang; Jun Zou; Chang Xu; Jie Ren; Xin Fei Wen; Yang Liu; Shu Mei Cheng; Xiao Tan; Satu Pekkala; Eveliina Munukka; Petri Wiklund; Yan Qiu Chen; Qing Gu; Zheng Chang Xia; Jun Jun Liu; Wen Bin Liu; Xue Bo Chen; Yi Min Zhang; Rui Li; Ronald J H Borra; Jia Xin Yao; Pei Jie Chen; Sulin Cheng Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 3.295