INTRODUCTION: We evaluated muscle/fat fraction (MFF) accuracy and reliability measured with an MR imaging technique at 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3.0T scanner strengths, using biopsy as reference. METHODS: MRI was performed on muscle samples from pig and rabbit species (n = 8) at 1.5T and 3.0T. A chemical shift based 2-point Dixon method was used, collecting in-phase and out-of-phase data for fat/water of muscle samples. Values were compared with MFFs calculated from histology. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between 1.5T and 3.0T (P values = 0.41-0.96), or between histology and imaging (P = 0.83) for any muscle tested. CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS suggest that a 2-point Dixon fat/water separation MRI technique may provide reliable quantification of MFFs at varying field strengths across different animal species, and consistency was established with biopsy. The results set a foundation for larger scale investigation of quantifying muscle fat in neuromuscular disorders.
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated muscle/fat fraction (MFF) accuracy and reliability measured with an MR imaging technique at 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3.0T scanner strengths, using biopsy as reference. METHODS: MRI was performed on muscle samples from pig and rabbit species (n = 8) at 1.5T and 3.0T. A chemical shift based 2-point Dixon method was used, collecting in-phase and out-of-phase data for fat/water of muscle samples. Values were compared with MFFs calculated from histology. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between 1.5T and 3.0T (P values = 0.41-0.96), or between histology and imaging (P = 0.83) for any muscle tested. CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS suggest that a 2-point Dixon fat/water separation MRI technique may provide reliable quantification of MFFs at varying field strengths across different animal species, and consistency was established with biopsy. The results set a foundation for larger scale investigation of quantifying muscle fat in neuromuscular disorders.
Authors: Jacob Sosna; Ivan Pedrosa; William C Dewolf; Houman Mahallati; Robert E Lenkinski; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Jens-Peter Kühn; Diego Hernando; Birger Mensel; Paul C Krüger; Till Ittermann; Julia Mayerle; Norbert Hosten; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Alice S Ryan; C Lynne Dobrovolny; Gerald V Smith; Kenneth H Silver; Richard F Macko Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: J L Fleckenstein; D Watumull; K E Conner; M Ezaki; R G Greenlee; W W Bryan; D P Chason; R W Parkey; R M Peshock; P D Purdy Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nancy L Sicotte; Rhonda R Voskuhl; Seth Bouvier; Rochelle Klutch; Mark S Cohen; John C Mazziotta Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Andrew C Smith; Todd B Parrish; Mark A Hoggarth; Jacob G McPherson; Vicki M Tysseling; Marie Wasielewski; Hyosub E Kim; T George Hornby; James M Elliott Journal: Spinal Cord Ser Cases Date: 2015-10-08
Authors: Sarah Schlaeger; Stephanie Inhuber; Alexander Rohrmeier; Michael Dieckmeyer; Friedemann Freitag; Elisabeth Klupp; Dominik Weidlich; Georg Feuerriegel; Florian Kreuzpointner; Ansgar Schwirtz; Ernst J Rummeny; Claus Zimmer; Jan S Kirschke; Dimitrios C Karampinos; Thomas Baum Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 5.315
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: J Megan Sions; Peter C Coyle; Teonette O Velasco; James M Elliott; Gregory E Hicks Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 3.966