Xiaoke Wang1,2, Diego Hernando1, Scott B Reeder1,2,3,4,5. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 3. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of different fat spectral models on proton density fat fraction quantification using chemical shift-encoded MRI (CSE-MRI). METHODS: In a simulation study, spectral models of fat were compared pairwise. Comparison of magnitude fitting and mixed fitting was performed over a range of echo times and fat fractions. In vivo acquisitions from 41 patients were reconstructed using seven published spectral models of fat. T2-corrected stimulated echo acquisition mode MR spectroscopy was used as a reference. RESULTS: The simulations demonstrated that imperfectly calibrated spectral models of fat result in biases that depend on echo times and fat fraction. Mixed fitting was more robust against this bias than magnitude fitting. Multipeak spectral models showed much smaller differences among themselves than from the single-peak spectral model. In vivo studies showed that all multipeak models agreed better (for mixed fitting, the slope ranged from 0.967 to 1.045 using linear regression) with the reference standard than the single-peak model (for mixed fitting, slope = 0.76). CONCLUSION: It is essential to use a multipeak fat model for accurate quantification of fat with CSE-MRI. Furthermore, fat quantification techniques using multipeak fat models are comparable, and no specific choice of spectral model has been shown to be superior to the rest.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of different fat spectral models on proton density fat fraction quantification using chemical shift-encoded MRI (CSE-MRI). METHODS: In a simulation study, spectral models of fat were compared pairwise. Comparison of magnitude fitting and mixed fitting was performed over a range of echo times and fat fractions. In vivo acquisitions from 41 patients were reconstructed using seven published spectral models of fat. T2-corrected stimulated echo acquisition mode MR spectroscopy was used as a reference. RESULTS: The simulations demonstrated that imperfectly calibrated spectral models of fat result in biases that depend on echo times and fat fraction. Mixed fitting was more robust against this bias than magnitude fitting. Multipeak spectral models showed much smaller differences among themselves than from the single-peak spectral model. In vivo studies showed that all multipeak models agreed better (for mixed fitting, the slope ranged from 0.967 to 1.045 using linear regression) with the reference standard than the single-peak model (for mixed fitting, slope = 0.76). CONCLUSION: It is essential to use a multipeak fat model for accurate quantification of fat with CSE-MRI. Furthermore, fat quantification techniques using multipeak fat models are comparable, and no specific choice of spectral model has been shown to be superior to the rest.
Keywords:
fat quantification; fat spectrum; magnetic resonance imaging; nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; proton density fat fraction; spectral model of fat
Authors: Scott B Reeder; Angel R Pineda; Zhifei Wen; Ann Shimakawa; Huanzhou Yu; Jean H Brittain; Garry E Gold; Christopher H Beaulieu; Norbert J Pelc Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.668
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: Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Catherine D G Hines; Charles A McKenzie; Gavin Hamilton; Claude B Sirlin; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Scott B Reeder; Charles A McKenzie; Angel R Pineda; Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Anja C Brau; Brian A Hargreaves; Garry E Gold; Jean H Brittain Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Nina F Schwenzer; Jürgen Machann; Michael M Haap; Petros Martirosian; Christina Schraml; Gerd Liebig; Norbert Stefan; Hans-Ulrich Häring; Claus D Claussen; Andreas Fritsche; Fritz Schick Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Louis Marage; Jeremy Lasbleiz; Maxime Fondin; Mathieu Lederlin; Giulio Gambarota; Hervé Saint-Jalmes Journal: MAGMA Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Cheng William Hong; Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Jonathan C Hooker; Gavin Hamilton; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Top Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-12
Authors: Leah C Henze Bancroft; Roberta M Strigel; Erin B Macdonald; Colin Longhurst; Jacob Johnson; Diego Hernando; Scott B Reeder Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-11-14 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Cheng William Hong; Adrija Mamidipalli; Jonathan C Hooker; Gavin Hamilton; Tanya Wolfson; Dennis H Chen; Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Michael S Middleton; Scott B Reeder; Rohit Loomba; Claude B Sirlin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 4.813