OBJECTIVES: To compare systematically quantitative MRI, MR spectroscopy (MRS), and different histological methods for liver fat quantification in order to identify possible incongruities. METHODS: Fifty-nine consecutive patients with liver disorders were examined on a 3 T MRI system. Quantitative MRI was performed using a dual- and a six-echo variant of the modified Dixon (mDixon) sequence, calculating proton density fat fraction (PDFF) maps, in addition to single-voxel MRS. Histological fat quantification included estimation of the percentage of hepatocytes containing fat vesicles as well as semi-automatic quantification (qHisto) using tissue quantification software. RESULTS: In 33 of 59 patients, the hepatic fat fraction was >5% as determined by MRS (maximum 45%, mean 17%). Dual-echo mDixon yielded systematically lower PDFF values than six-echo mDixon (mean difference 1.0%; P < 0.001). Six-echo mDixon correlated excellently with MRS, qHisto, and the estimated percentage of hepatocytes containing fat vesicles (R = 0.984, 0.967, 0.941, respectively, all P < 0.001). Mean values obtained by the estimated percentage of hepatocytes containing fat were higher by a factor of 2.5 in comparison to qHisto. Six-echo mDixon and MRS showed the best agreement with values obtained by qHisto. CONCLUSIONS: Six-echo mDixon, MRS, and qHisto provide the most robust and congruent results and are therefore most appropriate for reliable quantification of liver fat. KEY POINTS: • Six-echo mDixon correlates excellently with MRS, qHisto, and the estimated percentage of fat-containing hepatocytes. • Six-echo mDixon, MRS, and qHisto provide the most robust and congruent results. • Dual-echo mDixon yields systematically lower PDFF values than six-echo mDixon. • The percentage of fat-containing hepatocytes is 2.5-fold higher than fat fraction determined by qHisto. • Performance characteristics and systematic differences of the various methods should be considered.
OBJECTIVES: To compare systematically quantitative MRI, MR spectroscopy (MRS), and different histological methods for liver fat quantification in order to identify possible incongruities. METHODS: Fifty-nine consecutive patients with liver disorders were examined on a 3 T MRI system. Quantitative MRI was performed using a dual- and a six-echo variant of the modified Dixon (mDixon) sequence, calculating proton density fat fraction (PDFF) maps, in addition to single-voxel MRS. Histological fat quantification included estimation of the percentage of hepatocytes containing fat vesicles as well as semi-automatic quantification (qHisto) using tissue quantification software. RESULTS: In 33 of 59 patients, the hepatic fat fraction was >5% as determined by MRS (maximum 45%, mean 17%). Dual-echo mDixon yielded systematically lower PDFF values than six-echo mDixon (mean difference 1.0%; P < 0.001). Six-echo mDixon correlated excellently with MRS, qHisto, and the estimated percentage of hepatocytes containing fat vesicles (R = 0.984, 0.967, 0.941, respectively, all P < 0.001). Mean values obtained by the estimated percentage of hepatocytes containing fat were higher by a factor of 2.5 in comparison to qHisto. Six-echo mDixon and MRS showed the best agreement with values obtained by qHisto. CONCLUSIONS: Six-echo mDixon, MRS, and qHisto provide the most robust and congruent results and are therefore most appropriate for reliable quantification of liver fat. KEY POINTS: • Six-echo mDixon correlates excellently with MRS, qHisto, and the estimated percentage of fat-containing hepatocytes. • Six-echo mDixon, MRS, and qHisto provide the most robust and congruent results. • Dual-echo mDixon yields systematically lower PDFF values than six-echo mDixon. • The percentage of fat-containing hepatocytes is 2.5-fold higher than fat fraction determined by qHisto. • Performance characteristics and systematic differences of the various methods should be considered.
Authors: Gavin Hamilton; Takeshi Yokoo; Mark Bydder; Irene Cruite; Michael E Schroeder; Claude B Sirlin; Michael S Middleton Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2010-12-12 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Claus Koelblinger; Martin Krššák; Judith Maresch; Fritz Wrba; Klaus Kaczirek; Thomas Gruenberger; Dietmar Tamandl; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Vanessa Berger-Kulemann; Michael Weber; Wolfgang Schima Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Raj Vuppalanchi; Oscar W Cummings; Romil Saxena; Thomas M Ulbright; Nikhil Martis; David R Jones; Navin Bansal; Naga Chalasani Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Hendrik Marsman; Takakazu Matsushita; Ross Dierkhising; Walter Kremers; Charles Rosen; Lawrence Burgart; Scott L Nyberg Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Mazen Noureddin; Jessica Lam; Michael R Peterson; Michael Middleton; Gavin Hamilton; Thuy-Anh Le; Ricki Bettencourt; Chris Changchien; David A Brenner; Claude Sirlin; Rohit Loomba Journal: Hepatology Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Rajarshi Banerjee; Michael Pavlides; Elizabeth M Tunnicliffe; Stefan K Piechnik; Nikita Sarania; Rachel Philips; Jane D Collier; Jonathan C Booth; Jurgen E Schneider; Lai Mun Wang; David W Delaney; Ken A Fleming; Matthew D Robson; Eleanor Barnes; Stefan Neubauer Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Rami Homsi; Michael Meier-Schroers; Jürgen Gieseke; Darius Dabir; Julian A Luetkens; Daniel L Kuetting; Claas P Naehle; Christian Marx; Hans H Schild; Daniel K Thomas; Alois M Sprinkart Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Frederic Carsten Schmeel; Julian Alexander Luetkens; Peter Johannes Wagenhäuser; Michael Meier-Schroers; Daniel Lloyd Kuetting; Andreas Feißt; Jürgen Gieseke; Leonard Christopher Schmeel; Frank Träber; Hans Heinz Schild; Guido Matthias Kukuk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Frederic Carsten Schmeel; Julian Alexander Luetkens; Simon Jonas Enkirch; Andreas Feißt; Christoph Hans-Jürgen Endler; Leonard Christopher Schmeel; Peter Johannes Wagenhäuser; Frank Träber; Hans Heinz Schild; Guido Matthias Kukuk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 5.315
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