Kim-Nhien Vu1, Guillaume Gilbert1,2, Marianne Chalut1, Miguel Chagnon3, Gabriel Chartrand4, An Tang1,5. 1. Department of Radiology, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada. 2. MR Clinical Science, Philips Healthcare Canada, Markham, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Pavillon André-Aisenstadt, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 4. Imaging and Orthopaedics Research Laboratory (LIO), École de technologie supérieure, Centre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada. 5. Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the agreement between published magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based regions of interest (ROI) sampling methods using liver mean proton density fat fraction (PDFF) as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, internal review board-approved study was conducted in 35 patients with type 2 diabetes. Liver PDFF was measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) using a stimulated-echo acquisition mode sequence and MRI using a multiecho spoiled gradient-recalled echo sequence at 3.0T. ROI sampling methods reported in the literature were reproduced and liver mean PDFF obtained by whole-liver segmentation was used as the reference standard. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland-Altman analysis, repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), and paired t-tests were performed. RESULTS: ICC between MRS and MRI-PDFF was 0.916. Bland-Altman analysis showed excellent intermethod agreement with a bias of -1.5 ± 2.8%. The repeated-measures ANOVA found no systematic variation of PDFF among the nine liver segments. The correlation between liver mean PDFF and ROI sampling methods was very good to excellent (0.873 to 0.975). Paired t-tests revealed significant differences (P < 0.05) with ROI sampling methods that exclusively or predominantly sampled the right lobe. Significant correlations with mean PDFF were found with sampling methods that included higher number of segments, total area equal or larger than 5 cm(2) , or sampled both lobes (P = 0.001, 0.023, and 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSION: MRI-PDFF quantification methods should sample each liver segment in both lobes and include a total surface area equal or larger than 5 cm(2) to provide a close estimate of the liver mean PDFF.
PURPOSE: To assess the agreement between published magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based regions of interest (ROI) sampling methods using liver mean proton density fat fraction (PDFF) as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, internal review board-approved study was conducted in 35 patients with type 2 diabetes. Liver PDFF was measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) using a stimulated-echo acquisition mode sequence and MRI using a multiecho spoiled gradient-recalled echo sequence at 3.0T. ROI sampling methods reported in the literature were reproduced and liver mean PDFF obtained by whole-liver segmentation was used as the reference standard. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland-Altman analysis, repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), and paired t-tests were performed. RESULTS: ICC between MRS and MRI-PDFF was 0.916. Bland-Altman analysis showed excellent intermethod agreement with a bias of -1.5 ± 2.8%. The repeated-measures ANOVA found no systematic variation of PDFF among the nine liver segments. The correlation between liver mean PDFF and ROI sampling methods was very good to excellent (0.873 to 0.975). Paired t-tests revealed significant differences (P < 0.05) with ROI sampling methods that exclusively or predominantly sampled the right lobe. Significant correlations with mean PDFF were found with sampling methods that included higher number of segments, total area equal or larger than 5 cm(2) , or sampled both lobes (P = 0.001, 0.023, and 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSION: MRI-PDFF quantification methods should sample each liver segment in both lobes and include a total surface area equal or larger than 5 cm(2) to provide a close estimate of the liver mean PDFF.
Authors: Kim Sivesgaard; Lars P Larsen; Michael Sørensen; Stine Kramer; Sven Schlander; Nerijus Amanavicius; Arindam Bharadwaz; Dennis Tønner Nielsen; Frank Viborg Mortensen; Erik Morre Pedersen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Camilo A Campo; Diego Hernando; Tilman Schubert; Candice A Bookwalter; Andrew J Van Pay; Scott B Reeder Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Cheng William Hong; Tanya Wolfson; Ethan Z Sy; Alexandra N Schlein; Jonathan C Hooker; Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Gavin Hamilton; Scott B Reeder; Rohit Loomba; Claude B Sirlin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-08-26 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Jonathan C Hooker; Gavin Hamilton; Charlie C Park; Steven Liao; Tanya Wolfson; Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Cheng William Hong; Adrija Mamidipalli; Anthony Gamst; Rohit Loomba; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-02