OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare 2-dimensional (2D) gradient recalled echo (GRE) and 2D spin echo echoplanar imaging (SE-EPI) magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) sequences of the liver in terms of image quality and quantitative liver stiffness (LS) measurement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study involved 50 consecutive subjects (male/female, 33/17; mean age, 58 years) who underwent liver magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T including 2 MRE sequences, 2D GRE, and 2D SE-EPI (acquisition time 56 vs 16 seconds, respectively). Image quality scores were assessed by 2 independent observers based on wave propagation and organ coverage on the confidence map (range, 0-15). A third observer measured LS on stiffness maps (in kilopascal). Mean LS values, regions of interest size (based on confidence map), and image quality scores between SE-EPI and GRE-MRE were compared using paired nonparametric Wilcoxon test. Reproducibility of LS values between the 2 sequences was assessed using intraclass coefficient correlation, coefficient of variation, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement. T2* effect on image quality was assessed using partial Spearman correlation. RESULTS: There were 4 cases of failure with GRE-MRE and none with SE-EPI-MRE. Image quality scores and region of interest size were significantly higher using SE-EPI-MRE versus GRE-MRE (P < 0.0001 for both measurements and observers). Liver stiffness measurements were not significantly different between the 2 sequences (3.75 ± 1.87 kPa vs 3.55 ± 1.51 kPa, P = 0.062), were significantly correlated (intraclass coefficient correlation, 0.909), and had excellent reproducibility (coefficient of variation, 10.2%; bias, 0.023; Bland-Altman limits of agreement, -1.19; 1.66 kPa). Image quality scores using GRE-MRE were significantly correlated with T2* while there was no correlation for SE-EPI-MRE. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that SE-EPI-MRE may be a better alternative to GRE-MRE. The diagnostic performance of SE-EPI-MRE for detection of liver fibrosis needs to be assessed in a future study.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare 2-dimensional (2D) gradient recalled echo (GRE) and 2D spin echo echoplanar imaging (SE-EPI) magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) sequences of the liver in terms of image quality and quantitative liver stiffness (LS) measurement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study involved 50 consecutive subjects (male/female, 33/17; mean age, 58 years) who underwent liver magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T including 2 MRE sequences, 2D GRE, and 2D SE-EPI (acquisition time 56 vs 16 seconds, respectively). Image quality scores were assessed by 2 independent observers based on wave propagation and organ coverage on the confidence map (range, 0-15). A third observer measured LS on stiffness maps (in kilopascal). Mean LS values, regions of interest size (based on confidence map), and image quality scores between SE-EPI and GRE-MRE were compared using paired nonparametric Wilcoxon test. Reproducibility of LS values between the 2 sequences was assessed using intraclass coefficient correlation, coefficient of variation, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement. T2* effect on image quality was assessed using partial Spearman correlation. RESULTS: There were 4 cases of failure with GRE-MRE and none with SE-EPI-MRE. Image quality scores and region of interest size were significantly higher using SE-EPI-MRE versus GRE-MRE (P < 0.0001 for both measurements and observers). Liver stiffness measurements were not significantly different between the 2 sequences (3.75 ± 1.87 kPa vs 3.55 ± 1.51 kPa, P = 0.062), were significantly correlated (intraclass coefficient correlation, 0.909), and had excellent reproducibility (coefficient of variation, 10.2%; bias, 0.023; Bland-Altman limits of agreement, -1.19; 1.66 kPa). Image quality scores using GRE-MRE were significantly correlated with T2* while there was no correlation for SE-EPI-MRE. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that SE-EPI-MRE may be a better alternative to GRE-MRE. The diagnostic performance of SE-EPI-MRE for detection of liver fibrosis needs to be assessed in a future study.
Authors: Jurgen H Runge; Anneloes E Bohte; Joanne Verheij; Valeska Terpstra; Aart J Nederveen; Karin M J van Nieuwkerk; Rob J de Knegt; Bert C Baak; Peter L M Jansen; Ralph Sinkus; Jaap Stoker Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2014-04
Authors: A Manduca; T E Oliphant; M A Dresner; J L Mahowald; S A Kruse; E Amromin; J P Felmlee; J F Greenleaf; R L Ehman Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Meng Yin; Kevin J Glaser; Jayant A Talwalkar; Jun Chen; Armando Manduca; Richard L Ehman Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Laurent Huwart; Najat Salameh; Leon ter Beek; Eric Vicaut; Frank Peeters; Ralph Sinkus; Bernard E Van Beers Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Meng Yin; Arunark Kolipaka; David A Woodrum; Kevin J Glaser; Anthony J Romano; Armando Manduca; Jayant A Talwalkar; Philip A Araoz; Kiaran P McGee; Nandan S Anavekar; Richard L Ehman Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mathilde Wagner; Idoia Corcuera-Solano; Grace Lo; Steven Esses; Joseph Liao; Cecilia Besa; Nelson Chen; Ginu Abraham; Maggie Fung; James S Babb; Richard L Ehman; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jeanne M Horowitz; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Richard L Ehman; Kartik Jhaveri; Patrick Kamath; Michael A Ohliger; Anthony E Samir; Alvin C Silva; Bachir Taouli; Michael S Torbenson; Michael L Wells; Benjamin Yeh; Frank H Miller Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-08