Diego Hernando1, Samir D Sharma1, Mounes Aliyari Ghasabeh2, Bret D Alvis3, Sandeep S Arora4, Gavin Hamilton5, Li Pan6, Jean M Shaffer7, Keitaro Sofue7,8, Nikolaus M Szeverenyi5, E Brian Welch4,9, Qing Yuan10, Mustafa R Bashir7,11, Ihab R Kamel2, Mark J Rice3, Claude B Sirlin5, Takeshi Yokoo10,12, Scott B Reeder1,13,14,15,16. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 4. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, California, USA. 6. Siemens Healthcare, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 8. Department of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan. 9. Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 10. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. 11. Center for Advanced Magnetic Resonance Development, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 12. Advanced Imaging Research Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. 13. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 14. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 15. Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 16. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of quantitative chemical shift-encoded (CSE) MRI to quantify proton-density fat-fraction (PDFF) in a fat-water phantom across sites, vendors, field strengths, and protocols. METHODS: Six sites (Philips, Siemens, and GE Healthcare) participated in this study. A phantom containing multiple vials with various oil/water suspensions (PDFF:0%-100%) was built, shipped to each site, and scanned at 1.5T and 3T using two CSE protocols per field strength. Confounder-corrected PDFF maps were reconstructed using a common algorithm. To assess accuracy, PDFF bias and linear regression with the known PDFF were calculated. To assess reproducibility, measurements were compared across sites, vendors, field strengths, and protocols using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), Bland-Altman analysis, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: PDFF measurements revealed an overall absolute bias (across sites, field strengths, and protocols) of 0.22% (95% confidence interval, 0.07%-0.38%) and R2 > 0.995 relative to the known PDFF at each site, field strength, and protocol, with a slope between 0.96 and 1.02 and an intercept between -0.56% and 1.13%. ANCOVA did not reveal effects of field strength (P = 0.36) or protocol (P = 0.19). There was a significant effect of vendor (F = 25.13, P = 1.07 × 10-10 ) with a bias of -0.37% (Philips) and -1.22% (Siemens) relative to GE Healthcare. The overall ICC was 0.999. CONCLUSION: CSE-based fat quantification is accurate and reproducible across sites, vendors, field strengths, and protocols. Magn Reson Med 77:1516-1524, 2017.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of quantitative chemical shift-encoded (CSE) MRI to quantify proton-density fat-fraction (PDFF) in a fat-water phantom across sites, vendors, field strengths, and protocols. METHODS: Six sites (Philips, Siemens, and GE Healthcare) participated in this study. A phantom containing multiple vials with various oil/water suspensions (PDFF:0%-100%) was built, shipped to each site, and scanned at 1.5T and 3T using two CSE protocols per field strength. Confounder-corrected PDFF maps were reconstructed using a common algorithm. To assess accuracy, PDFF bias and linear regression with the known PDFF were calculated. To assess reproducibility, measurements were compared across sites, vendors, field strengths, and protocols using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), Bland-Altman analysis, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: PDFF measurements revealed an overall absolute bias (across sites, field strengths, and protocols) of 0.22% (95% confidence interval, 0.07%-0.38%) and R2 > 0.995 relative to the known PDFF at each site, field strength, and protocol, with a slope between 0.96 and 1.02 and an intercept between -0.56% and 1.13%. ANCOVA did not reveal effects of field strength (P = 0.36) or protocol (P = 0.19). There was a significant effect of vendor (F = 25.13, P = 1.07 × 10-10 ) with a bias of -0.37% (Philips) and -1.22% (Siemens) relative to GE Healthcare. The overall ICC was 0.999. CONCLUSION: CSE-based fat quantification is accurate and reproducible across sites, vendors, field strengths, and protocols. Magn Reson Med 77:1516-1524, 2017.
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: Geraldine H Kang; Irene Cruite; Masoud Shiehmorteza; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony C Gamst; Gavin Hamilton; Mark Bydder; Michael S Middleton; Claude B Sirlin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Christian Cordes; Michael Dieckmeyer; Beate Ott; Jun Shen; Stefan Ruschke; Marcus Settles; Claudia Eichhorn; Jan S Bauer; Hendrik Kooijman; Ernst J Rummeny; Thomas Skurk; Thomas Baum; Hans Hauner; Dimitrios C Karampinos Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Catherine D G Hines; Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Charles A McKenzie; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Yakir S Levin; Takeshi Yokoo; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony C Gamst; Julie Collins; Emil A Achmad; Gavin Hamilton; Michael S Middleton; Rohit Loomba; Claude B Sirlin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Cheng William Hong; Gavin Hamilton; Catherine Hooker; Charlie C Park; Calvin Andrew Tran; Walter C Henderson; Jonathan C Hooker; Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Scott B Reeder; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-10
Authors: Cheng William Hong; Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Jonathan C Hooker; Gavin Hamilton; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Top Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-12
Authors: B Dustin Pooler; Diego Hernando; Jeannine A Ruby; Hiroshi Ishii; Ann Shimakawa; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Gavin Hamilton; Alex N Schlein; Tanya Wolfson; Guilherme M Cunha; Kathryn J Fowler; Michael S Middleton; Rohit Loomba; Claude B Sirlin Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Huiwen Luo; Ante Zhu; Curtis N Wiens; Jitka Starekova; Ann Shimakawa; Scott B Reeder; Kevin M Johnson; Diego Hernando Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ruiyang Zhao; Yuxin Zhang; Xiaoke Wang; Timothy J Colgan; Jennifer L Rehm; Scott B Reeder; Kevin M Johnson; Diego Hernando Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 4.668