Samir D Sharma1, Roland Fischer2,3, Bjoern P Schoennagel4, Peter Nielsen2,5, Hendrik Kooijman6, Jin Yamamura4, Gerhard Adam4, Peter Bannas1,4, Diego Hernando1, Scott B Reeder1,7,8,9,10. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Department of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 3. UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and Research Center Oakland, Oakland, California, USA. 4. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Cell Biology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 6. Philips GmbH, Hamburg, Germany. 7. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 8. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 9. Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 10. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the agreement between quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM)-based biomagnetic liver susceptometry (BLS) and confounder-corrected R2* mapping with superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID)-based biomagnetic liver susceptometry in patients with liver iron overload. METHODS: Data were acquired from two healthy controls and 22 patients undergoing MRI and SQUID-BLS as part of routine monitoring for iron overload. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed on a 3T system using a three-dimensional multi-echo gradient-echo acquisition. Both magnetic susceptibility and R2* of the liver were estimated from this acquisition. Linear regression was used to compare estimates of QSM-BLS and R2* to SQUID-BLS. RESULTS: Both QSM-BLS and confounder-corrected R2* were sensitive to the presence of iron in the liver. Linear regression between QSM-BLS and SQUID-BLS demonstrated the following relationship: QSM-BLS = (-0.22 ± 0.11) + (0.49 ± 0.05) · SQUID-BLS with r2 = 0.88. The coefficient of determination between liver R2* and SQUID-BLS was also r2 = 0.88. CONCLUSION: We determined a strong correlation between both QSM-BLS and confounder-corrected R2* to SQUID-BLS. This study demonstrates the feasibility of QSM-BLS and confounder-corrected R2* for assessing liver iron overload, particularly when SQUID systems are not accessible. Magn Reson Med 78:264-270, 2017.
PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the agreement between quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM)-based biomagnetic liver susceptometry (BLS) and confounder-corrected R2* mapping with superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID)-based biomagnetic liver susceptometry in patients with liver iron overload. METHODS: Data were acquired from two healthy controls and 22 patients undergoing MRI and SQUID-BLS as part of routine monitoring for iron overload. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed on a 3T system using a three-dimensional multi-echo gradient-echo acquisition. Both magnetic susceptibility and R2* of the liver were estimated from this acquisition. Linear regression was used to compare estimates of QSM-BLS and R2* to SQUID-BLS. RESULTS: Both QSM-BLS and confounder-corrected R2* were sensitive to the presence of iron in the liver. Linear regression between QSM-BLS and SQUID-BLS demonstrated the following relationship: QSM-BLS = (-0.22 ± 0.11) + (0.49 ± 0.05) · SQUID-BLS with r2 = 0.88. The coefficient of determination between liver R2* and SQUID-BLS was also r2 = 0.88. CONCLUSION: We determined a strong correlation between both QSM-BLS and confounder-corrected R2* to SQUID-BLS. This study demonstrates the feasibility of QSM-BLS and confounder-corrected R2* for assessing liver iron overload, particularly when SQUID systems are not accessible. Magn Reson Med 78:264-270, 2017.
Authors: Tian Liu; Jing Liu; Ludovic de Rochefort; Pascal Spincemaille; Ildar Khalidov; James Robert Ledoux; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: G M Brittenham; D E Farrell; J W Harris; E S Feldman; E H Danish; W A Muir; J H Tripp; E M Bellon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1982-12-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Xing Lu; Yajun Ma; Eric Y Chang; Qun He; Adam Searleman; Annette von Drygalski; Jiang Du Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Yi Wang; Pascal Spincemaille; Zhe Liu; Alexey Dimov; Kofi Deh; Jianqi Li; Yan Zhang; Yihao Yao; Kelly M Gillen; Alan H Wilman; Ajay Gupta; Apostolos John Tsiouris; Ilhami Kovanlikaya; Gloria Chia-Yi Chiang; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Lawrence Tanenbaum; Weiwei Chen; Wenzhen Zhu; Shixin Chang; Min Lou; Brian H Kopell; Michael G Kaplitt; David Devos; Toshinori Hirai; Xuemei Huang; Yukunori Korogi; Alexander Shtilbans; Geon-Ho Jahng; Daniel Pelletier; Susan A Gauthier; David Pitt; Ashley I Bush; Gary M Brittenham; Martin R Prince Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Sujit Sheth; Christopher J Allen; David E Farrell; John H Tripp; Ramin Jafari; Yi Wang; Gary M Brittenham Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Ramin Jafari; Stefanie J Hectors; Anne K Koehne de González; Pascal Spincemaille; Martin R Prince; Gary M Brittenham; Yi Wang Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Kofi Deh; Keigo Kawaji; Marjolein Bulk; Louise Van Der Weerd; Emelie Lind; Pascal Spincemaille; Kelly McCabe Gillen; Johan Van Auderkerke; Yi Wang; Thanh D Nguyen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 4.668