Kang Wang1, Paul Manning2, Nikolaus Szeverenyi2, Tanya Wolfson3, Gavin Hamilton2, Michael S Middleton2, Florin Vaida4, Meng Yin5, Kevin Glaser5, Richard L Ehman5, Claude B Sirlin2. 1. Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, MR-3T Research Building, 408 Dickinson Street, San Diego, CA, 92103-8226, USA. kaw016@ucsd.edu. 2. Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, MR-3T Research Building, 408 Dickinson Street, San Diego, CA, 92103-8226, USA. 3. Computational and Applied Statistics Laboratory (CASL), SDSC, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 4. Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of 2D and 3D hepatic MRE with rigid and flexible drivers at end-expiration and end-inspiration in healthy volunteers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine healthy volunteers underwent two same-day MRE exams separated by a 5- to 10-min break. In each exam, 2D and 3D MRE scans were performed, each under four conditions (2 driver types [rigid, flexible] × 2 breath-hold phases [end-expiration, end-inspiration]). Repeatability (measurements under identical conditions) and reproducibility (measurements under different conditions) were analyzed by calculating bias, limit of agreement, repeatability coefficient (RC), reproducibility coefficient (RDC), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), as appropriate. RESULTS: For 2D MRE, RCs and ICCs range between 0.29-0.49 and 0.71-0.91, respectively. For 3D MRE, RCs and ICCs range between 0.16-0.26 and 0.84-0.96, respectively. Stiffness values were biased by breath-hold phase, being higher at end-inspiration than end-expiration, and the differences were significant for 3D MRE (p < 0.01). No bias was found between driver types. Inspiration vs. expiration RDCs and CCCs ranged between 0.30-0.54 and 0.61-0.72, respectively. Rigid vs. flexible driver RDCs and CCCs ranged between 0.10-0.44 and 0.79-0.94, respectively. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that 2D MRE and 3D MRE under most conditions potentially have good repeatability. Our result also points to the possibility that stiffness measured with the rigid and flexible drivers is reproducible. Reproducibility between breath-hold phases was modest, suggesting breath-hold phase might be a confounding factor in MRE-based stiffness measurement. However, larger studies are required to validate these preliminary results.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of 2D and 3D hepatic MRE with rigid and flexible drivers at end-expiration and end-inspiration in healthy volunteers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine healthy volunteers underwent two same-day MRE exams separated by a 5- to 10-min break. In each exam, 2D and 3D MRE scans were performed, each under four conditions (2 driver types [rigid, flexible] × 2 breath-hold phases [end-expiration, end-inspiration]). Repeatability (measurements under identical conditions) and reproducibility (measurements under different conditions) were analyzed by calculating bias, limit of agreement, repeatability coefficient (RC), reproducibility coefficient (RDC), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), as appropriate. RESULTS: For 2D MRE, RCs and ICCs range between 0.29-0.49 and 0.71-0.91, respectively. For 3D MRE, RCs and ICCs range between 0.16-0.26 and 0.84-0.96, respectively. Stiffness values were biased by breath-hold phase, being higher at end-inspiration than end-expiration, and the differences were significant for 3D MRE (p < 0.01). No bias was found between driver types. Inspiration vs. expiration RDCs and CCCs ranged between 0.30-0.54 and 0.61-0.72, respectively. Rigid vs. flexible driver RDCs and CCCs ranged between 0.10-0.44 and 0.79-0.94, respectively. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that 2D MRE and 3D MRE under most conditions potentially have good repeatability. Our result also points to the possibility that stiffness measured with the rigid and flexible drivers is reproducible. Reproducibility between breath-hold phases was modest, suggesting breath-hold phase might be a confounding factor in MRE-based stiffness measurement. However, larger studies are required to validate these preliminary results.
Authors: Laurent Huwart; Christine Sempoux; Eric Vicaut; Najat Salameh; Laurence Annet; Etienne Danse; Frank Peeters; Leon C ter Beek; Jacques Rahier; Ralph Sinkus; Yves Horsmans; Bernard E Van Beers Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-04-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Ian Gavin Murphy; Martin J Graves; Scott Reid; Andrew J Patterson; Ilse Patterson; Andrew N Priest; David J Lomas Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 2.546
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: Paul Kennedy; Mathilde Wagner; Laurent Castéra; Cheng William Hong; Curtis L Johnson; Claude B Sirlin; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mary Catherine Sawh; Kimberly P Newton; Nidhi P Goyal; Jorge Eduardo Angeles; Kathryn Harlow; Craig Bross; Alexandra N Schlein; Jonathan C Hooker; Ethan Z Sy; Kevin J Glaser; Meng Yin; Richard L Ehman; Claude B Sirlin; Jeffrey B Schwimmer Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Sang Lim Choi; Eun Sun Lee; Ara Ko; Hyun Jeong Park; Sung Bin Park; Byung Ihn Choi; Young Youn Cho; Stephan Kannengiesser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Roberta Catania; Camila Lopes Vendrami; Bradley D Bolster; Richard Niemzcura; Amir A Borhani; Frank H Miller Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2022-01-04
Authors: Megan Co; Huiming Dong; Daniel J Boulter; Xuan V Nguyen; Safdar N Khan; Brian Raterman; Brett Klamer; Arunark Kolipaka; Benjamin A Walter Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 5.119