Literature DB >> 28612163

Repeatability and reproducibility of 2D and 3D hepatic MR elastography with rigid and flexible drivers at end-expiration and end-inspiration in healthy volunteers.

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.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  2D MRE; 3D MRE; Flexible driver; Liver; MR elastography; QIB; QIBA; Quantitative imaging biomarker; Repeatability; Reproducibility; Rigid driver

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28612163      PMCID: PMC5698170          DOI: 10.1007/s00261-017-1206-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)


  31 in total

1.  Magnetic resonance elastography using 3D gradient echo measurements of steady-state motion.

Authors:  J B Weaver; E E Van Houten; M I Miga; F E Kennedy; K D Paulsen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Spatio-temporal directional filtering for improved inversion of MR elastography images.

Authors:  A Manduca; D S Lake; S A Kruse; R L Ehman
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 8.545

3.  Magnetic resonance elastography of liver in healthy Asians: normal liver stiffness quantification and reproducibility assessment.

Authors:  Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Gang Wang; Lynette L S Teo; Bertrand W L Ang
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  Magnetic resonance elastography for the noninvasive staging of liver fibrosis.

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

5.  Short- and midterm repeatability of magnetic resonance elastography in healthy volunteers at 3.0 T.

Authors:  Yu Shi; Qiyong Guo; Fei Xia; Jiaxing Sun; Yuying Gao
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 2.546

6.  Comparison of breath-hold, respiratory navigated and free-breathing MR elastography of the liver.

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

7.  Magnetic resonance elastography: non-invasive mapping of tissue elasticity.

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

8.  Repeatability of magnetic resonance elastography for quantification of hepatic stiffness.

Authors:  Catherine D G Hines; Thorsten A Bley; Mary J Lindstrom; Scott B Reeder
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  Hepatic MR Elastography: Clinical Performance in a Series of 1377 Consecutive Examinations.

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

10.  Non-invasive measurement of brain viscoelasticity using magnetic resonance elastography.

Authors:  Ingolf Sack; Bernd Beierbach; Uwe Hamhaber; Dieter Klatt; Jürgen Braun
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 4.044

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  MR elastography of liver: current status and future perspectives.

Authors:  Ilkay S Idilman; Jiahui Li; Meng Yin; Sudhakar K Venkatesh
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-07-23

Review 2.  Quantitative Elastography Methods in Liver Disease: Current Evidence and Future Directions.

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

Review 3.  Advances in Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Liver.

Authors:  Jiahui Li; Sudhakar Kundapur Venkatesh; Meng Yin
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2020-06-06       Impact factor: 2.266

4.  Normal range for MR elastography measured liver stiffness in children without liver disease.

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

5.  Technical success rates and reliability of spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SE-EPI) MR elastography in patients with chronic liver disease or liver cirrhosis.

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

6.  Intra-patient comparison of 3D and 2D magnetic resonance elastography techniques for assessment of liver stiffness.

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

7.  Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Intervertebral Discs: Spin-Echo Echo-Planar Imaging Sequence Validation.

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

Review 8.  Liver fibrosis assessment: MR and US elastography.

Authors:  Arinc Ozturk; Michael C Olson; Anthony E Samir; Sudhakar K Venkatesh
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-10-23

Review 9.  Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Liver: Current Update.

Authors:  Safa Hoodeshenas; Meng Yin; Sudhakar Kundapur Venkatesh
Journal:  Top Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-10

Review 10.  Magnetic resonance elastography of the liver: everything you need to know to get started.

Authors:  Kay M Pepin; Christopher L Welle; Flavius F Guglielmo; Jonathan R Dillman; Sudhakar K Venkatesh
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-11-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.