Cheng William Hong1, Tanya Wolfson2, Ethan Z Sy1, Alexandra N Schlein1, Jonathan C Hooker1, Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy1, Gavin Hamilton1, Scott B Reeder3, Rohit Loomba4, Claude B Sirlin1. 1. Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, USA. 2. Computational and Applied Statistics Laboratory, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, USA. 3. Departments of Radiology, Medical Physics, Biomedical Engineering, Medicine, and Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 4. NAFLD Research Center, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials utilizing proton density fat fraction (PDFF) as an imaging biomarker for hepatic steatosis have used a laborious region-of-interest (ROI) sampling strategy of placing an ROI in each hepatic segment. PURPOSE: To identify a strategy with the fewest ROIs that consistently achieves close agreement with the nine-ROI strategy. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective secondary analysis of prospectively acquired clinical research data. POPULATION: A total of 391 adults (173 men, 218 women) with known or suspected NAFLD. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Confounder-corrected chemical-shift-encoded 3T MRI using a 2D multiecho gradient-recalled echo technique. ASSESSMENT: An ROI was placed in each hepatic segment. Mean nine-ROI PDFF and segmental PDFF standard deviation were computed. Segmental and lobar PDFF were compared. PDFF was estimated using every combinatorial subset of ROIs and compared to the nine-ROI average. STATISTICAL TESTING: Mean nine-ROI PDFF and segmental PDFF standard deviation were summarized descriptively. Segmental PDFF was compared using a one-way analysis of variance, and lobar PDFF was compared using a paired t-test and a Bland-Altman analysis. The PDFF estimated by every subset of ROIs was informally compared to the nine-ROI average using median intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: The study population's mean whole-liver PDFF was 10.1 ± 8.9% (range: 1.1-44.1%). Although there was no significant difference in average segmental (P = 0.452) or lobar (P = 0.154) PDFF, left and right lobe PDFF differed by at least 1.5 percentage points in 25.1% (98/391) of patients. Any strategy with ≥4 ROIs had ICC >0.995. 115 of 126 four-ROI strategies (91%) had limits of agreement (LOA) <1.5%, including four-ROI strategies with two ROIs from each lobe, which all had LOA <1.5%. 14/36 (39%) of two-ROI strategies and 74/84 (88%) of three-ROI strategies had ICC >0.995, and 2/36 (6%) of two-ROI strategies and 46/84 (55%) of three-ROI strategies had LOA <1.5%. DATA CONCLUSION: Four-ROI sampling strategies with two ROIs in the left and right lobes achieve close agreement with nine-ROI PDFF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:988-994.
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials utilizing proton density fat fraction (PDFF) as an imaging biomarker for hepatic steatosis have used a laborious region-of-interest (ROI) sampling strategy of placing an ROI in each hepatic segment. PURPOSE: To identify a strategy with the fewest ROIs that consistently achieves close agreement with the nine-ROI strategy. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective secondary analysis of prospectively acquired clinical research data. POPULATION: A total of 391 adults (173 men, 218 women) with known or suspected NAFLD. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Confounder-corrected chemical-shift-encoded 3T MRI using a 2D multiecho gradient-recalled echo technique. ASSESSMENT: An ROI was placed in each hepatic segment. Mean nine-ROI PDFF and segmental PDFF standard deviation were computed. Segmental and lobar PDFF were compared. PDFF was estimated using every combinatorial subset of ROIs and compared to the nine-ROI average. STATISTICAL TESTING: Mean nine-ROI PDFF and segmental PDFF standard deviation were summarized descriptively. Segmental PDFF was compared using a one-way analysis of variance, and lobar PDFF was compared using a paired t-test and a Bland-Altman analysis. The PDFF estimated by every subset of ROIs was informally compared to the nine-ROI average using median intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: The study population's mean whole-liver PDFF was 10.1 ± 8.9% (range: 1.1-44.1%). Although there was no significant difference in average segmental (P = 0.452) or lobar (P = 0.154) PDFF, left and right lobe PDFF differed by at least 1.5 percentage points in 25.1% (98/391) of patients. Any strategy with ≥4 ROIs had ICC >0.995. 115 of 126 four-ROI strategies (91%) had limits of agreement (LOA) <1.5%, including four-ROI strategies with two ROIs from each lobe, which all had LOA <1.5%. 14/36 (39%) of two-ROI strategies and 74/84 (88%) of three-ROI strategies had ICC >0.995, and 2/36 (6%) of two-ROI strategies and 46/84 (55%) of three-ROI strategies had LOA <1.5%. DATA CONCLUSION: Four-ROI sampling strategies with two ROIs in the left and right lobes achieve close agreement with nine-ROI PDFF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:988-994.
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: S Bonekamp; P Ghosh; S Crawford; S F Solga; A Horska; F L Brancati; A M Diehl; S Smith; J M Clark Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2007-08-14 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Raphael B Merriman; Linda D Ferrell; Marco G Patti; Shiobhan R Weston; Mark S Pabst; Bradley E Aouizerat; Nathan M Bass Journal: Hepatology Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Takeshi Yokoo; Mark Bydder; Gavin Hamilton; Michael S Middleton; Anthony C Gamst; Tanya Wolfson; Tarek Hassanein; Heather M Patton; Joel E Lavine; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-02-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Steven P Larson; Steven P Bowers; Nicole A Palekar; John A Ward; Joseph P Pulcini; Stephen A Harrison Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2007-08-16 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Raj Vuppalanchi; Aynur Unalp; Mark L Van Natta; Oscar W Cummings; Kumar E Sandrasegaran; Tariq Hameed; James Tonascia; Naga Chalasani Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2008-12-25 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Jonathan C Hooker; Gavin Hamilton; Charlie C Park; Steven Liao; Tanya Wolfson; Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Cheng William Hong; Adrija Mamidipalli; Anthony Gamst; Rohit Loomba; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-02
Authors: Jan Syväri; Daniela Junker; Lisa Patzelt; Katharina Kappo; Loubna Al Sadat; Sonia Erfanian; Marcus R Makowski; Hans Hauner; Dimitrios C Karampinos Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-05
Authors: Cheng William Hong; Jennifer Y Cui; Danielle Batakis; Yang Xu; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony C Gamst; Alexandra N Schlein; Lindsey M Negrete; Michael S Middleton; Gavin Hamilton; Rohit Loomba; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Kathryn J Fowler; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-02-20
Authors: Francesca Del Chicca; Henning Richter; Gian-Luca Steger; Elena Salesov; Claudia E Reusch; Patrick R Kircher Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 3.240