Li Xu1, Yangyang Duanmu1, Glen M Blake2, Chenxin Zhang1, Yong Zhang1, Keenan Brown3, Xiaoqi Wang4, Peng Wang5, Xingang Zhou5, Manling Zhang6, Chao Wang7, Zhe Guo1, Giuseppe Guglielmi8, Xiaoguang Cheng9. 1. Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, 31 Xinjiekou East Street, Beijing, 100035, China. 2. Biomedical Engineering Department, King's College London, London, UK. 3. Mindways Software, Austin, TX, USA. 4. Philips Healthcare, Beijing, China. 5. Pathology Department, Capital Medical University Affiliated Beijing Ditan Hospital, Beijing, China. 6. China National Food & Safety Supervision and Inspection Centre, Beijing, China. 7. Statistics Department, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China. 8. Department of Radiology, Scientific Institute Hospital, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy. 9. Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, 31 Xinjiekou East Street, Beijing, 100035, China. xiao65@263.net.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to validate the accuracy and reliability of quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and chemical shift encoded magnetic resonance imaging (CSE-MRI) to assess hepatic steatosis. METHODS: Twenty-two geese with a wide range of hepatic steatosis were collected. After QCT and CSE-MRI examinations, the liver of each goose was removed and samples were taken from the left lobe, upper and lower half of the right lobe for biochemical measurement and histology. Fat percentages by QCT and proton density fat fraction by MRI (MRI-PDFF) were measured within the sample regions of biochemical measurement and histology. The accuracy of QCT and MR measurements were assessed through Spearman correlation coefficients (r) and Passing and Bablok regression equations using biochemical measurement as the "gold standard". RESULTS: Both QCT and MRI correlated highly with chemical extraction [r = 0.922 (p < 0.001) and r = 0.949 (p < 0.001) respectively]. Chemically extracted triglyceride was accurately predicted by both QCT liver fat percentages (Y = 0.6 + 0.866 × X) and by MRI-PDFF (Y = -1.8 + 0.773 × X). CONCLUSIONS: QCT and CSE-MRI measurements of goose liver fat were accurate and reliable compared with biochemical measurement. KEY POINTS: • QCT and CSE-MRI can measure liver fat content accurately and reliably • Histological grading of hepatic steatosis has larger sampling variability • QCT and CSE-MRI have potential in the clinical setting.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to validate the accuracy and reliability of quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and chemical shift encoded magnetic resonance imaging (CSE-MRI) to assess hepatic steatosis. METHODS: Twenty-two geese with a wide range of hepatic steatosis were collected. After QCT and CSE-MRI examinations, the liver of each goose was removed and samples were taken from the left lobe, upper and lower half of the right lobe for biochemical measurement and histology. Fat percentages by QCT and proton density fat fraction by MRI (MRI-PDFF) were measured within the sample regions of biochemical measurement and histology. The accuracy of QCT and MR measurements were assessed through Spearman correlation coefficients (r) and Passing and Bablok regression equations using biochemical measurement as the "gold standard". RESULTS: Both QCT and MRI correlated highly with chemical extraction [r = 0.922 (p < 0.001) and r = 0.949 (p < 0.001) respectively]. Chemically extracted triglyceride was accurately predicted by both QCT liver fat percentages (Y = 0.6 + 0.866 × X) and by MRI-PDFF (Y = -1.8 + 0.773 × X). CONCLUSIONS: QCT and CSE-MRI measurements of goose liver fat were accurate and reliable compared with biochemical measurement. KEY POINTS: • QCT and CSE-MRI can measure liver fat content accurately and reliably • Histological grading of hepatic steatosis has larger sampling variability • QCT and CSE-MRI have potential in the clinical setting.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemical shift encoded magnetic resonance imaging; Hepatic steatosis; Hepatic triglyceride analysis; Proton density fat fraction; Quantitative computed tomography
Authors: Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Cynthia Behling; Robert Newbury; Reena Deutsch; Caroline Nievergelt; Nicholas J Schork; Joel E Lavine Journal: Hepatology Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Christopher D Williams; Joel Stengel; Michael I Asike; Dawn M Torres; Janet Shaw; Maricela Contreras; Cristy L Landt; Stephen A Harrison Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-09-19 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Harald Kramer; Perry J Pickhardt; Mark A Kliewer; Diego Hernando; Guang-Hong Chen; James A Zagzebski; Scott B Reeder Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Peter Bannas; Harald Kramer; Diego Hernando; Rashmi Agni; Ashley M Cunningham; Rakesh Mandal; Utaroh Motosugi; Samir D Sharma; Alejandro Munoz del Rio; Luis Fernandez; Scott B Reeder Journal: Hepatology Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Nathan S Artz; Catherine D G Hines; Stephen T Brunner; Rashmi M Agni; Jens-Peter Kühn; Alejandro Roldan-Alzate; Guang-Hong Chen; Scott B Reeder Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Catherine D G Hines; Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Charles A McKenzie; Thomas F Warner; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Adrija Mamidipalli; Kathryn J Fowler; Gavin Hamilton; Tanya Wolfson; Yesenia Covarrubias; Calvin Tran; Soudabeh Fazeli; Curtis N Wiens; Alan McMillan; Nathan S Artz; Luke M Funk; Guilherme M Campos; Jacob A Greenberg; Anthony Gamst; Michael S Middleton; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Scott B Reeder; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Y X Li; Y Q Sang; Yan Sun; X K Liu; H F Geng; Min Zha; Ben Wang; Fei Teng; H J Sun; Yu Wang; Q Q Qiu; Xiu Zang; Yun Wang; T T Wu; Peter M Jones; Jun Liang; Wei Xu Journal: Int J Med Sci Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Koeun Lee; Yongbin Shin; Jimi Huh; Yu Sub Sung; In Seob Lee; Kwon Ha Yoon; Kyung Won Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 3.500