Jianqi Li1, Huimin Lin2, Tian Liu3, Zhuwei Zhang4, Martin R Prince3, Kelly Gillen3, Xu Yan5, Qi Song2, Ting Hua4, Xiance Zhao1, Miao Zhang1, Yu Zhao1, Gaiying Li1, Guangyu Tang4, Guang Yang1, Gary M Brittenham6, Yi Wang1,3,7. 1. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Magnetic Resonance and Department of Physics, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Radiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 5. MR Collaboration NE Asia, Siemens Healthcare, Shanghai, China. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A challenge for R2 and R2* methods in measuring liver iron concentration (LIC) is that fibrosis, fat, and other hepatic cellular pathology contribute to R2 and R2* and interfere with LIC estimation. PURPOSE: To examine the interfering effects of fibrosis, fat, and other lesions on R2* LIC estimation and to use quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) to reduce these distortions. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. PHANTOMS, SUBJECTS: Water phantoms with various concentrations of gadolinium (Gd), collagen (Cl, modeling fibrosis), and fat; nine healthy controls with no known hepatic disease, nine patients with known or suspected hepatic iron overload, and nine patients with focal liver lesions. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: The phantoms and human subjects were imaged using a 3D multiecho gradient-echo on clinical 1.5T and 3T MRI systems. ASSESSMENT: QSM and R2* images were postprocessed from the same gradient-echo data. Fat contributions to susceptibility and R2* were corrected in signal models for LIC estimation. STATISTICAL TESTS: Polynomial regression analyses were performed to examine relations among susceptibility, R2* and true [Gd] and [Cl] in phantoms, and among susceptibility and R2* in patient livers. RESULTS: In phantoms, R2* had a strong nonlinear dependency on [Cl], [fat], and [Gd], while susceptibility was linearly dependent (R2 > 0.98). In patients, R2* was highly sensitive to liver pathological changes, including fat, fibrosis, and tumors, while QSM was relatively insensitive to these abnormalities (P = 0.015). With moderate iron overload, liver susceptibility and R2* were not linearly correlated over a common R2* range [0, 100] sec-1 (P = 0.35). DATA CONCLUSION: R2* estimation of LIC is prone to substantial nonlinear interference from fat, fibrosis, and other lesions. QSM processing of the same gradient echo MRI data can effectively minimize the effects of cellular pathology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:1069-1079.
BACKGROUND: A challenge for R2 and R2* methods in measuring liver iron concentration (LIC) is that fibrosis, fat, and other hepatic cellular pathology contribute to R2 and R2* and interfere with LIC estimation. PURPOSE: To examine the interfering effects of fibrosis, fat, and other lesions on R2* LIC estimation and to use quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) to reduce these distortions. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. PHANTOMS, SUBJECTS:Water phantoms with various concentrations of gadolinium (Gd), collagen (Cl, modeling fibrosis), and fat; nine healthy controls with no known hepatic disease, nine patients with known or suspected hepatic iron overload, and nine patients with focal liver lesions. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: The phantoms and human subjects were imaged using a 3D multiecho gradient-echo on clinical 1.5T and 3T MRI systems. ASSESSMENT: QSM and R2* images were postprocessed from the same gradient-echo data. Fat contributions to susceptibility and R2* were corrected in signal models for LIC estimation. STATISTICAL TESTS: Polynomial regression analyses were performed to examine relations among susceptibility, R2* and true [Gd] and [Cl] in phantoms, and among susceptibility and R2* in patient livers. RESULTS: In phantoms, R2* had a strong nonlinear dependency on [Cl], [fat], and [Gd], while susceptibility was linearly dependent (R2 > 0.98). In patients, R2* was highly sensitive to liver pathological changes, including fat, fibrosis, and tumors, while QSM was relatively insensitive to these abnormalities (P = 0.015). With moderate iron overload, liver susceptibility and R2* were not linearly correlated over a common R2* range [0, 100] sec-1 (P = 0.35). DATA CONCLUSION: R2* estimation of LIC is prone to substantial nonlinear interference from fat, fibrosis, and other lesions. QSM processing of the same gradient echo MRI data can effectively minimize the effects of cellular pathology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:1069-1079.
Authors: Ellen Butensky; Roland Fischer; Mark Hudes; Laurie Schumacher; Roger Williams; Thomas P Moyer; Elliott Vichinsky; Paul Harmatz Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Kofi Deh; Thanh D Nguyen; Sarah Eskreis-Winkler; Martin R Prince; Pascal Spincemaille; Susan Gauthier; Ilhami Kovanlikaya; Yan Zhang; Yi Wang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Catherine D G Hines; Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Charles A McKenzie; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mohammed H Alam; Dominique Auger; Laura-Ann McGill; Gillian C Smith; Taigang He; Cemil Izgi; A John Baksi; Rick Wage; Peter Drivas; David N Firmin; Dudley J Pennell Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Ramin Jafari; Sujit Sheth; Pascal Spincemaille; Thanh D Nguyen; Martin R Prince; Yan Wen; Yihao Guo; Kofi Deh; Zhe Liu; Daniel Margolis; Gary M Brittenham; Andrea S Kierans; Yi Wang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-01-13 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mustafa R Bashir; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony C Gamst; Kathryn J Fowler; Michael Ohliger; Shetal N Shah; Adina Alazraki; Andrew T Trout; Cynthia Behling; Daniela S Allende; Rohit Loomba; Arun Sanyal; Jeffrey Schwimmer; Joel E Lavine; Wei Shen; James Tonascia; Mark L Van Natta; Adrija Mamidipalli; Jonathan Hooker; Kris V Kowdley; Michael S Middleton; Claude B Sirlin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-10-14 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: E Louise Thomas; Madeleine Cule; Yi Liu; Nicolas Basty; Brandon Whitcher; Jimmy D Bell; Elena P Sorokin; Nick van Bruggen Journal: Elife Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 8.140