B Dustin Pooler1, Diego Hernando1,2, Jeannine A Ruby1, Hiroshi Ishii1,3, Ann Shimakawa4, Scott B Reeder1,2,5,6,7. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan. 4. Global MR Applications and Workflow, GE Healthcare, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current chemical-shift-encoded (CSE) MRI techniques for measuring hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) are sensitive to motion artifacts. PURPOSE: Initial validation of a motion-robust 2D-sequential CSE-MRI technique for quantification of hepatic PDFF. STUDY TYPE: Phantom study and prospective in vivo cohort. POPULATION: Fifty adult patients (27 women, 23 men, mean age 57.2 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3D, 2D-interleaved, and 2D-sequential CSE-MRI acquisitions at 1.5T. ASSESSMENT: Three CSE-MRI techniques (3D, 2D-interleaved, 2D-sequential) were performed in a PDFF phantom and in vivo. Reference standards were 3D CSE-MRI PDFF measurements for the phantom study and single-voxel MR spectroscopy hepatic PDFF measurements (MRS-PDFF) in vivo. In vivo hepatic MRI-PDFF measurements were performed during a single breath-hold (BH) and free breathing (FB), and were repeated by a second reader for the FB 2D-sequential sequence to assess interreader variability. STATISTICAL TESTS: Correlation plots to validate the 2D-sequential CSE-MRI against the phantom and in vivo reference standards. Bland-Altman analysis of FB versus BH CSE-MRI acquisitions to evaluate robustness to motion. Bland-Altman analysis to assess interreader variability. RESULTS: Phantom 2D-sequential CSE-MRI PDFF measurements demonstrated excellent agreement and correlation (R2 > 0.99) with 3D CSE-MRI. In vivo, the mean (±SD) hepatic PDFF was 8.8 ± 8.7% (range 0.6-28.5%). Compared with BH acquisitions, FB hepatic PDFF measurements demonstrated bias of +0.15% for 2D-sequential compared with + 0.53% for 3D and +0.94% for 2D-interleaved. 95% limits of agreement (LOA) were narrower for 2D-sequential (±0.99%), compared with 3D (±3.72%) and 2D-interleaved (±3.10%). All CSE-MRI techniques had excellent correlation with MRS (R2 > 0.97). The FB 2D-sequential acquisition demonstrated little interreader variability, with mean bias of +0.07% and 95% LOA of ± 1.53%. DATA CONCLUSION: This motion-robust 2D-sequential CSE-MRI can accurately measure hepatic PDFF during free breathing in a patient population with a range of PDFF values of 0.6-28.5%, permitting accurate quantification of liver fat content without the need for suspended respiration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:1578-1585.
BACKGROUND: Current chemical-shift-encoded (CSE) MRI techniques for measuring hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) are sensitive to motion artifacts. PURPOSE: Initial validation of a motion-robust 2D-sequential CSE-MRI technique for quantification of hepatic PDFF. STUDY TYPE: Phantom study and prospective in vivo cohort. POPULATION: Fifty adult patients (27 women, 23 men, mean age 57.2 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3D, 2D-interleaved, and 2D-sequential CSE-MRI acquisitions at 1.5T. ASSESSMENT: Three CSE-MRI techniques (3D, 2D-interleaved, 2D-sequential) were performed in a PDFF phantom and in vivo. Reference standards were 3D CSE-MRI PDFF measurements for the phantom study and single-voxel MR spectroscopy hepatic PDFF measurements (MRS-PDFF) in vivo. In vivo hepatic MRI-PDFF measurements were performed during a single breath-hold (BH) and free breathing (FB), and were repeated by a second reader for the FB 2D-sequential sequence to assess interreader variability. STATISTICAL TESTS: Correlation plots to validate the 2D-sequential CSE-MRI against the phantom and in vivo reference standards. Bland-Altman analysis of FB versus BH CSE-MRI acquisitions to evaluate robustness to motion. Bland-Altman analysis to assess interreader variability. RESULTS: Phantom 2D-sequential CSE-MRI PDFF measurements demonstrated excellent agreement and correlation (R2 > 0.99) with 3D CSE-MRI. In vivo, the mean (±SD) hepatic PDFF was 8.8 ± 8.7% (range 0.6-28.5%). Compared with BH acquisitions, FB hepatic PDFF measurements demonstrated bias of +0.15% for 2D-sequential compared with + 0.53% for 3D and +0.94% for 2D-interleaved. 95% limits of agreement (LOA) were narrower for 2D-sequential (±0.99%), compared with 3D (±3.72%) and 2D-interleaved (±3.10%). All CSE-MRI techniques had excellent correlation with MRS (R2 > 0.97). The FB 2D-sequential acquisition demonstrated little interreader variability, with mean bias of +0.07% and 95% LOA of ± 1.53%. DATA CONCLUSION: This motion-robust 2D-sequential CSE-MRI can accurately measure hepatic PDFF during free breathing in a patient population with a range of PDFF values of 0.6-28.5%, permitting accurate quantification of liver fat content without the need for suspended respiration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:1578-1585.
Authors: Lidia S Szczepaniak; Pamela Nurenberg; David Leonard; Jeffrey D Browning; Jason S Reingold; Scott Grundy; Helen H Hobbs; Robert L Dobbins Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2004-08-31 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Leon A Adams; James F Lymp; Jenny St Sauver; Schuyler O Sanderson; Keith D Lindor; Ariel Feldstein; Paul Angulo Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: David E Kleiner; Elizabeth M Brunt; Mark Van Natta; Cynthia Behling; Melissa J Contos; Oscar W Cummings; Linda D Ferrell; Yao-Chang Liu; Michael S Torbenson; Aynur Unalp-Arida; Matthew Yeh; Arthur J McCullough; Arun J Sanyal Journal: Hepatology Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Charles A McKenzie; Ethan Brodsky; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Huanzhou Yu; Charles A McKenzie; Ann Shimakawa; Anthony T Vu; Anja C S Brau; Philip J Beatty; Angel R Pineda; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Terry Gramlich; David E Kleiner; Arthur J McCullough; Christi A Matteoni; Navdeep Boparai; Zobair M Younossi Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Ante Zhu; Scott B Reeder; Kevin M Johnson; Sydney M Nguyen; Thaddeus G Golos; Ann Shimakawa; Matthias R Muehler; Christopher J Francois; Ian M Bird; Sean B Fain; Dinesh M Shah; Oliver Wieben; Diego Hernando Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Christopher L Welle; Michael C Olson; Scott B Reeder; Sudhakar K Venkatesh Journal: Radiol Clin North Am Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 1.947
Authors: Huiwen Luo; Ante Zhu; Curtis N Wiens; Jitka Starekova; Ann Shimakawa; Scott B Reeder; Kevin M Johnson; Diego Hernando Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ruiyang Zhao; Yuxin Zhang; Xiaoke Wang; Timothy J Colgan; Jennifer L Rehm; Scott B Reeder; Kevin M Johnson; Diego Hernando Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Tobias Greve; Egon Burian; Agnes Zoffl; Georg Feuerriegel; Sarah Schlaeger; Michael Dieckmeyer; Nico Sollmann; Elisabeth Klupp; Dominik Weidlich; Stephanie Inhuber; Maximilian Löffler; Federica Montagnese; Marcus Deschauer; Benedikt Schoser; Sarah Bublitz; Claus Zimmer; Dimitrios C Karampinos; Jan S Kirschke; Thomas Baum Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-06