Aaryani Tipirneni-Sajja1,2, Ralf B Loeffler1, Axel J Krafft1,3, Andrea N Sajewski1, Robert J Ogg1, Jane S Hankins4, Claudia M Hillenbrand1. 1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Medical Physics, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 4. Department of Hematology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current R2*-MRI techniques for measuring hepatic iron content (HIC) use various acquisition types and fitting models. PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and precision of R2*-HIC acquisition and fitting methods. STUDY TYPE: Signal simulations, phantom study, and prospective in vivo cohort. POPULATION: In all, 132 patients (58/74 male/female, mean age 17.7 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 2D-multiecho gradient-echo (GRE) and ultrashort echo time (UTE) acquisitions at 1.5T. ASSESSMENT: Synthetic MR signals were created to mimic published GRE and UTE methods, using different R2* values (25-2000 s-1 ) and signal-to-noise ratios (SNR). Phantoms with varying iron concentrations were scanned at 1.5T. In vivo data were analyzed from 132 patients acquired at 1.5T. R2* was estimated by fitting using three signal models. Accuracy and precision of R2* measurements for UTE acquisition parameters (SNR, echo spacing [ΔTE], maximum echo time [TEmax ]) and fitting methods were compared for simulated, phantom, and in vivo datasets. STATISTICAL TESTS: R2* accuracy was determined from the relative error and by linear regression analysis. Precision was evaluated using coefficient of variation (CoV) analysis. RESULTS: In simulations, all models had high R2* accuracy (error <5%) and precision (CoV <10%) for all SNRs, shorter ΔTE (≤0.5 msec), and longer TEmax (≥10.1 msec); except the constant offset model overestimated R2* at the lowest SNR. In phantoms and in vivo, all models produced similar R2* values for different SNRs and shorter ΔTEs (slopes: 0.99-1.06, R2 > 0.99, P < 0.001). In all experiments, R2* results degraded for high R2* values with longer ΔTE (≥1 msec). In vivo, shorter and longer TEmax gave similar R2* results (slopes: 1.02-1.06, R2 > 0.99, P < 0.001) for the noise subtraction model for 25≤R2*≤2000 s-1 . However, both quadratic and constant offset models, using shorter TEmax (≤4.7 msec) overestimated R2* and yielded high CoVs up to ∼170% for low R2* (<250 s-1 ). DATA CONCLUSION: UTE with TEmax ≥ 10.1 msec and ΔTE ≤ 0.5 msec yields accurate R2* estimates over the entire clinical HIC range. Monoexponential fitting with noise subtraction is the most robust signal model to changes in UTE parameters and achieves the highest R2* accuracy and precision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1475-1488.
BACKGROUND: Current R2*-MRI techniques for measuring hepatic iron content (HIC) use various acquisition types and fitting models. PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and precision of R2*-HIC acquisition and fitting methods. STUDY TYPE: Signal simulations, phantom study, and prospective in vivo cohort. POPULATION: In all, 132 patients (58/74 male/female, mean age 17.7 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 2D-multiecho gradient-echo (GRE) and ultrashort echo time (UTE) acquisitions at 1.5T. ASSESSMENT: Synthetic MR signals were created to mimic published GRE and UTE methods, using different R2* values (25-2000 s-1 ) and signal-to-noise ratios (SNR). Phantoms with varying iron concentrations were scanned at 1.5T. In vivo data were analyzed from 132 patients acquired at 1.5T. R2* was estimated by fitting using three signal models. Accuracy and precision of R2* measurements for UTE acquisition parameters (SNR, echo spacing [ΔTE], maximum echo time [TEmax ]) and fitting methods were compared for simulated, phantom, and in vivo datasets. STATISTICAL TESTS: R2* accuracy was determined from the relative error and by linear regression analysis. Precision was evaluated using coefficient of variation (CoV) analysis. RESULTS: In simulations, all models had high R2* accuracy (error <5%) and precision (CoV <10%) for all SNRs, shorter ΔTE (≤0.5 msec), and longer TEmax (≥10.1 msec); except the constant offset model overestimated R2* at the lowest SNR. In phantoms and in vivo, all models produced similar R2* values for different SNRs and shorter ΔTEs (slopes: 0.99-1.06, R2 > 0.99, P < 0.001). In all experiments, R2* results degraded for high R2* values with longer ΔTE (≥1 msec). In vivo, shorter and longer TEmax gave similar R2* results (slopes: 1.02-1.06, R2 > 0.99, P < 0.001) for the noise subtraction model for 25≤R2*≤2000 s-1 . However, both quadratic and constant offset models, using shorter TEmax (≤4.7 msec) overestimated R2* and yielded high CoVs up to ∼170% for low R2* (<250 s-1 ). DATA CONCLUSION: UTE with TEmax ≥ 10.1 msec and ΔTE ≤ 0.5 msec yields accurate R2* estimates over the entire clinical HIC range. Monoexponential fitting with noise subtraction is the most robust signal model to changes in UTE parameters and achieves the highest R2* accuracy and precision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1475-1488.
Authors: M Beth McCarville; Claudia M Hillenbrand; Ralf B Loeffler; Matthew P Smeltzer; Ruitan Song; Chin-Shang Li; Jane S Hankins Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2010-03-24
Authors: John C Wood; Cathleen Enriquez; Nilesh Ghugre; J Michael Tyzka; Susan Carson; Marvin D Nelson; Thomas D Coates Journal: Blood Date: 2005-04-28 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Aaryani Tipirneni-Sajja; Axel J Krafft; M Beth McCarville; Ralf B Loeffler; Ruitian Song; Jane S Hankins; Claudia M Hillenbrand Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Axel J Krafft; Ralf B Loeffler; Ruitian Song; Aaryani Tipirneni-Sajja; M Beth McCarville; Matthew D Robson; Jane S Hankins; Claudia M Hillenbrand Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-01-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Aaryani Tipirneni-Sajja; Ralf B Loeffler; Jane S Hankins; Cara Morin; Claudia M Hillenbrand Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: Marzanna Obrzut; Vitaliy Atamaniuk; Kevin J Glaser; Jun Chen; Richard L Ehman; Bogdan Obrzut; Marian Cholewa; Krzysztof Gutkowski Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 4.379