Juan S Calle-Toro1, Suraj D Serai2,3, Erum A Hartung4,5, David J Goldberg6,5, Bradley D Bolster7, Kassa Darge1,5, Sudha A Anupindi1,5. 1. Division of Body Imaging, Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Division of Body Imaging, Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA, USA. serais@email.chop.edu. 3. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. serais@email.chop.edu. 4. Division of Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. Division of Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7. Siemens Healthineers, Malvern, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of our study is to compare hepatic stiffness measures using gradient-recalled echo (GRE) versus spin-echo echo planar imaging (SE-EPI)-based MR Elastography (MRE) at 3T used to measure hepatic stiffness in a patients with suspected liver diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 52 patients with liver disease who underwent a 3T MRE exam including both an investigational SE-EPI-based technique and a product GRE-based technique. Regions of interest (ROI) were placed on the elastograms to measure elastography-derived liver stiffness as well as the area included within the ROIs. The mean liver stiffness values and area of ROIs were compared. RESULTS: The mean liver stiffness was 3.72 kilopascal (kPa) ± 1.29 using GRE MRE and 3.78 kPa ± 1.13 using SE-EPI MRE. Measurement of liver stiffness showed excellent agreement between the two pulse sequences with a mean bias of - 0.1 kPa (range - 1.8 to 1.7 kPa) between sequences. The mean measurable ROI area was higher with SE-EPI (313.8 cm2 ± 213.8) than with the GRE technique (208.6 cm2 ± 114.8), and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our data shows excellent agreement of measured liver stiffness between GRE and SE-EPI-based sequences at 3T. Our results show the advantage of a SE-EPI MRE sequence in terms of image quality, ROI size and acquisition time with equivalent liver stiffness measurements as compared to GRE-MRE sequence.
PURPOSE: The goal of our study is to compare hepatic stiffness measures using gradient-recalled echo (GRE) versus spin-echo echo planar imaging (SE-EPI)-based MR Elastography (MRE) at 3T used to measure hepatic stiffness in a patients with suspected liver diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 52 patients with liver disease who underwent a 3T MRE exam including both an investigational SE-EPI-based technique and a product GRE-based technique. Regions of interest (ROI) were placed on the elastograms to measure elastography-derived liver stiffness as well as the area included within the ROIs. The mean liver stiffness values and area of ROIs were compared. RESULTS: The mean liver stiffness was 3.72 kilopascal (kPa) ± 1.29 using GRE MRE and 3.78 kPa ± 1.13 using SE-EPI MRE. Measurement of liver stiffness showed excellent agreement between the two pulse sequences with a mean bias of - 0.1 kPa (range - 1.8 to 1.7 kPa) between sequences. The mean measurable ROI area was higher with SE-EPI (313.8 cm2 ± 213.8) than with the GRE technique (208.6 cm2 ± 114.8), and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our data shows excellent agreement of measured liver stiffness between GRE and SE-EPI-based sequences at 3T. Our results show the advantage of a SE-EPI MRE sequence in terms of image quality, ROI size and acquisition time with equivalent liver stiffness measurements as compared to GRE-MRE sequence.
Entities:
Keywords:
Fibrosis; GRE MRE; Liver; MR elastography; Magnetic resonance imaging; SE-EPI MRE
Authors: Siddharth Singh; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Rohit Loomba; Zhen Wang; Claude Sirlin; Jun Chen; Meng Yin; Frank H Miller; Russell N Low; Tarek Hassanein; Edmund M Godfrey; Patrick Asbach; Mohammad Hassan Murad; David J Lomas; Jayant A Talwalkar; Richard L Ehman Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Don C Rockey; Stephen H Caldwell; Zachary D Goodman; Rendon C Nelson; Alastair D Smith Journal: Hepatology Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Alyn L German; Kenneth Fleming; Philip Kaye; Susan Davies; Robert Goldin; Stefan G Hubscher; Dina Tiniakos; Angus McGregor; Judith I Wyatt Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Meng Yin; Jayant A Talwalkar; Kevin J Glaser; Armando Manduca; Roger C Grimm; Phillip J Rossman; Jeff L Fidler; Richard L Ehman Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Ely R Felker; Kang-Sun Choi; Kyung Sung; Holden H Wu; Steven S Raman; Bradley D Bolster; Stephan Kannengiesser; Kari Sorge; David S K Lu Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sevgi Gokce Kafali; Tess Armstrong; Shu-Fu Shih; Grace J Kim; Joseph L Holtrop; Robert S Venick; Shahnaz Ghahremani; Bradley D Bolster; Claudia M Hillenbrand; Kara L Calkins; Holden H Wu Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2022-04-02
Authors: Erum A Hartung; Juan S Calle-Toro; Carolina Maya Lopera; Jessica Wen; Robert H Carson; Mohini Dutt; Kathryn Howarth; Susan L Furth; Kassa Darge; Suraj D Serai Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-08-05