Aaryani Tipirneni-Sajja1,2, Axel J Krafft1,3, Ralf B Loeffler1, Ruitian Song1, Armita Bahrami4, Jane S Hankins5, Claudia M Hillenbrand1. 1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, 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 Pathology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. 5. Department of Hematology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measuring hepatic R2* by fitting a monoexponential model to the signal decay of a multigradient-echo (mGRE) sequence noninvasively determines hepatic iron content (HIC). Concurrent hepatic steatosis introduces signal oscillations and confounds R2* quantification with standard monoexponential models. PURPOSE: To evaluate an autoregressive moving average (ARMA) model for accurate quantification of HIC in the presence of fat using biopsy as the reference. STUDY TYPE: Phantom study and in vivo cohort. POPULATION: Twenty iron-fat phantoms covering clinically relevant R2* (30-800 s-1 ) and fat fraction (FF) ranges (0-40%), and 10 patients (four male, six female, mean age 18.8 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 2D mGRE acquisitions at 1.5 T and 3 T. ASSESSMENT: Phantoms were scanned at both field strengths. In vivo data were analyzed using the ARMA model to determine R2* and FF values, and compared with biopsy results. STATISTICAL TESTS: Linear regression analysis was used to compare ARMA R2* and FF results with those obtained using a conventional monoexponential model, complex-domain nonlinear least squares (NLSQ) fat-water model, and biopsy. RESULTS: In phantoms and in vivo, all models produced R2* and FF values consistent with expected values in low iron and low/high fat conditions. For high iron and no fat phantoms, monoexponential and ARMA models performed excellently (slopes: 0.89-1.07), but NLSQ overestimated R2* (slopes: 1.14-1.36) and produced false FFs (12-17%) at 1.5 T; in high iron and fat phantoms, NLSQ (slopes: 1.02-1.16) outperformed monoexponential and ARMA models (slopes: 1.23-1.88). The results with NLSQ and ARMA improved in phantoms at 3 T (slopes: 0.96-1.04). In patients, mean R2*-HIC estimates for monoexponential and ARMA models were close to biopsy-HIC values (slopes: 0.90-0.95), whereas NLSQ substantially overestimated HIC (slope 1.4) and produced false FF values (4-28%) with very high SDs (15-222%) in patients with high iron overload and no steatosis. DATA CONCLUSION: ARMA is superior in quantifying R2* and FF under high iron and no fat conditions, whereas NLSQ is superior for high iron and concurrent fat at 1.5 T. Both models give improved R2* and FF results at 3 T. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1620-1632.
BACKGROUND: Measuring hepatic R2* by fitting a monoexponential model to the signal decay of a multigradient-echo (mGRE) sequence noninvasively determines hepatic iron content (HIC). Concurrent hepatic steatosis introduces signal oscillations and confounds R2* quantification with standard monoexponential models. PURPOSE: To evaluate an autoregressive moving average (ARMA) model for accurate quantification of HIC in the presence of fat using biopsy as the reference. STUDY TYPE: Phantom study and in vivo cohort. POPULATION: Twenty iron-fat phantoms covering clinically relevant R2* (30-800 s-1 ) and fat fraction (FF) ranges (0-40%), and 10 patients (four male, six female, mean age 18.8 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 2D mGRE acquisitions at 1.5 T and 3 T. ASSESSMENT: Phantoms were scanned at both field strengths. In vivo data were analyzed using the ARMA model to determine R2* and FF values, and compared with biopsy results. STATISTICAL TESTS: Linear regression analysis was used to compare ARMA R2* and FF results with those obtained using a conventional monoexponential model, complex-domain nonlinear least squares (NLSQ) fat-water model, and biopsy. RESULTS: In phantoms and in vivo, all models produced R2* and FF values consistent with expected values in low iron and low/high fat conditions. For high iron and no fat phantoms, monoexponential and ARMA models performed excellently (slopes: 0.89-1.07), but NLSQ overestimated R2* (slopes: 1.14-1.36) and produced false FFs (12-17%) at 1.5 T; in high iron and fat phantoms, NLSQ (slopes: 1.02-1.16) outperformed monoexponential and ARMA models (slopes: 1.23-1.88). The results with NLSQ and ARMA improved in phantoms at 3 T (slopes: 0.96-1.04). In patients, mean R2*-HIC estimates for monoexponential and ARMA models were close to biopsy-HIC values (slopes: 0.90-0.95), whereas NLSQ substantially overestimated HIC (slope 1.4) and produced false FF values (4-28%) with very high SDs (15-222%) in patients with high iron overload and no steatosis. DATA CONCLUSION: ARMA is superior in quantifying R2* and FF under high iron and no fat conditions, whereas NLSQ is superior for high iron and concurrent fat at 1.5 T. Both models give improved R2* and FF results at 3 T. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1620-1632.
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: 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: Jane S Hankins; M Beth McCarville; Ralf B Loeffler; Matthew P Smeltzer; Mihaela Onciu; Fredric A Hoffer; Chin-Shang Li; Winfred C Wang; Russell E Ware; Claudia M Hillenbrand Journal: Blood Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 22.113
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: Axel J Krafft; Ralf B Loeffler; Ruitian Song; Xiao Bian; M Beth McCarville; Jane S Hankins; Claudia M Hillenbrand Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-08-26 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