Adrija Mamidipalli1, Kathryn J Fowler1, Gavin Hamilton1, Tanya Wolfson2, Yesenia Covarrubias1, Calvin Tran1, Soudabeh Fazeli1, Curtis N Wiens3, Alan McMillan3, Nathan S Artz3, Luke M Funk4,5, Guilherme M Campos6, Jacob A Greenberg4, Anthony Gamst2, Michael S Middleton1, Jeffrey B Schwimmer7,8, Scott B Reeder9, Claude B Sirlin10. 1. Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California - San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 2. Computational and Applied Statistics Laboratory, Supercomputer Center, University of California - San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. 5. William S. Middleton VA, Madison, WI, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, Virginia, USA. 7. Division of Gastroenterology; Hepatology and Nutrition; Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 8. Department of Gastroenterology, Rady Children's Hospital, San Diego, CA, USA. 9. Departments of Radiology, Medical Physics, Biomedical Engineering, Medicine, and Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. 10. Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California - San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. csirlin1@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare longitudinal hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) changes estimated by magnitude- vs. complex-based chemical-shift-encoded MRI during a weight loss surgery (WLS) program in severely obese adults with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective dual-center longitudinal study of 54 adults (44 women; mean age 52 years; range 27-70 years) with obesity, biopsy-proven NAFLD, and baseline PDFF ≥ 5%, enrolled in a WLS program. PDFF was estimated by confounder-corrected chemical-shift-encoded MRI using magnitude (MRI-M)- and complex (MRI-C)-based techniques at baseline (visit 1), after a 2- to 4-week very low-calorie diet (visit 2), and at 1, 3, and 6 months (visits 3 to 5) after surgery. At each visit, PDFF values estimated by MRI-M and MRI-C were compared by a paired t test. Rates of PDFF change estimated by MRI-M and MRI-C for visits 1 to 3, and for visits 3 to 5 were assessed by Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: MRI-M PDFF estimates were lower by 0.5-0.7% compared with those of MRI-C at all visits (p < 0.001). There was high agreement and no difference between PDFF change rates estimated by MRI-M vs. MRI-C for visits 1 to 3 (ICC 0.983, 95% CI 0.971, 0.99; bias = - 0.13%, p = 0.22), or visits 3 to 5 (ICC 0.956, 95% CI 0.919-0.977%; bias = 0.03%, p = 0.36). CONCLUSION: Although MRI-M underestimates PDFF compared with MRI-C cross-sectionally, this bias is consistent and MRI-M and MRI-C agree in estimating the rate of hepatic PDFF change longitudinally. KEY POINTS: • MRI-M demonstrates a significant but small and consistent bias (0.5-0.7%; p < 0.001) towards underestimation of PDFF compared with MRI-C at 3 T. • Rates of PDFF change estimated by MRI-M and MRI-C agree closely (ICC 0.96-0.98) in adults with severe obesity and biopsy- proven NAFLD enrolled in a weight loss surgery program. • Our findings support the use of either MRI technique (MRI-M or MRI-C) for clinical care or by individual sites or for multi-center trials that include PDFF change as an endpoint. However, since there is a bias in their measurements, the same technique should be used in any given patient for longitudinal follow-up.
PURPOSE: To compare longitudinal hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) changes estimated by magnitude- vs. complex-based chemical-shift-encoded MRI during a weight loss surgery (WLS) program in severely obese adults with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective dual-center longitudinal study of 54 adults (44 women; mean age 52 years; range 27-70 years) with obesity, biopsy-proven NAFLD, and baseline PDFF ≥ 5%, enrolled in a WLS program. PDFF was estimated by confounder-corrected chemical-shift-encoded MRI using magnitude (MRI-M)- and complex (MRI-C)-based techniques at baseline (visit 1), after a 2- to 4-week very low-calorie diet (visit 2), and at 1, 3, and 6 months (visits 3 to 5) after surgery. At each visit, PDFF values estimated by MRI-M and MRI-C were compared by a paired t test. Rates of PDFF change estimated by MRI-M and MRI-C for visits 1 to 3, and for visits 3 to 5 were assessed by Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: MRI-M PDFF estimates were lower by 0.5-0.7% compared with those of MRI-C at all visits (p < 0.001). There was high agreement and no difference between PDFF change rates estimated by MRI-M vs. MRI-C for visits 1 to 3 (ICC 0.983, 95% CI 0.971, 0.99; bias = - 0.13%, p = 0.22), or visits 3 to 5 (ICC 0.956, 95% CI 0.919-0.977%; bias = 0.03%, p = 0.36). CONCLUSION: Although MRI-M underestimates PDFF compared with MRI-C cross-sectionally, this bias is consistent and MRI-M and MRI-C agree in estimating the rate of hepatic PDFF change longitudinally. KEY POINTS: • MRI-M demonstrates a significant but small and consistent bias (0.5-0.7%; p < 0.001) towards underestimation of PDFF compared with MRI-C at 3 T. • Rates of PDFF change estimated by MRI-M and MRI-C agree closely (ICC 0.96-0.98) in adults with severe obesity and biopsy- proven NAFLD enrolled in a weight loss surgery program. • Our findings support the use of either MRI technique (MRI-M or MRI-C) for clinical care or by individual sites or for multi-center trials that include PDFF change as an endpoint. However, since there is a bias in their measurements, the same technique should be used in any given patient for longitudinal follow-up.
Entities:
Keywords:
Longitudinal study; Magnetic resonance imaging; Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Authors: Jens-Peter Kühn; Diego Hernando; Birger Mensel; Paul C Krüger; Till Ittermann; Julia Mayerle; Norbert Hosten; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Kevin A Zand; Amol Shah; Elhamy Heba; Tanya Wolfson; Gavin Hamilton; Jessica Lam; Joshua Chen; Jonathan C Hooker; Anthony C Gamst; Michael S Middleton; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Claude B Sirlin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Catherine D G Hines; Charles A McKenzie; Gavin Hamilton; Claude B Sirlin; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Veeral H Ajmera; Edward Cachay; Christian Ramers; Irine Vodkin; Shirin Bassirian; Seema Singh; Neeraj Mangla; Richele Bettencourt; Jeannette L Aldous; Daniel Park; Daniel Lee; Jennifer Blanchard; Adrija Mamidipalli; Andrew Boehringer; Saima Aslam; Olof Dahlqvist Leinhard; Lisa Richards; Claude Sirlin; Rohit Loomba Journal: Hepatology Date: 2019-06-18 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: Peter Bannas; Harald Kramer; Diego Hernando; Rashmi Agni; Ashley M Cunningham; Rakesh Mandal; Utaroh Motosugi; Samir D Sharma; Alejandro Munoz del Rio; Luis Fernandez; Scott B Reeder Journal: Hepatology Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Michael S Middleton; Mark L Van Natta; Elhamy R Heba; Adina Alazraki; Andrew T Trout; Prakash Masand; Elizabeth M Brunt; David E Kleiner; Edward Doo; James Tonascia; Joel E Lavine; Wei Shen; Gavin Hamilton; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-01-26 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Jens-Peter Kühn; Christina Jahn; Diego Hernando; Werner Siegmund; Stefan Hadlich; Julia Mayerle; Jörg Pfannmöller; Sonke Langner; Scott Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mark Barahman; Eduardo Grunvald; Pablo J Prado; Alejandro Bussandri; Walter C Henderson; Tanya Wolfson; Kathryn J Fowler; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 3.737