Literature DB >> 33464181

Linearity and Bias of Proton Density Fat Fraction as a Quantitative Imaging Biomarker: A Multicenter, Multiplatform, Multivendor Phantom Study.

Houchun H Hu1, Takeshi Yokoo1, Mustafa R Bashir1, Claude B Sirlin1, Diego Hernando1, Dariya Malyarenko1, Thomas L Chenevert1, Mark A Smith1, Suraj D Serai1, Michael S Middleton1, Walter C Henderson1, Gavin Hamilton1, Jean Shaffer1, Yunhong Shu1, Jean A Tkach1, Andrew T Trout1, Nancy Obuchowski1, Jean H Brittain1, Edward F Jackson1, Scott B Reeder1.   

Abstract

Background Proton density fat fraction (PDFF) estimated by using chemical shift-encoded (CSE) MRI is an accepted imaging biomarker of hepatic steatosis. This work aims to promote standardized use of CSE MRI to estimate PDFF. Purpose To assess the accuracy of CSE MRI methods for estimating PDFF by determining the linearity and range of bias observed in a phantom. Materials and Methods In this prospective study, a commercial phantom with 12 vials of known PDFF values were shipped across nine U.S. centers. The phantom underwent 160 independent MRI examinations on 27 1.5-T and 3.0-T systems from three vendors. Two three-dimensional CSE MRI protocols with minimal T1 bias were included: vendor and standardized. Each vendor's confounder-corrected complex or hybrid magnitude-complex based reconstruction algorithm was used to generate PDFF maps in both protocols. The Siemens reconstruction required a configuration change to correct for water-fat swaps in the phantom. The MRI PDFF values were compared with the known PDFF values by using linear regression with mixed-effects modeling. The 95% CIs were calculated for the regression slope (ie, proportional bias) and intercept (ie, constant bias) and compared with the null hypothesis (slope = 1, intercept = 0). Results Pooled regression slope for estimated PDFF values versus phantom-derived reference PDFF values was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98) in the biologically relevant 0%-47.5% PDFF range. The corresponding pooled intercept was -0.27% (95% CI: -0.50%, -0.05%). Across vendors, slope ranges were 0.86-1.02 (vendor protocols) and 0.97-1.0 (standardized protocol) at 1.5 T and 0.91-1.01 (vendor protocols) and 0.87-1.01 (standardized protocol) at 3.0 T. The intercept ranges (absolute PDFF percentage) were -0.65% to 0.18% (vendor protocols) and -0.69% to -0.17% (standardized protocol) at 1.5 T and -0.48% to 0.10% (vendor protocols) and -0.78% to -0.21% (standardized protocol) at 3.0 T. Conclusion Proton density fat fraction estimation derived from three-dimensional chemical shift-encoded MRI in a commercial phantom was accurate across vendors, imaging centers, and field strengths, with use of the vendors' product acquisition and reconstruction software. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Dyke in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33464181      PMCID: PMC7924516          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021202912

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  36 in total

1.  Relaxation effects in the quantification of fat using gradient echo imaging.

Authors:  Mark Bydder; Takeshi Yokoo; Gavin Hamilton; Michael S Middleton; Alyssa D Chavez; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Joel E Lavine; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 2.546

2.  Prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and its association with cardiovascular disease among type 2 diabetic patients.

Authors:  Giovanni Targher; Lorenzo Bertolini; Roberto Padovani; Stefano Rodella; Roberto Tessari; Luciano Zenari; Christopher Day; Guido Arcaro
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2007-02-02       Impact factor: 19.112

3.  On the confounding effect of temperature on chemical shift-encoded fat quantification.

Authors:  Diego Hernando; Samir D Sharma; Harald Kramer; Scott B Reeder
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  Stability of liver proton density fat fraction and changes in R 2* measurements induced by administering gadoxetic acid at 3T MRI.

Authors:  Keitaro Sofue; Xiaodong Zhong; Marcel D Nickel; Brian M Dale; Mustafa R Bashir
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-08

5.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers: Effect of sample size and bias on confidence interval coverage.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski; Jennifer Bullen
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 3.021

6.  Proton density fat fraction MRI of vertebral bone marrow: Accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility among readers, field strengths, and imaging platforms.

Authors:  Frederic Carsten Schmeel; Toni Vomweg; Frank Träber; Arnd Gerhards; Simon Jonas Enkirch; Anton Faron; Alois Martin Sprinkart; Leonard Christopher Schmeel; Julian Alexander Luetkens; Daniel Thomas; Guido Matthias Kukuk
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-04-13       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Quantification of hepatic steatosis with T1-independent, T2-corrected MR imaging with spectral modeling of fat: blinded comparison with MR spectroscopy.

Authors:  Sina Meisamy; Catherine D G Hines; Gavin Hamilton; Claude B Sirlin; Charles A McKenzie; Huanzhou Yu; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 8.  Modeling the epidemic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease demonstrates an exponential increase in burden of disease.

Authors:  Chris Estes; Homie Razavi; Rohit Loomba; Zobair Younossi; Arun J Sanyal
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 17.425

Review 9.  Cardiovascular Risk in Fatty Liver Disease: The Liver-Heart Axis-Literature Review.

Authors:  Abdulrahman Ismaiel; Dan L Dumitraşcu
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2019-09-13

10.  Reproducibility of Intra- and Inter-scanner Measurements of Liver Fat Using Complex Confounder-corrected Chemical Shift Encoded MRI at 3.0 Tesla.

Authors:  Bing Wu; Wei Han; Zhenhong Li; Yonghua Zhao; Mingmei Ge; Xueqing Guo; Xinhuai Wu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Metabolic implications of pancreatic fat accumulation.

Authors:  Robert Wagner; Sabine S Eckstein; Hajime Yamazaki; Felicia Gerst; Jürgen Machann; Benjamin Assad Jaghutriz; Annette Schürmann; Michele Solimena; Stephan Singer; Alfred Königsrainer; Andreas L Birkenfeld; Hans-Ulrich Häring; Andreas Fritsche; Susanne Ullrich; Martin Heni
Journal:  Nat Rev Endocrinol       Date:  2021-10-20       Impact factor: 43.330

Review 2.  Challenges in ensuring the generalizability of image quantitation methods for MRI.

Authors:  Kathryn E Keenan; Jana G Delfino; Kalina V Jordanova; Megan E Poorman; Prathyush Chirra; Akshay S Chaudhari; Bettina Baessler; Jessica Winfield; Satish E Viswanath; Nandita M deSouza
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2021-09-29       Impact factor: 4.506

Review 3.  Multimodal Diagnostic Approaches to Advance Precision Medicine in Sarcopenia and Frailty.

Authors:  David H Lynch; Hillary B Spangler; Jason R Franz; Rebecca L Krupenevich; Hoon Kim; Daniel Nissman; Janet Zhang; Yuan-Yuan Li; Susan Sumner; John A Batsis
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2022-03-26       Impact factor: 5.717

4.  Myosteatosis as a Shared Biomarker for Sarcopenia and Cachexia Using MRI and Ultrasound.

Authors:  Jevin Lortie; Benjamin Rush; Katie Osterbauer; T J Colgan; Daiki Tamada; Sujay Garlapati; Toby C Campbell; Anne Traynor; Ticiana Leal; Viharkumar Patel; Jeffrey J Helgager; Kenneth Lee; Scott B Reeder; Adam J Kuchnia
Journal:  Front Rehabil Sci       Date:  2022-05-30

5.  Characterization of patients with Becker muscular dystrophy by histology, magnetic resonance imaging, function, and strength assessments.

Authors:  Giacomo P Comi; Erik H Niks; Claudia M Cinnante; Hermien E Kan; Krista Vandenborne; Rebecca J Willcocks; Daniele Velardo; Michela Ripolone; Jules J van Benthem; Nienke M van de Velde; Simone Nava; Laura Ambrosoli; Sara Cazzaniga; Paolo U Bettica
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  2021-12-30       Impact factor: 3.852

6.  Effects of Sex and Age on Fat Fraction, Diffusion-Weighted Image Signal Intensity and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in the Bone Marrow of Asymptomatic Individuals: A Cross-Sectional Whole-Body MRI Study.

Authors:  Alberto Colombo; Luca Bombelli; Paul E Summers; Giulia Saia; Fabio Zugni; Giulia Marvaso; Robert Grimm; Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa; Anwar R Padhani; Giuseppe Petralia
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-20

7.  Proton Density Fat Fraction Spine MRI for Differentiation of Erosive Vertebral Endplate Degeneration and Infectious Spondylitis.

Authors:  Frederic Carsten Schmeel; Asadeh Lakghomi; Nils Christian Lehnen; Robert Haase; Mohammed Banat; Johannes Wach; Nikolaus Handke; Hartmut Vatter; Alexander Radbruch; Ulrike Attenberger; Julian Alexander Luetkens
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-30

8.  Selection Approach to Identify the Optimal Biomarker Using Quantitative Muscle MRI and Functional Assessments in Becker Muscular Dystrophy.

Authors:  Nienke M van de Velde; Melissa T Hooijmans; Aashley S D Sardjoe Mishre; Kevin R Keene; Zaïda Koeks; Thom T J Veeger; Iris Alleman; Erik W van Zwet; Jan-Willem M Beenakker; Jan J G M Verschuuren; Hermien E Kan; Erik H Niks
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 9.910

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.