Timothy J Colgan1, Ruiyang Zhao1,2, Nathan T Roberts1,2, Diego Hernando1,3, Scott B Reeder1,3,4,5,6. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 3. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chemical shift encoded magnetic resonance imaging (CSE-MRI)-based tissue fat quantification is confounded by increased R2* signal decay rate caused by the presence of excess iron deposition. PURPOSE: To determine the upper limit of R2* above which it is no longer feasible to quantify proton density fat fraction (PDFF) reliably, using CSE-MRI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Cramér-Rao lower bound (CRLB) calculations, Monte Carlo simulations, phantom experiments, and a prospective study in 26 patients with known or suspected liver iron overload. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Multiecho gradient echo at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. ASSESSMENT: CRLB calculations were used to develop an empirical relationship between the maximum R2* value above which PDFF estimation will achieve a desired number of effective signal averages. A single voxel multi-TR, multi-TE stimulated echo acquisition mode magnetic resonance spectroscopy acquisition was used as a reference standard to estimate PDFF. Reconstructed PDFF and R2* maps were analyzed by one analyst using multiple regions of interest drawn in all nine Couinaud segments. STATISTICAL TESTS: None. RESULTS: Simulations, phantom experiments, and in vivo measurements demonstrated unreliable PDFF estimates with increased R2*, with PDFF errors as large as 20% at an R2* of 1000 s-1 . For typical optimized Cartesian acquisitions (TE1 = 0.75 msec, ΔTE = 0.67 msec at 1.5 T, TE1 = 0.65 msec, ΔTE = 0.58 msec at 3.0 T), an empirical relationship between PDFF estimation errors and acquisition parameters was developed that suggests PDFF estimates are unreliable above an R2* of ~538 s-1 and ~779 s-1 at 1.5 T and 3 T, respectively. This empirical relationship was further investigated with phantom experiments and in vivo measurements, with PDFF errors at an R2* of 1000 s-1 at 3.0 T as large as 10% with TE1 = 1.24 msec, ΔTE = 1.01 msec compared to 3% with TE1 = 0.65 msec, ΔTE = 0.58 msec. DATA CONCLUSION: We successfully developed a theoretically-based empirical formula that may provide an easily calculable guideline to identify R2* values above which PDFF is not reliable in research and clinical applications using CSE-MRI to quantify PDFF in the presence of iron overload. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1.
BACKGROUND: Chemical shift encoded magnetic resonance imaging (CSE-MRI)-based tissue fat quantification is confounded by increased R2* signal decay rate caused by the presence of excess iron deposition. PURPOSE: To determine the upper limit of R2* above which it is no longer feasible to quantify proton density fat fraction (PDFF) reliably, using CSE-MRI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Cramér-Rao lower bound (CRLB) calculations, Monte Carlo simulations, phantom experiments, and a prospective study in 26 patients with known or suspected liver iron overload. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Multiecho gradient echo at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. ASSESSMENT: CRLB calculations were used to develop an empirical relationship between the maximum R2* value above which PDFF estimation will achieve a desired number of effective signal averages. A single voxel multi-TR, multi-TE stimulated echo acquisition mode magnetic resonance spectroscopy acquisition was used as a reference standard to estimate PDFF. Reconstructed PDFF and R2* maps were analyzed by one analyst using multiple regions of interest drawn in all nine Couinaud segments. STATISTICAL TESTS: None. RESULTS: Simulations, phantom experiments, and in vivo measurements demonstrated unreliable PDFF estimates with increased R2*, with PDFF errors as large as 20% at an R2* of 1000 s-1 . For typical optimized Cartesian acquisitions (TE1 = 0.75 msec, ΔTE = 0.67 msec at 1.5 T, TE1 = 0.65 msec, ΔTE = 0.58 msec at 3.0 T), an empirical relationship between PDFF estimation errors and acquisition parameters was developed that suggests PDFF estimates are unreliable above an R2* of ~538 s-1 and ~779 s-1 at 1.5 T and 3 T, respectively. This empirical relationship was further investigated with phantom experiments and in vivo measurements, with PDFF errors at an R2* of 1000 s-1 at 3.0 T as large as 10% with TE1 = 1.24 msec, ΔTE = 1.01 msec compared to 3% with TE1 = 0.65 msec, ΔTE = 0.58 msec. DATA CONCLUSION: We successfully developed a theoretically-based empirical formula that may provide an easily calculable guideline to identify R2* values above which PDFF is not reliable in research and clinical applications using CSE-MRI to quantify PDFF in the presence of iron overload. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1.
Authors: Camilo A Campo; Diego Hernando; Tilman Schubert; Candice A Bookwalter; Andrew J Van Pay; Scott B Reeder Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Shivakumar Chitturi; Shehan Abeygunasekera; Geoffrey C Farrell; Jane Holmes-Walker; Jason M Hui; Caroline Fung; Rooshdiya Karim; Rita Lin; Dev Samarasinghe; Christopher Liddle; Martin Weltman; Jacob George Journal: Hepatology Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Nathan S Artz; William M Haufe; Catherine A Hooker; Gavin Hamilton; Tanya Wolfson; Guilherme M Campos; Anthony C Gamst; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Claude B Sirlin; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-01-23 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Takeshi Yokoo; Suraj D Serai; Ali Pirasteh; Mustafa R Bashir; Gavin Hamilton; Diego Hernando; Houchun H Hu; Holger Hetterich; Jens-Peter Kühn; Guido M Kukuk; Rohit Loomba; Michael S Middleton; Nancy A Obuchowski; Ji Soo Song; An Tang; Xinhuai Wu; Scott B Reeder; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nathan T Roberts; Diego Hernando; James H Holmes; Curtis N Wiens; Scott B Reeder Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 4.668
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