Véronique Fortier, Ahmed Mohamed, Evan McNabb, Jérémy Dana, Rita Zakarian, Ives R Levesque, Caroline Reinhold
{"title":"1.5 和 3.0 T 下商用单体素技术的 R2* 对肝脏脂肪定量的影响","authors":"Véronique Fortier, Ahmed Mohamed, Evan McNabb, Jérémy Dana, Rita Zakarian, Ives R Levesque, Caroline Reinhold","doi":"10.1177/08465371241255896","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Rationale and Objectives:</b> Fat quantification accuracy using a commercial single-voxel high speed T<sub>2</sub>-corrected multi-echo (HISTO) technique and its robustness to R<sub>2</sub>* variations at 3.0 T, such as those introduced by iron in liver, has not been fully established. This study evaluated HISTO at 3.0 T and sought to reproduce results at 1.5 T. <b>Methods:</b> Phantoms were prepared with a range of fat content and R<sub>2</sub>*. Data were acquired at 1.5 T and 3.0 T, using HISTO and a Dixon technique. Fat quantification accuracy was evaluated as a function of R<sub>2</sub>*. The patient study included 239 consecutive patients. Data were acquired at 1.5 T or 3.0 T, using HISTO and Dixon techniques. The techniques were compared using Bland-Altman plots. Bias significance was evaluated using a one-sample <i>t</i>-test. <b>Results:</b> In phantoms, HISTO was accurate within 10% up to a R<sub>2</sub>* of 100 s<sup>-1</sup> at both field strengths, while Dixon was accurate within 10% where R<sub>2</sub>* was accurately quantified (up to 350 s<sup>-1</sup> at 1.5 T, and 550 s<sup>-1</sup> at 3.0 T). In patients, where R<sub>2</sub>* was <100 s<sup>-1</sup>, fat quantification from both techniques agreed at 1.5 T (<i>P</i> = .71), but not at 3.0 T (<i>P</i> = .007), with a bias <1%. <b>Conclusion:</b> Results suggest that HISTO is reliable when R<sub>2</sub>* is <100 s<sup>-1</sup>, corresponding to patients with at most mild liver iron overload, and that it should be used with caution when R<sub>2</sub>* is >100 s<sup>-1</sup>. Dixon should be preferred for hepatic fat quantification due to its robustness to R<sub>2</sub>* variations.</p>","PeriodicalId":55290,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal-Journal De L Association Canadienne Des Radiologistes","volume":" ","pages":"838-846"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"R<sub>2</sub>* Impact on Hepatic Fat Quantification With a Commercial Single Voxel Technique at 1.5 and 3.0 T.\",\"authors\":\"Véronique Fortier, Ahmed Mohamed, Evan McNabb, Jérémy Dana, Rita Zakarian, Ives R Levesque, Caroline Reinhold\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08465371241255896\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Rationale and Objectives:</b> Fat quantification accuracy using a commercial single-voxel high speed T<sub>2</sub>-corrected multi-echo (HISTO) technique and its robustness to R<sub>2</sub>* variations at 3.0 T, such as those introduced by iron in liver, has not been fully established. This study evaluated HISTO at 3.0 T and sought to reproduce results at 1.5 T. <b>Methods:</b> Phantoms were prepared with a range of fat content and R<sub>2</sub>*. Data were acquired at 1.5 T and 3.0 T, using HISTO and a Dixon technique. Fat quantification accuracy was evaluated as a function of R<sub>2</sub>*. The patient study included 239 consecutive patients. Data were acquired at 1.5 T or 3.0 T, using HISTO and Dixon techniques. The techniques were compared using Bland-Altman plots. Bias significance was evaluated using a one-sample <i>t</i>-test. <b>Results:</b> In phantoms, HISTO was accurate within 10% up to a R<sub>2</sub>* of 100 s<sup>-1</sup> at both field strengths, while Dixon was accurate within 10% where R<sub>2</sub>* was accurately quantified (up to 350 s<sup>-1</sup> at 1.5 T, and 550 s<sup>-1</sup> at 3.0 T). In patients, where R<sub>2</sub>* was <100 s<sup>-1</sup>, fat quantification from both techniques agreed at 1.5 T (<i>P</i> = .71), but not at 3.0 T (<i>P</i> = .007), with a bias <1%. <b>Conclusion:</b> Results suggest that HISTO is reliable when R<sub>2</sub>* is <100 s<sup>-1</sup>, corresponding to patients with at most mild liver iron overload, and that it should be used with caution when R<sub>2</sub>* is >100 s<sup>-1</sup>. Dixon should be preferred for hepatic fat quantification due to its robustness to R<sub>2</sub>* variations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal-Journal De L Association Canadienne Des Radiologistes\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"838-846\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal-Journal De L Association Canadienne Des Radiologistes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08465371241255896\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal-Journal De L Association Canadienne Des Radiologistes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08465371241255896","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
原理和目标:使用商用单象素高速 T2 校正多回波(HISTO)技术进行脂肪定量的准确性及其在 3.0 T 下对 R2* 变化(如肝脏中铁的变化)的稳健性尚未完全确定。本研究评估了 3.0 T 下的 HISTO,并试图重现 1.5 T 下的结果:制备了不同脂肪含量和 R2* 的模型。使用 HISTO 和 Dixon 技术在 1.5 T 和 3.0 T 下采集数据。根据 R2* 的函数对脂肪量化的准确性进行了评估。患者研究包括 239 名连续的患者。采用 HISTO 和 Dixon 技术在 1.5 T 或 3.0 T 采集数据。使用 Bland-Altman 图对两种技术进行了比较。使用单样本 t 检验评估偏倚的显著性。结果:在模型中,HISTO 在两种场强下 R2* 均为 100 s-1 的情况下准确度在 10% 以内,而 Dixon 在 R2* 能准确量化的情况下准确度在 10% 以内(在 1.5 T 时达 350 s-1,在 3.0 T 时达 550 s-1)。在 R2* 为 -1 的患者中,两种技术的脂肪量化结果在 1.5 T 时一致(P = .71),但在 3.0 T 时不一致(P = .007),存在偏差 结论:结果表明,当 R2* 为-1 时,HISTO 是可靠的,这与肝脏轻度铁超载患者相对应;当 R2* >100 s-1 时,应谨慎使用 HISTO。Dixon 因其对 R2* 变化的稳健性而成为肝脏脂肪定量的首选。
R2* Impact on Hepatic Fat Quantification With a Commercial Single Voxel Technique at 1.5 and 3.0 T.
Rationale and Objectives: Fat quantification accuracy using a commercial single-voxel high speed T2-corrected multi-echo (HISTO) technique and its robustness to R2* variations at 3.0 T, such as those introduced by iron in liver, has not been fully established. This study evaluated HISTO at 3.0 T and sought to reproduce results at 1.5 T. Methods: Phantoms were prepared with a range of fat content and R2*. Data were acquired at 1.5 T and 3.0 T, using HISTO and a Dixon technique. Fat quantification accuracy was evaluated as a function of R2*. The patient study included 239 consecutive patients. Data were acquired at 1.5 T or 3.0 T, using HISTO and Dixon techniques. The techniques were compared using Bland-Altman plots. Bias significance was evaluated using a one-sample t-test. Results: In phantoms, HISTO was accurate within 10% up to a R2* of 100 s-1 at both field strengths, while Dixon was accurate within 10% where R2* was accurately quantified (up to 350 s-1 at 1.5 T, and 550 s-1 at 3.0 T). In patients, where R2* was <100 s-1, fat quantification from both techniques agreed at 1.5 T (P = .71), but not at 3.0 T (P = .007), with a bias <1%. Conclusion: Results suggest that HISTO is reliable when R2* is <100 s-1, corresponding to patients with at most mild liver iron overload, and that it should be used with caution when R2* is >100 s-1. Dixon should be preferred for hepatic fat quantification due to its robustness to R2* variations.
期刊介绍:
The Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal is a peer-reviewed, Medline-indexed publication that presents a broad scientific review of radiology in Canada. The Journal covers such topics as abdominal imaging, cardiovascular radiology, computed tomography, continuing professional development, education and training, gastrointestinal radiology, health policy and practice, magnetic resonance imaging, musculoskeletal radiology, neuroradiology, nuclear medicine, pediatric radiology, radiology history, radiology practice guidelines and advisories, thoracic and cardiac imaging, trauma and emergency room imaging, ultrasonography, and vascular and interventional radiology. Article types considered for publication include original research articles, critically appraised topics, review articles, guest editorials, pictorial essays, technical notes, and letter to the Editor.