Multicenter Reproducibility of Liver Iron Quantification with 1.5-T and 3.0-T MRI

被引:19
|
作者
Hernando, Diego [1 ,2 ]
Zhao, Ruiyang [1 ,2 ]
Yuan, Qing [9 ]
Ghasabeh, Mounes Aliyari [11 ]
Ruschke, Stefan
Miao, Xinran [3 ]
Karampinos, Dimitrios C.
Mao, Lu [4 ]
Harris, David T. [1 ]
Mattison, Ryan J. [5 ]
Jeng, Michael R.
Pedrosa, Ivan [9 ,10 ]
Kamel, Ihab R. [11 ]
Vasanawala, Shreyas
Yokoo, Takeshi [9 ,10 ]
Reeder, Scott B. [1 ,2 ,6 ,7 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin Madison, Dept Radiol, 1111 Highland Ave,WIMR2,Room 2472, Madison, WI 53705 USA
[2] Univ Wisconsin Madison, Dept Med Phys, 1111 Highland Ave,WIMR2,Room 2472, Madison, WI 53705 USA
[3] Univ Wisconsin Madison, Dept Stat, 1111 Highland Ave,WIMR2,Room 2472, Madison, WI 53705 USA
[4] Univ Wisconsin Madison, Dept Biostat & Med Informat, 1111 Highland Ave,WIMR2,Room 2472, Madison, WI 53705 USA
[5] Univ Wisconsin Madison, Dept Med, 1111 Highland Ave,WIMR2,Room 2472, Madison, WI 53705 USA
[6] Univ Wisconsin Madison, Dept Biomed Engn, 1111 Highland Ave,WIMR2,Room 2472, Madison, WI 53705 USA
[7] Univ Wisconsin Madison, Dept Med, 1111 Highland Ave,WIMR2,Room 2472, Madison, WI 53705 USA
[8] Univ Wisconsin Madison, Dept Emergency Med, 1111 Highland Ave,WIMR2,Room 2472, Madison, WI 53705 USA
[9] Univ Texas Southwestern Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Dallas, TX USA
[10] Univ Texas Southwestern Med Ctr, Adv Imaging Res Ctr, Dallas, TX USA
[11] Johns Hopkins Univ, Dept Radiol, Baltimore, MD USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
SICKLE-CELL-DISEASE; MAGNETIC-RESONANCE; OVERLOAD; BIOPSY; FAT; R2-ASTERISK-RELAXOMETRY; THALASSEMIA; STORES;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.213256
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background: MRI is a standard of care tool to measure liver iron concentration (LIC). Compared with regulatory-approved R2 MRI, R2* MRI has superior speed and is available in most MRI scanners; however, the cross-vendor reproducibility of R2*-based LIC estimation remains unknown.Purpose: To evaluate the reproducibility of LIC via single-breath-hold R2* MRI at both 1.5 T and 3.0 T with use of a multicenter, multivendor study.Materials and Methods: Four academic medical centers using MRI scanners from three different vendors (three 1.5-T scanners, one 2.89-T scanner, and two 3.0-T scanners) participated in this prospective cross-sectional study. Participants with known or suspected liver iron overload were recruited to undergo multiecho gradient-echo MRI for R2* mapping at 1.5 T and 3.0 T (2.89 T or 3.0 T) on the same day. R2* maps were reconstructed from the multiecho images and analyzed at a single center. Reference LIC measure-ments were obtained with a commercial R2 MRI method performed using standardized 1.5-T spin-echo imaging. R2*-versus-LIC calibrations were generated across centers and field strengths using linear regression and compared using F tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine the diagnostic performance of R2* MRI in the detection of clinically relevant LIC thresholds.Results: A total of 207 participants (mean age, 38 years +/- 20 [SD]; 117 male participants) were evaluated between March 2015 and September 2019. A linear relationship was confirmed between R2* and LIC. All calibrations within the same field strength were highly reproducible, showing no evidence of statistically significant center-specific differences (P > .43 across all comparisons). Calibrations for 1.5 T and 3.0 T were generated, as follows: for 1.5 T, LIC (in milligrams per gram [dry weight]) = -0.16 + 2.603 x 10-2 R2* (in seconds-1); for 2.89 T, LIC (in milligrams per gram) = -0.03 + 1.400 x 10-2 R2* (in seconds-1); for 3.0 T, LIC (in mil-ligrams per gram) = -0.03 + 1.349 x 10-2R2* (in seconds-1). Liver R2* had high diagnostic performance in the detection of clini-cally relevant LIC thresholds (area under the ROC curve, >0.98).Conclusion: R2* MRI enabled accurate and reproducible quantification of liver iron overload over clinically relevant ranges of liver iron concentration (LIC). The data generated in this study provide the necessary calibrations for broad clinical dissemination of R2*-based LIC quantification.ClinicalTrials.gov registration no.: NCT02025543 (c) RSNA, 2022
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison between 1.5-T and 3.0-T MRI for the diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum disorders
    Bourgioti, Charis
    Zafeiropoulou, Konstantina
    Tzavara, Chara
    Daskalakis, George
    Fotopoulos, Stavros
    Theodora, Marianna
    Nikolaidou, Maria Evangelia
    Konidari, Marianna
    Gourtsoyianni, Sofia
    Panourgias, Evangelia
    Koutoulidis, Vassilis
    Martzoukos, Epameinondas Anastasios
    Konstantinidou, Anastasia Evangelia
    Moulopoulos, Lia Angela
    DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL IMAGING, 2022, 103 (09) : 408 - 417
  • [2] Performance Comparison of 1.5-T Endorectal Coil MRI with 3.0-T Nonendorectal Coil MRI in Patients with Prostate Cancer
    Shah, Zarine K.
    Elias, Saba N.
    Abaza, Ronney
    Zynger, Debra L.
    DeRenne, Lawrence A.
    Knopp, Michael V.
    Guo, Beibei
    Schurr, Ryan
    Heymsfield, Steven B.
    Jia, Guang
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2015, 22 (04) : 467 - 474
  • [3] Specific Absorption Rate and Specific Energy Dose: Comparison of 1.5-T versus 3.0-T Fetal MRI
    Barrera, Christian A.
    Francavilla, Michael L.
    Serai, Suraj D.
    Edgar, J. Christopher
    Jaimes, Camilo
    Gee, Michael S.
    Roberts, Timothy P. L.
    Otero, Hansel J.
    Adzick, N. Scott
    Victoria, Teresa
    RADIOLOGY, 2020, 295 (03) : 664 - 674
  • [4] Quantification of cardiac iron in patients with thalassemia with 3-T MRI calibrated by 1.5-T MRI
    Xu, Fengming
    Luo, Chaotian
    Li, Meicheng
    Guan, Kaiming
    Peng, Fei
    Yang, Gaohui
    Peng, Peng
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2023, 64 (06) : 2096 - 2103
  • [5] Abdominal applications of 3.0-T MR imaging: Comparative review versus a 1.5-T system
    Choi, Jin-Young
    Kim, Myeong-Jin
    Chung, Yong Eun
    Kim, Ki Youn
    Jones, Alun C.
    de Becker, Jan
    van Cauteren, Marc
    RADIOGRAPHICS, 2008, 28 (04) : e30
  • [6] 1.5-T and 3.0-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging Artifacts from Breast Biopsy Clips
    Le-Petross, H.
    Carkaci, S.
    Stafford, R.
    Elliott, A.
    Jackson, E.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2007, 188 (05)
  • [7] An Investigation Into the Effect of Different Static Magnetic Fields of 1.5-T and 3.0-T MRI on the Measurement of Tumor Diameters in Breast Cancer
    Yamamoto, Shinji
    Okada, Yukinori
    Yoshida, Nobukiyo
    Takeshita, Koji
    Sakurai, Noriko
    Ichikawa, Atsushi
    Takimoto, Manabu
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 16 (01)
  • [8] Functional 3.0-T MR assessment of higher cognitive function: Are there advantages over 1.5-T imaging?
    Hoenig, K
    Kuhl, CK
    Scheef, L
    RADIOLOGY, 2005, 234 (03) : 860 - 868
  • [9] Diffusion-tensor fiber tractography: Intraindividual comparison of 3.0-T and 1.5-T MR imaging
    Okada, T
    Miki, Y
    Fushimi, Y
    Hanakawa, T
    Kanagaki, M
    Yamamoto, A
    Urayama, S
    Fukuyama, H
    Hiraoka, M
    Togashi, K
    RADIOLOGY, 2006, 238 (02) : 668 - 678
  • [10] Comparison of brain 3.0-T with 1.5-T MRI in patients with multiple sclerosis: A 6-month follow-up study
    Kataoka, Hiroshi
    Kiriyama, Takao
    Taoka, Toshiaki
    Oba, Naoki
    Takewa, Megumi
    Eura, Nobuyuki
    Syobatake, Ryogo
    Kobayashi, Yasuyo
    Kumazawa, Masahiro
    Izumi, Tesseki
    Furiya, Yoshiko
    Aoyama, Nobufusa
    Kichikawa, Kimihiko
    Ueno, Satoshi
    CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY, 2014, 121 : 55 - 58