Cargando…

Comparing magnetic resonance liver fat fraction measurements with histology in fibrosis: the difference between proton density fat fraction and tissue mass fat fraction

OBJECTIVE: Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) provides a powerful method of measuring fat fraction. However, previous studies have shown that MRS results give lower values compared with visual estimates from biopsies in fibrotic livers. This study investigated these discrepancies and considered w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bawden, Stephen James, Hoad, Caroline, Kaye, Philip, Stephenson, Mary, Dolman, Grace, James, Martin W., Wilkes, Emilie, Austin, Andrew, Guha, Indra Neil, Francis, Susan, Gowland, Penny, Aithal, Guruprasad P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10468948/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36538248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10334-022-01052-0
_version_ 1785099336089075712
author Bawden, Stephen James
Hoad, Caroline
Kaye, Philip
Stephenson, Mary
Dolman, Grace
James, Martin W.
Wilkes, Emilie
Austin, Andrew
Guha, Indra Neil
Francis, Susan
Gowland, Penny
Aithal, Guruprasad P.
author_facet Bawden, Stephen James
Hoad, Caroline
Kaye, Philip
Stephenson, Mary
Dolman, Grace
James, Martin W.
Wilkes, Emilie
Austin, Andrew
Guha, Indra Neil
Francis, Susan
Gowland, Penny
Aithal, Guruprasad P.
author_sort Bawden, Stephen James
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) provides a powerful method of measuring fat fraction. However, previous studies have shown that MRS results give lower values compared with visual estimates from biopsies in fibrotic livers. This study investigated these discrepancies and considered whether a tissue water content correction, as assessed by MRI relaxometry, could provide better agreement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 110 patients were scanned in a 1.5 T Philips scanner and biopsies were obtained. Multiple echo MRS (30 × 30 ×  30 mm volume) was used to determine Proton Density Fat Fraction (PDFF). Biopsies were assessed by visual assessment for fibrosis and steatosis grading. Digital image analysis (DIA) was also used to quantify fat fraction within tissue samples. T(1) relaxation times were then used to estimate tissue water content to correct PDFF for confounding factors. RESULTS: PDFF values across the four visually assessed steatosis grades were significantly less in the higher fibrosis group (F3–F4) compared to the lower fibrosis group (F0–F2). The slope of the linear regression of PDFF vs DIA fat fraction was ~ 1 in the low fibrosis group and 0.77 in the high fibrosis group. Correcting for water content based on T(1) increased the gradient but it did not reach unity. DISCUSSION: In fibrotic livers, PDFF underestimated fat fraction compared to DIA methods. Values were improved by applying a water content correction, but fat fractions were still underestimated. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10334-022-01052-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10468948
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104689482023-09-01 Comparing magnetic resonance liver fat fraction measurements with histology in fibrosis: the difference between proton density fat fraction and tissue mass fat fraction Bawden, Stephen James Hoad, Caroline Kaye, Philip Stephenson, Mary Dolman, Grace James, Martin W. Wilkes, Emilie Austin, Andrew Guha, Indra Neil Francis, Susan Gowland, Penny Aithal, Guruprasad P. MAGMA Research Article OBJECTIVE: Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) provides a powerful method of measuring fat fraction. However, previous studies have shown that MRS results give lower values compared with visual estimates from biopsies in fibrotic livers. This study investigated these discrepancies and considered whether a tissue water content correction, as assessed by MRI relaxometry, could provide better agreement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 110 patients were scanned in a 1.5 T Philips scanner and biopsies were obtained. Multiple echo MRS (30 × 30 ×  30 mm volume) was used to determine Proton Density Fat Fraction (PDFF). Biopsies were assessed by visual assessment for fibrosis and steatosis grading. Digital image analysis (DIA) was also used to quantify fat fraction within tissue samples. T(1) relaxation times were then used to estimate tissue water content to correct PDFF for confounding factors. RESULTS: PDFF values across the four visually assessed steatosis grades were significantly less in the higher fibrosis group (F3–F4) compared to the lower fibrosis group (F0–F2). The slope of the linear regression of PDFF vs DIA fat fraction was ~ 1 in the low fibrosis group and 0.77 in the high fibrosis group. Correcting for water content based on T(1) increased the gradient but it did not reach unity. DISCUSSION: In fibrotic livers, PDFF underestimated fat fraction compared to DIA methods. Values were improved by applying a water content correction, but fat fractions were still underestimated. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10334-022-01052-0. Springer International Publishing 2022-12-20 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10468948/ /pubmed/36538248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10334-022-01052-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research Article
Bawden, Stephen James
Hoad, Caroline
Kaye, Philip
Stephenson, Mary
Dolman, Grace
James, Martin W.
Wilkes, Emilie
Austin, Andrew
Guha, Indra Neil
Francis, Susan
Gowland, Penny
Aithal, Guruprasad P.
Comparing magnetic resonance liver fat fraction measurements with histology in fibrosis: the difference between proton density fat fraction and tissue mass fat fraction
title Comparing magnetic resonance liver fat fraction measurements with histology in fibrosis: the difference between proton density fat fraction and tissue mass fat fraction
title_full Comparing magnetic resonance liver fat fraction measurements with histology in fibrosis: the difference between proton density fat fraction and tissue mass fat fraction
title_fullStr Comparing magnetic resonance liver fat fraction measurements with histology in fibrosis: the difference between proton density fat fraction and tissue mass fat fraction
title_full_unstemmed Comparing magnetic resonance liver fat fraction measurements with histology in fibrosis: the difference between proton density fat fraction and tissue mass fat fraction
title_short Comparing magnetic resonance liver fat fraction measurements with histology in fibrosis: the difference between proton density fat fraction and tissue mass fat fraction
title_sort comparing magnetic resonance liver fat fraction measurements with histology in fibrosis: the difference between proton density fat fraction and tissue mass fat fraction
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10468948/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36538248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10334-022-01052-0
work_keys_str_mv AT bawdenstephenjames comparingmagneticresonanceliverfatfractionmeasurementswithhistologyinfibrosisthedifferencebetweenprotondensityfatfractionandtissuemassfatfraction
AT hoadcaroline comparingmagneticresonanceliverfatfractionmeasurementswithhistologyinfibrosisthedifferencebetweenprotondensityfatfractionandtissuemassfatfraction
AT kayephilip comparingmagneticresonanceliverfatfractionmeasurementswithhistologyinfibrosisthedifferencebetweenprotondensityfatfractionandtissuemassfatfraction
AT stephensonmary comparingmagneticresonanceliverfatfractionmeasurementswithhistologyinfibrosisthedifferencebetweenprotondensityfatfractionandtissuemassfatfraction
AT dolmangrace comparingmagneticresonanceliverfatfractionmeasurementswithhistologyinfibrosisthedifferencebetweenprotondensityfatfractionandtissuemassfatfraction
AT jamesmartinw comparingmagneticresonanceliverfatfractionmeasurementswithhistologyinfibrosisthedifferencebetweenprotondensityfatfractionandtissuemassfatfraction
AT wilkesemilie comparingmagneticresonanceliverfatfractionmeasurementswithhistologyinfibrosisthedifferencebetweenprotondensityfatfractionandtissuemassfatfraction
AT austinandrew comparingmagneticresonanceliverfatfractionmeasurementswithhistologyinfibrosisthedifferencebetweenprotondensityfatfractionandtissuemassfatfraction
AT guhaindraneil comparingmagneticresonanceliverfatfractionmeasurementswithhistologyinfibrosisthedifferencebetweenprotondensityfatfractionandtissuemassfatfraction
AT francissusan comparingmagneticresonanceliverfatfractionmeasurementswithhistologyinfibrosisthedifferencebetweenprotondensityfatfractionandtissuemassfatfraction
AT gowlandpenny comparingmagneticresonanceliverfatfractionmeasurementswithhistologyinfibrosisthedifferencebetweenprotondensityfatfractionandtissuemassfatfraction
AT aithalguruprasadp comparingmagneticresonanceliverfatfractionmeasurementswithhistologyinfibrosisthedifferencebetweenprotondensityfatfractionandtissuemassfatfraction