Cargando…
Comparison of 3 T and 1.5 T for T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron
BACKGROUND: T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron concentration has improved the outcome of transfusion dependant anaemia patients. Clinical evaluation is performed at 1.5 T but scanners operating at 3 T are increasing in numbers. There is a paucity of data on the relative merits of iron quantificat...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4938967/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27391316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-016-0259-9 |
_version_ | 1782441935415279616 |
---|---|
author | Alam, Mohammed H. Auger, Dominique McGill, Laura-Ann Smith, Gillian C. He, Taigang Izgi, Cemil Baksi, A. John Wage, Rick Drivas, Peter Firmin, David N. Pennell, Dudley J. |
author_facet | Alam, Mohammed H. Auger, Dominique McGill, Laura-Ann Smith, Gillian C. He, Taigang Izgi, Cemil Baksi, A. John Wage, Rick Drivas, Peter Firmin, David N. Pennell, Dudley J. |
author_sort | Alam, Mohammed H. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron concentration has improved the outcome of transfusion dependant anaemia patients. Clinical evaluation is performed at 1.5 T but scanners operating at 3 T are increasing in numbers. There is a paucity of data on the relative merits of iron quantification at 3 T vs 1.5 T. METHODS: A total of 104 transfusion dependent anaemia patients and 20 normal volunteers were prospectively recruited to undergo cardiac and liver T2* assessment at both 1.5 T and 3 T. Intra-observer, inter-observer and inter-study reproducibility analysis were performed on 20 randomly selected patients for cardiac and liver T2*. RESULTS: Association between heart and liver T2* at 1.5 T and 3 T was non-linear with good fit (R(2) = 0.954, p < 0.001 for heart white-blood (WB) imaging; R(2) = 0.931, p < 0.001 for heart black-blood (BB) imaging; R(2) = 0.993, p < 0.001 for liver imaging). R2* approximately doubled between 1.5 T and 3 T with linear fits for both heart and liver (94, 94 and 105 % respectively). Coefficients of variation for intra- and inter-observer reproducibility, as well as inter-study reproducibility trended to be less good at 3 T (3.5 to 6.5 %) than at 1.5 T (1.4 to 5.7 %) for both heart and liver T2*. Artefact scores for the heart were significantly worse with the 3 T BB sequence (median 4, IQR 2–5) compared with the 1.5 T BB sequence (4 [3–5], p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Heart and liver T2* and R2* at 3 T show close association with 1.5 T values, but there were more artefacts at 3 T and trends to lower reproducibility causing difficulty in quantifying low T2* values with high tissue iron. Therefore T2* imaging at 1.5 T remains the gold standard for clinical practice. However, in centres where only 3 T is available, equivalent values at 1.5 T may be approximated by halving the 3 T tissue R2* with subsequent conversion to T2*. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4938967 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49389672016-07-10 Comparison of 3 T and 1.5 T for T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron Alam, Mohammed H. Auger, Dominique McGill, Laura-Ann Smith, Gillian C. He, Taigang Izgi, Cemil Baksi, A. John Wage, Rick Drivas, Peter Firmin, David N. Pennell, Dudley J. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Research BACKGROUND: T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron concentration has improved the outcome of transfusion dependant anaemia patients. Clinical evaluation is performed at 1.5 T but scanners operating at 3 T are increasing in numbers. There is a paucity of data on the relative merits of iron quantification at 3 T vs 1.5 T. METHODS: A total of 104 transfusion dependent anaemia patients and 20 normal volunteers were prospectively recruited to undergo cardiac and liver T2* assessment at both 1.5 T and 3 T. Intra-observer, inter-observer and inter-study reproducibility analysis were performed on 20 randomly selected patients for cardiac and liver T2*. RESULTS: Association between heart and liver T2* at 1.5 T and 3 T was non-linear with good fit (R(2) = 0.954, p < 0.001 for heart white-blood (WB) imaging; R(2) = 0.931, p < 0.001 for heart black-blood (BB) imaging; R(2) = 0.993, p < 0.001 for liver imaging). R2* approximately doubled between 1.5 T and 3 T with linear fits for both heart and liver (94, 94 and 105 % respectively). Coefficients of variation for intra- and inter-observer reproducibility, as well as inter-study reproducibility trended to be less good at 3 T (3.5 to 6.5 %) than at 1.5 T (1.4 to 5.7 %) for both heart and liver T2*. Artefact scores for the heart were significantly worse with the 3 T BB sequence (median 4, IQR 2–5) compared with the 1.5 T BB sequence (4 [3–5], p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Heart and liver T2* and R2* at 3 T show close association with 1.5 T values, but there were more artefacts at 3 T and trends to lower reproducibility causing difficulty in quantifying low T2* values with high tissue iron. Therefore T2* imaging at 1.5 T remains the gold standard for clinical practice. However, in centres where only 3 T is available, equivalent values at 1.5 T may be approximated by halving the 3 T tissue R2* with subsequent conversion to T2*. BioMed Central 2016-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4938967/ /pubmed/27391316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-016-0259-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Alam, Mohammed H. Auger, Dominique McGill, Laura-Ann Smith, Gillian C. He, Taigang Izgi, Cemil Baksi, A. John Wage, Rick Drivas, Peter Firmin, David N. Pennell, Dudley J. Comparison of 3 T and 1.5 T for T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron |
title | Comparison of 3 T and 1.5 T for T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron |
title_full | Comparison of 3 T and 1.5 T for T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron |
title_fullStr | Comparison of 3 T and 1.5 T for T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of 3 T and 1.5 T for T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron |
title_short | Comparison of 3 T and 1.5 T for T2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron |
title_sort | comparison of 3 t and 1.5 t for t2* magnetic resonance of tissue iron |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4938967/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27391316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-016-0259-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT alammohammedh comparisonof3tand15tfort2magneticresonanceoftissueiron AT augerdominique comparisonof3tand15tfort2magneticresonanceoftissueiron AT mcgilllauraann comparisonof3tand15tfort2magneticresonanceoftissueiron AT smithgillianc comparisonof3tand15tfort2magneticresonanceoftissueiron AT hetaigang comparisonof3tand15tfort2magneticresonanceoftissueiron AT izgicemil comparisonof3tand15tfort2magneticresonanceoftissueiron AT baksiajohn comparisonof3tand15tfort2magneticresonanceoftissueiron AT wagerick comparisonof3tand15tfort2magneticresonanceoftissueiron AT drivaspeter comparisonof3tand15tfort2magneticresonanceoftissueiron AT firmindavidn comparisonof3tand15tfort2magneticresonanceoftissueiron AT pennelldudleyj comparisonof3tand15tfort2magneticresonanceoftissueiron |