Cargando…

Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of hepatic fat content with iron deposition: will it be disturbed?

OBJECTIVE: To explore noninvasive assessment of liver fat content with iron deposition using magnetic resonance (MR) quantitative technology. METHODS: A water–fat phantom with iron deposition containing 63 vials with predetermined fat percentages and iron concentrations was constructed. Thirty-three...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Qian, Ye, Feng, Ma, Peiqing, Chen, Feng, Che, Yiqun, Zhao, Xinming, Yang, Li
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6567757/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30859893
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300060519836033
_version_ 1783427149391200256
author Wang, Qian
Ye, Feng
Ma, Peiqing
Chen, Feng
Che, Yiqun
Zhao, Xinming
Yang, Li
author_facet Wang, Qian
Ye, Feng
Ma, Peiqing
Chen, Feng
Che, Yiqun
Zhao, Xinming
Yang, Li
author_sort Wang, Qian
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To explore noninvasive assessment of liver fat content with iron deposition using magnetic resonance (MR) quantitative technology. METHODS: A water–fat phantom with iron deposition containing 63 vials with predetermined fat percentages and iron concentrations was constructed. Thirty-three patients underwent fat quantitative MR examinations. The fat fraction (FF) was determined by three Dixon techniques. Pathological evaluation findings and the steatosis area rate (SAR) were used as the gold standards. RESULTS: FF(IOP) and FF(LAVA-Flex) significantly differed from FF(TEST) for iron concentrations of 1 to 30 µg/mL and fat components of 10% to 80%. Using the three Dixon techniques, FF(IOP) was 15.76% ± 6.98%, FF(LAVA-Flex) was 16.71% ± 6.77%, and FF(IDEAL IQ) was 13.18% ± 6.42% in patients without liver cirrhosis; these values in patients with liver cirrhosis were 20.35% ± 6.11%, 20.89% ± 8.49%, and 12.86% ± 4.00%, respectively. The SAR in patients without and with liver cirrhosis was 11.31% ± 5.89% and 9.84% ± 4.17%, respectively. There were significant positive correlations between FF(IDEAL IQ) and SAR with or without liver cirrhosis. CONCLUSION: Iron deposition must be considered when using quantitative MR techniques to evaluate the hepatic fat content. Compared with the IOP and LAVA-Flex techniques, the IDEAL IQ technique has more stability and accuracy in measurement of the hepatic fat content, free from iron deposition.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6567757
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65677572019-06-20 Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of hepatic fat content with iron deposition: will it be disturbed? Wang, Qian Ye, Feng Ma, Peiqing Chen, Feng Che, Yiqun Zhao, Xinming Yang, Li J Int Med Res Clinical Research Reports OBJECTIVE: To explore noninvasive assessment of liver fat content with iron deposition using magnetic resonance (MR) quantitative technology. METHODS: A water–fat phantom with iron deposition containing 63 vials with predetermined fat percentages and iron concentrations was constructed. Thirty-three patients underwent fat quantitative MR examinations. The fat fraction (FF) was determined by three Dixon techniques. Pathological evaluation findings and the steatosis area rate (SAR) were used as the gold standards. RESULTS: FF(IOP) and FF(LAVA-Flex) significantly differed from FF(TEST) for iron concentrations of 1 to 30 µg/mL and fat components of 10% to 80%. Using the three Dixon techniques, FF(IOP) was 15.76% ± 6.98%, FF(LAVA-Flex) was 16.71% ± 6.77%, and FF(IDEAL IQ) was 13.18% ± 6.42% in patients without liver cirrhosis; these values in patients with liver cirrhosis were 20.35% ± 6.11%, 20.89% ± 8.49%, and 12.86% ± 4.00%, respectively. The SAR in patients without and with liver cirrhosis was 11.31% ± 5.89% and 9.84% ± 4.17%, respectively. There were significant positive correlations between FF(IDEAL IQ) and SAR with or without liver cirrhosis. CONCLUSION: Iron deposition must be considered when using quantitative MR techniques to evaluate the hepatic fat content. Compared with the IOP and LAVA-Flex techniques, the IDEAL IQ technique has more stability and accuracy in measurement of the hepatic fat content, free from iron deposition. SAGE Publications 2019-03-12 2019-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6567757/ /pubmed/30859893 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300060519836033 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Clinical Research Reports
Wang, Qian
Ye, Feng
Ma, Peiqing
Chen, Feng
Che, Yiqun
Zhao, Xinming
Yang, Li
Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of hepatic fat content with iron deposition: will it be disturbed?
title Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of hepatic fat content with iron deposition: will it be disturbed?
title_full Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of hepatic fat content with iron deposition: will it be disturbed?
title_fullStr Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of hepatic fat content with iron deposition: will it be disturbed?
title_full_unstemmed Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of hepatic fat content with iron deposition: will it be disturbed?
title_short Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of hepatic fat content with iron deposition: will it be disturbed?
title_sort quantitative magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of hepatic fat content with iron deposition: will it be disturbed?
topic Clinical Research Reports
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6567757/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30859893
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300060519836033
work_keys_str_mv AT wangqian quantitativemagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofhepaticfatcontentwithirondepositionwillitbedisturbed
AT yefeng quantitativemagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofhepaticfatcontentwithirondepositionwillitbedisturbed
AT mapeiqing quantitativemagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofhepaticfatcontentwithirondepositionwillitbedisturbed
AT chenfeng quantitativemagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofhepaticfatcontentwithirondepositionwillitbedisturbed
AT cheyiqun quantitativemagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofhepaticfatcontentwithirondepositionwillitbedisturbed
AT zhaoxinming quantitativemagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofhepaticfatcontentwithirondepositionwillitbedisturbed
AT yangli quantitativemagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofhepaticfatcontentwithirondepositionwillitbedisturbed