Cargando…
Comparison of Multimaterial Decomposition Fat Fraction with DECT and Proton Density Fat Fraction with IDEAL IQ MRI for Quantification of Liver Steatosis in a Population Exposed to Chemotherapy
INTRODUCTION: Oncologic patients who develop chemotherapy-associated liver injury (CALI) secondary to chemotherapy treatment tend to have worse outcomes. Biopsy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of hepatic steatosis. The purpose of this article is to compare 2 alternatives: Proton-Density-...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8060765/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33958978 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1559325820984938 |
_version_ | 1783681432361631744 |
---|---|
author | Corrias, Giuseppe Erta, Marco Sini, Marcello Sardu, Claudia Saba, Luca Mahmood, Usman Huicochea Castellanos, Sandra Bates, David Mondanelli, Nicola Thomsen, Brian Carollo, Gabriella Sawan, Peter Mannelli, Lorenzo |
author_facet | Corrias, Giuseppe Erta, Marco Sini, Marcello Sardu, Claudia Saba, Luca Mahmood, Usman Huicochea Castellanos, Sandra Bates, David Mondanelli, Nicola Thomsen, Brian Carollo, Gabriella Sawan, Peter Mannelli, Lorenzo |
author_sort | Corrias, Giuseppe |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Oncologic patients who develop chemotherapy-associated liver injury (CALI) secondary to chemotherapy treatment tend to have worse outcomes. Biopsy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of hepatic steatosis. The purpose of this article is to compare 2 alternatives: Proton-Density-Fat-Fraction (PDFF) MRI and MultiMaterial-Decomposition (MMD) DECT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 49 consecutive oncologic patients treated with Chemotherapy underwent abdominal DECT and abdominal MRI within 2 weeks of each other. Two radiologists tracked Regions of Interest independently both in the PDFF fat maps and in the MMD DECT fat maps. Non-parametric exact Wilcoxon signed rank test and Cohen’s K were used to compare the 2 sequences and to evaluate the agreement. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the fat fraction measured as a continuous value between PDFF and DECT between 2 readers. Within the same imaging method (PDFF) the degree of agreement based on the k coefficient between reader 1 and reader 2 is 0.88 (p-value < 0.05). Similarly, for single-source DECT(ssDECT) the degree of agreement based on the k coefficient between reader 1 and reader 2 is 0.97 (p-value < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that the hepatic fat fraction of ssDECT with MMD are not significantly different from PDFF. This could be an advantage in an oncological population that undergoes serial CT scans for follow up of chemotherapy response. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8060765 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80607652021-05-05 Comparison of Multimaterial Decomposition Fat Fraction with DECT and Proton Density Fat Fraction with IDEAL IQ MRI for Quantification of Liver Steatosis in a Population Exposed to Chemotherapy Corrias, Giuseppe Erta, Marco Sini, Marcello Sardu, Claudia Saba, Luca Mahmood, Usman Huicochea Castellanos, Sandra Bates, David Mondanelli, Nicola Thomsen, Brian Carollo, Gabriella Sawan, Peter Mannelli, Lorenzo Dose Response State of the Art CT and Image Quality, Radiation, and Contrast Dose INTRODUCTION: Oncologic patients who develop chemotherapy-associated liver injury (CALI) secondary to chemotherapy treatment tend to have worse outcomes. Biopsy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of hepatic steatosis. The purpose of this article is to compare 2 alternatives: Proton-Density-Fat-Fraction (PDFF) MRI and MultiMaterial-Decomposition (MMD) DECT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 49 consecutive oncologic patients treated with Chemotherapy underwent abdominal DECT and abdominal MRI within 2 weeks of each other. Two radiologists tracked Regions of Interest independently both in the PDFF fat maps and in the MMD DECT fat maps. Non-parametric exact Wilcoxon signed rank test and Cohen’s K were used to compare the 2 sequences and to evaluate the agreement. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the fat fraction measured as a continuous value between PDFF and DECT between 2 readers. Within the same imaging method (PDFF) the degree of agreement based on the k coefficient between reader 1 and reader 2 is 0.88 (p-value < 0.05). Similarly, for single-source DECT(ssDECT) the degree of agreement based on the k coefficient between reader 1 and reader 2 is 0.97 (p-value < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that the hepatic fat fraction of ssDECT with MMD are not significantly different from PDFF. This could be an advantage in an oncological population that undergoes serial CT scans for follow up of chemotherapy response. SAGE Publications 2021-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8060765/ /pubmed/33958978 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1559325820984938 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://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 | State of the Art CT and Image Quality, Radiation, and Contrast Dose Corrias, Giuseppe Erta, Marco Sini, Marcello Sardu, Claudia Saba, Luca Mahmood, Usman Huicochea Castellanos, Sandra Bates, David Mondanelli, Nicola Thomsen, Brian Carollo, Gabriella Sawan, Peter Mannelli, Lorenzo Comparison of Multimaterial Decomposition Fat Fraction with DECT and Proton Density Fat Fraction with IDEAL IQ MRI for Quantification of Liver Steatosis in a Population Exposed to Chemotherapy |
title | Comparison of Multimaterial Decomposition Fat Fraction with DECT and Proton Density Fat Fraction with IDEAL IQ MRI for Quantification of Liver Steatosis in a Population Exposed to Chemotherapy |
title_full | Comparison of Multimaterial Decomposition Fat Fraction with DECT and Proton Density Fat Fraction with IDEAL IQ MRI for Quantification of Liver Steatosis in a Population Exposed to Chemotherapy |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Multimaterial Decomposition Fat Fraction with DECT and Proton Density Fat Fraction with IDEAL IQ MRI for Quantification of Liver Steatosis in a Population Exposed to Chemotherapy |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Multimaterial Decomposition Fat Fraction with DECT and Proton Density Fat Fraction with IDEAL IQ MRI for Quantification of Liver Steatosis in a Population Exposed to Chemotherapy |
title_short | Comparison of Multimaterial Decomposition Fat Fraction with DECT and Proton Density Fat Fraction with IDEAL IQ MRI for Quantification of Liver Steatosis in a Population Exposed to Chemotherapy |
title_sort | comparison of multimaterial decomposition fat fraction with dect and proton density fat fraction with ideal iq mri for quantification of liver steatosis in a population exposed to chemotherapy |
topic | State of the Art CT and Image Quality, Radiation, and Contrast Dose |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8060765/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33958978 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1559325820984938 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT corriasgiuseppe comparisonofmultimaterialdecompositionfatfractionwithdectandprotondensityfatfractionwithidealiqmriforquantificationofliversteatosisinapopulationexposedtochemotherapy AT ertamarco comparisonofmultimaterialdecompositionfatfractionwithdectandprotondensityfatfractionwithidealiqmriforquantificationofliversteatosisinapopulationexposedtochemotherapy AT sinimarcello comparisonofmultimaterialdecompositionfatfractionwithdectandprotondensityfatfractionwithidealiqmriforquantificationofliversteatosisinapopulationexposedtochemotherapy AT sarduclaudia comparisonofmultimaterialdecompositionfatfractionwithdectandprotondensityfatfractionwithidealiqmriforquantificationofliversteatosisinapopulationexposedtochemotherapy AT sabaluca comparisonofmultimaterialdecompositionfatfractionwithdectandprotondensityfatfractionwithidealiqmriforquantificationofliversteatosisinapopulationexposedtochemotherapy AT mahmoodusman comparisonofmultimaterialdecompositionfatfractionwithdectandprotondensityfatfractionwithidealiqmriforquantificationofliversteatosisinapopulationexposedtochemotherapy AT huicocheacastellanossandra comparisonofmultimaterialdecompositionfatfractionwithdectandprotondensityfatfractionwithidealiqmriforquantificationofliversteatosisinapopulationexposedtochemotherapy AT batesdavid comparisonofmultimaterialdecompositionfatfractionwithdectandprotondensityfatfractionwithidealiqmriforquantificationofliversteatosisinapopulationexposedtochemotherapy AT mondanellinicola comparisonofmultimaterialdecompositionfatfractionwithdectandprotondensityfatfractionwithidealiqmriforquantificationofliversteatosisinapopulationexposedtochemotherapy AT thomsenbrian comparisonofmultimaterialdecompositionfatfractionwithdectandprotondensityfatfractionwithidealiqmriforquantificationofliversteatosisinapopulationexposedtochemotherapy AT carollogabriella comparisonofmultimaterialdecompositionfatfractionwithdectandprotondensityfatfractionwithidealiqmriforquantificationofliversteatosisinapopulationexposedtochemotherapy AT sawanpeter comparisonofmultimaterialdecompositionfatfractionwithdectandprotondensityfatfractionwithidealiqmriforquantificationofliversteatosisinapopulationexposedtochemotherapy AT mannellilorenzo comparisonofmultimaterialdecompositionfatfractionwithdectandprotondensityfatfractionwithidealiqmriforquantificationofliversteatosisinapopulationexposedtochemotherapy |