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-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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