Cargando…
A comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on MRI at 3T and 1.5T
PURPOSE: Volumetric liver fat fraction (VLFF) measurements were made using the HepaFat-Scan(®) technique at 1.5T and 3T to determine the agreement between the measurements obtained at the two fields. METHODS: Sixty patients with type 2 diabetes (67% male, mean age 50.92 ± 6.56yrs) and thirty healthy...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8277031/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34255778 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252928 |
_version_ | 1783722003378733056 |
---|---|
author | Athithan, Lavanya Gulsin, Gaurav S. House, Michael J. Pang, Wenjie Brady, Emer M. Wormleighton, Joanne Parke, Kelly S. Graham-Brown, Matthew St. Pierre, Tim G. Levelt, Eylem McCann, Gerry P. |
author_facet | Athithan, Lavanya Gulsin, Gaurav S. House, Michael J. Pang, Wenjie Brady, Emer M. Wormleighton, Joanne Parke, Kelly S. Graham-Brown, Matthew St. Pierre, Tim G. Levelt, Eylem McCann, Gerry P. |
author_sort | Athithan, Lavanya |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Volumetric liver fat fraction (VLFF) measurements were made using the HepaFat-Scan(®) technique at 1.5T and 3T to determine the agreement between the measurements obtained at the two fields. METHODS: Sixty patients with type 2 diabetes (67% male, mean age 50.92 ± 6.56yrs) and thirty healthy volunteers (50% male, mean age 48.63 ± 6.32yrs) were scanned on 1.5T Aera and 3T Skyra (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) MRI scanners on the same day using the HepaFat-Scan(®) gradient echo protocol with modification of echo times for 3T (TEs 2.38, 4.76, 7.14 ms at 1.5T and 1.2, 2.4, 3.6 ms at 3T). The 3T analyses were performed independently of the 1.5T analyses by a different analyst, blinded from the 1.5T results. Data were analysed for agreement and bias using Bland-Altman methods and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). A second cohort of 17 participants underwent interstudy repeatability assessment of VLFF measured by HepaFat-Scan(®) at 3T. RESULTS: A small, but statistically significant mean bias of 0.48% was observed between 3T and 1.5T with 95% limits of agreement -2.2% to 3.2% VLFF. The ICC for agreement between field strengths was 0.983 (95% CI 0.972–0.989). In the repeatability cohort studied at 3T the repeatability coefficient was 4.2%. The ICC for agreement was 0.971 (95% CI 0.921–0.989). CONCLUSION: There is minimal bias and excellent agreement between the measures of VLFF using the HepaFat-Scan(®) at 1.5 and 3T. The test retest repeatability coefficient at 3T is comparable to the 95% limits of agreement between 1.5T and 3T suggesting that measurements can be made interchangeably between field strengths. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8277031 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82770312021-07-20 A comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on MRI at 3T and 1.5T Athithan, Lavanya Gulsin, Gaurav S. House, Michael J. Pang, Wenjie Brady, Emer M. Wormleighton, Joanne Parke, Kelly S. Graham-Brown, Matthew St. Pierre, Tim G. Levelt, Eylem McCann, Gerry P. PLoS One Research Article PURPOSE: Volumetric liver fat fraction (VLFF) measurements were made using the HepaFat-Scan(®) technique at 1.5T and 3T to determine the agreement between the measurements obtained at the two fields. METHODS: Sixty patients with type 2 diabetes (67% male, mean age 50.92 ± 6.56yrs) and thirty healthy volunteers (50% male, mean age 48.63 ± 6.32yrs) were scanned on 1.5T Aera and 3T Skyra (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) MRI scanners on the same day using the HepaFat-Scan(®) gradient echo protocol with modification of echo times for 3T (TEs 2.38, 4.76, 7.14 ms at 1.5T and 1.2, 2.4, 3.6 ms at 3T). The 3T analyses were performed independently of the 1.5T analyses by a different analyst, blinded from the 1.5T results. Data were analysed for agreement and bias using Bland-Altman methods and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). A second cohort of 17 participants underwent interstudy repeatability assessment of VLFF measured by HepaFat-Scan(®) at 3T. RESULTS: A small, but statistically significant mean bias of 0.48% was observed between 3T and 1.5T with 95% limits of agreement -2.2% to 3.2% VLFF. The ICC for agreement between field strengths was 0.983 (95% CI 0.972–0.989). In the repeatability cohort studied at 3T the repeatability coefficient was 4.2%. The ICC for agreement was 0.971 (95% CI 0.921–0.989). CONCLUSION: There is minimal bias and excellent agreement between the measures of VLFF using the HepaFat-Scan(®) at 1.5 and 3T. The test retest repeatability coefficient at 3T is comparable to the 95% limits of agreement between 1.5T and 3T suggesting that measurements can be made interchangeably between field strengths. Public Library of Science 2021-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8277031/ /pubmed/34255778 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252928 Text en © 2021 Athithan et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Athithan, Lavanya Gulsin, Gaurav S. House, Michael J. Pang, Wenjie Brady, Emer M. Wormleighton, Joanne Parke, Kelly S. Graham-Brown, Matthew St. Pierre, Tim G. Levelt, Eylem McCann, Gerry P. A comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on MRI at 3T and 1.5T |
title | A comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on MRI at 3T and 1.5T |
title_full | A comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on MRI at 3T and 1.5T |
title_fullStr | A comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on MRI at 3T and 1.5T |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on MRI at 3T and 1.5T |
title_short | A comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on MRI at 3T and 1.5T |
title_sort | comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on mri at 3t and 1.5t |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8277031/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34255778 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252928 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT athithanlavanya acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT gulsingauravs acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT housemichaelj acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT pangwenjie acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT bradyemerm acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT wormleightonjoanne acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT parkekellys acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT grahambrownmatthew acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT stpierretimg acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT levelteylem acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT mccanngerryp acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT athithanlavanya comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT gulsingauravs comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT housemichaelj comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT pangwenjie comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT bradyemerm comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT wormleightonjoanne comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT parkekellys comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT grahambrownmatthew comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT stpierretimg comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT levelteylem comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT mccanngerryp comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t |