European radiology · 2020
Evaluation of liver iron overload with R2* relaxometry with versus without fat suppression: both are clinically accurate but there are differences.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Plaikner M, Kremser C, Zoller H, Jaschke W, Steurer M, Viveiros A, Henninger B
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess clinically relevant difference in hepatic iron quantification using R2* relaxometry with (FS) and without (non-FS) fat saturation for the evaluation of patients with suspected hepatic iron overload.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 134 patients who underwent 1.5-T MRI R2* relaxometry with FS and non-FS gradient echo sequences (12 echoes, initial TE = 0.99 ms). Proton density fat fraction for the quantification of steatosis was assessed. Linear regression analyses and Bland-Altman plots including Lin's concordance correlation coefficient were performed for correlation of FS R2* with non-FS R2*. Patients were grouped into 4 severity classes of iron overload (EASL based), and agreement was evaluated by contingency tables and the proportion of overall agreement.
RESULTS: A total of 41.8% of patients showed hepatic iron overload; 67.9% had concomitant steatosis; and 58.2% revealed no iron overload of whom 60.3% had steatosis. The mean R2* value for all FS data was 102.86 1/s, for non-FS 108.16 1/s. Linear regression resulted in an R-squared value of 0.99 (p < 0.001); Bland-Altman plot showed a mean R2* difference of 5.26 1/s (SD 17.82). The concordance correlation coefficient was only slightly lower for patients with steatosis compared with non-steatosis (0.988 vs. 0.993). The overall agreement between FS and non-FS R2* measurements was 94.8% using either method to classify patients according to severity of iron storage. No correlation between R2* and proton density fat fraction was found for both methods.
CONCLUSION: R2* relaxometry showed an excellent overall agreement between FS and non-FS acquisition. Both variants can therefore be used in daily routine. However, clinically relevant differences might result when switching between the two methods or during patient follow-up, when fat content changes over time. We therefore recommend choosing a method and keeping it straight in the context of follow-up examinations.
KEY POINTS: • Both variants of R2* relaxometry (FS and non-FS) may be used in daily routine. • Clinically relevant differences might result when switching between the two methods or during patient follow-up, when fat content changes over time. • It seems advisable choosing one method and keeping it straight in the context of follow-up examinations.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 134 patients who underwent 1.5-T MRI R2* relaxometry with FS and non-FS gradient echo sequences (12 echoes, initial TE = 0.99 ms). Proton density fat fraction for the quantification of steatosis was assessed. Linear regression analyses and Bland-Altman plots including Lin's concordance correlation coefficient were performed for correlation of FS R2* with non-FS R2*. Patients were grouped into 4 severity classes of iron overload (EASL based), and agreement was evaluated by contingency tables and the proportion of overall agreement.
RESULTS: A total of 41.8% of patients showed hepatic iron overload; 67.9% had concomitant steatosis; and 58.2% revealed no iron overload of whom 60.3% had steatosis. The mean R2* value for all FS data was 102.86 1/s, for non-FS 108.16 1/s. Linear regression resulted in an R-squared value of 0.99 (p < 0.001); Bland-Altman plot showed a mean R2* difference of 5.26 1/s (SD 17.82). The concordance correlation coefficient was only slightly lower for patients with steatosis compared with non-steatosis (0.988 vs. 0.993). The overall agreement between FS and non-FS R2* measurements was 94.8% using either method to classify patients according to severity of iron storage. No correlation between R2* and proton density fat fraction was found for both methods.
CONCLUSION: R2* relaxometry showed an excellent overall agreement between FS and non-FS acquisition. Both variants can therefore be used in daily routine. However, clinically relevant differences might result when switching between the two methods or during patient follow-up, when fat content changes over time. We therefore recommend choosing a method and keeping it straight in the context of follow-up examinations.
KEY POINTS: • Both variants of R2* relaxometry (FS and non-FS) may be used in daily routine. • Clinically relevant differences might result when switching between the two methods or during patient follow-up, when fat content changes over time. • It seems advisable choosing one method and keeping it straight in the context of follow-up examinations.