A comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on MRI at 3T and 1.5T.
<h4>Purpose</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>Sixty patients with type 2 diabetes (67% male, mean age...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/9c9a1f8ab8c94c6a8fdd3e0b3b17e746 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| id |
oai:doaj.org-article:9c9a1f8ab8c94c6a8fdd3e0b3b17e746 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
oai:doaj.org-article:9c9a1f8ab8c94c6a8fdd3e0b3b17e7462021-12-02T20:05:05ZA comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on MRI at 3T and 1.5T.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0252928https://doaj.org/article/9c9a1f8ab8c94c6a8fdd3e0b3b17e7462021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252928https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Purpose</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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).<h4>Conclusion</h4>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.Lavanya AthithanGaurav S GulsinMichael J HouseWenjie PangEmer M BradyJoanne WormleightonKelly S ParkeMatthew Graham-BrownTim G St PierreEylem LeveltGerry P McCannPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 7, p e0252928 (2021) |
| institution |
DOAJ |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
EN |
| topic |
Medicine R Science Q |
| spellingShingle |
Medicine R Science Q Lavanya Athithan Gaurav S Gulsin Michael J House Wenjie Pang Emer M Brady Joanne Wormleighton Kelly S Parke Matthew Graham-Brown Tim G St Pierre Eylem Levelt Gerry P McCann A comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on MRI at 3T and 1.5T. |
| description |
<h4>Purpose</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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).<h4>Conclusion</h4>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 |
article |
| author |
Lavanya Athithan Gaurav S Gulsin Michael J House Wenjie Pang Emer M Brady Joanne Wormleighton Kelly S Parke Matthew Graham-Brown Tim G St Pierre Eylem Levelt Gerry P McCann |
| author_facet |
Lavanya Athithan Gaurav S Gulsin Michael J House Wenjie Pang Emer M Brady Joanne Wormleighton Kelly S Parke Matthew Graham-Brown Tim G St Pierre Eylem Levelt Gerry P McCann |
| author_sort |
Lavanya Athithan |
| title |
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_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_sort |
comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on mri at 3t and 1.5t. |
| publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| url |
https://doaj.org/article/9c9a1f8ab8c94c6a8fdd3e0b3b17e746 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT lavanyaathithan acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT gauravsgulsin acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT michaeljhouse acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT wenjiepang acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT emermbrady acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT joannewormleighton acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT kellysparke acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT matthewgrahambrown acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT timgstpierre acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT eylemlevelt acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT gerrypmccann acomparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT lavanyaathithan comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT gauravsgulsin comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT michaeljhouse comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT wenjiepang comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT emermbrady comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT joannewormleighton comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT kellysparke comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT matthewgrahambrown comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT timgstpierre comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT eylemlevelt comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t AT gerrypmccann comparisonofliverfatfractionmeasurementonmriat3tand15t |
| _version_ |
1718375498068787200 |