Comparison of R2* correction methods for accurate fat quantification in fatty liver

DE Horng, D Hernando, CDG Hines… - Journal of Magnetic …, 2013 - Wiley Online Library
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 2013Wiley Online Library
Purpose: To compare the performance of fat fraction quantification using single‐R2* and
dual‐R2* correction methods in patients with fatty liver, using MR spectroscopy (MRS) as the
reference standard. Materials and Methods: From a group of 97 patients, 32 patients with
hepatic fat fraction greater than 5%, as measured by MRS, were identified. In these patients,
chemical shift encoded fat‐water imaging was performed, covering the entire liver in a single
breathhold. Fat fraction was measured from the imaging data by postprocessing using 6 …
Purpose
To compare the performance of fat fraction quantification using single‐R2* and dual‐R2* correction methods in patients with fatty liver, using MR spectroscopy (MRS) as the reference standard.
Materials and Methods
From a group of 97 patients, 32 patients with hepatic fat fraction greater than 5%, as measured by MRS, were identified. In these patients, chemical shift encoded fat‐water imaging was performed, covering the entire liver in a single breathhold. Fat fraction was measured from the imaging data by postprocessing using 6 different models: single‐ and dual‐R2* correction, each performed with complex fitting, magnitude fitting, and mixed magnitude/complex fitting to compare the effects of phase error correction. Fat fraction measurements were compared with co‐registered spectroscopy measurements using linear regression.
Results
Linear regression demonstrated higher agreement with MRS using single‐R2* correction compared with dual‐R2* correction. Among single‐R2* models, all 3 fittings methods performed similarly well (slope = 1.0 ± 0.06, r2 = 0.89–0.91).
Conclusion
Single‐R2* modeling is more accurate than dual‐R2* modeling for hepatic fat quantification in patients, even in those with high hepatic fat concentrations. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013;37:414–422. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Wiley Online Library