Abstract

Recent multicenter, multivendor MRI-based R2* vs. liver iron concentration (LIC) calibrations (i.e., MCMV calibrations) may facilitate broad clinical dissemination of R2*-based LIC quantification. However, these calibrations are based on a centralized offline R2* reconstruction, and their applicability with vendor-provided R2* maps is unclear. To determine R2* ranges of agreement between the centralized and three MRI vendors' R2* reconstructions. Prospective. Two hundred and seven subjects (mean age 37.6 ± 19.6 years; 117 male) with known or suspected iron overload from four academic medical centers. Standardized multiecho spoiled gradient echo sequence at 1.5 T and 3.0 T for R2* mapping and a multiple spin-echo sequence at 1.5 T for LIC quantification. MRI vendors: GE Healthcare, Philips Healthcare, and Siemens Healthineers. R2* maps were generated using both the centralized and vendor reconstructions, and ranges of agreement were determined. R2*-LIC linear calibrations were determined for each site, field strength, and reconstruction and compared with the MCMV calibrations. Bland-Altman analysis to determine ranges of agreement. Linear regression, analysis of covariance F tests, and Tukey's multiple comparison testing to assess reproducibility of calibrations across sites and vendors. A P value <0.05 was considered significant. The upper limits of R2* ranges of agreement were approximately 500, 375, and 330 s-1 for GE, Philips, and Siemens reconstructions, respectively, at 1.5 T and approximately 700 and 800 s-1 for GE and Philips, respectively, at 3.0 T. Within the R2* ranges of agreement, vendor R2*-LIC calibrations demonstrated high reproducibility (no significant differences between slopes or intercepts; P ≥ 0.06) and agreed with the MCMV calibrations (overlapping 95% confidence intervals). Based on the determined upper limits, R2* measurements obtained from vendor-provided R2* maps may be reliably and practically used to quantify LIC less than approximately 8-13 mg/g using the MCMV calibrations and similar acquisition parameters as this study. 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call