Multisite, multivendor validation of the accuracy and reproducibility of proton-density fat-fraction quantification at 1.5T and 3T using a fat-water phantom.
Multisite, multivendor validation of the accuracy and reproducibility of proton-density fat-fraction quantification at 1.5T and 3T using a fat-water phantom.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/mrm.26228
复制
发表时间：
2017-04
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Reeder SB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hernando D;Sharma SD;Aliyari Ghasabeh M;Alvis BD;Arora SS;Hamilton G;Pan L;Shaffer JM;Sofue K;Szeverenyi NM;Welch EB;Yuan Q;Bashir MR;Kamel IR;Rice MJ;Sirlin CB;Yokoo T;Reeder SB
评估定量化学位移编码磁共振成像（CSE - MRI）在不同站点、供应商、场强和协议下对脂肪 - 水模型中质子密度脂肪分数（PDFF）进行量化的准确性和可重复性。
六个站点（三个供应商：通用电气/飞利浦/西门子）参与了这项研究。制作了一个包含多个装有不同油水悬浮液（PDFF：0 - 100%）的小瓶的模型，将其运送到每个站点，并在场强为1.5T和3T时使用每种场强下的两种CSE协议进行扫描。使用通用算法重建了校正混杂因素后的PDFF图。为评估准确性，计算了PDFF偏差以及与已知PDFF的线性回归。为评估可重复性，使用协方差分析（ANCOVA）、布兰德 - 奥特曼分析和组内相关系数（ICC）对不同站点、供应商、场强和协议下的测量结果进行比较。
PDFF测量结果显示，总体绝对偏差（跨站点、场强和协议）为0.22%，95%置信区间为（0.07%，0.38%），并且在每个站点、场强和协议下相对于已知PDFF的R² > 0.995（斜率：0.96 - 1.02，截距：-0.56% - 1.13%）。协方差分析未显示出场强（p = 0.36）或协议（p = 0.19）的影响。供应商存在显著影响（F = 25.13，p = 1.07×10⁻¹⁰），相对于通用电气，飞利浦的偏差为 - 0.37%，西门子为 - 1.22%。总体ICC为0.999。
基于CSE的脂肪定量在不同站点、供应商、场强和协议下是准确且可重复的。
To evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of quantitative chemical shift-encoded MRI (CSE-MRI) to quantify proton-density fat-fraction (PDFF) in a fat-water phantom across sites, vendors, field strengths and protocols. Six sites (three vendors: GE/Philips/Siemens) participated in this study. A phantom containing multiple vials with various oil-water suspensions (PDFF:0–100%) was built, shipped to each site and scanned at 1.5T and 3T using two CSE protocols per field strength. Confounder-corrected PDFF maps were reconstructed using a common algorithm. To assess accuracy, PDFF bias and linear regression with the known PDFF were calculated. To assess reproducibility, measurements were compared across sites, vendors, field strengths and protocols using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), Bland-Altman analysis and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). PDFF measurements showed overall absolute bias (across sites, field strengths and protocols)=0.22% with 95% CI:(0.07%,0.38%), and R2>0.995 relative to the known PDFF at each site, field strength and protocol (slopes: 0.96–1.02, intercepts: −0.56%–1.13%). ANCOVA did not show effects of field strength (p=0.36), or protocol (p=0.19). There was a significant effect of vendor (F=25.13,p=1.07×10−10), with bias= −0.37% (Philips) and −1.22% (Siemens) relative to GE. The overall ICC was 0.999. CSE-based fat quantification is accurate and reproducible across sites, vendors, field strengths and protocols.