Comparison of hepatic iron quantification by MRI between 1.5 and 3 T, using different methods and conversion formulas.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Yves Gandon, Thi Hien Trang Chau, Paul Borde, Elise Bannier, Thibault Lapotre, Mustapha Azahaf, Edouard Bardou-Jacquet
{"title":"Comparison of hepatic iron quantification by MRI between 1.5 and 3 T, using different methods and conversion formulas.","authors":"Yves Gandon, Thi Hien Trang Chau, Paul Borde, Elise Bannier, Thibault Lapotre, Mustapha Azahaf, Edouard Bardou-Jacquet","doi":"10.1007/s00330-025-12027-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare liver iron concentration (LIC) estimates obtained from 1.5-T and 3-T MRI systems, using multiple quantification methods.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Seventy-eight participants from two centers were prospectively included and underwent liver MRI scans at both 1.5 T and 3 T. Two multi-echo gradient recalled echo (ME-GRE) sequences-one vendor-specific and one non-specific-were used to quantify liver fat and iron. Proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and R2* were obtained from vendor sequences via map reconstruction, and from non-specific sequences using MRQuantif software. LIC was derived from R2* using European or American calibrations, but also from signal intensity ratio (SIR) method at 1.5 T. Statistical analysis included linear correlation regression and Bland-Altman plots to evaluate agreement between LIC values across field strengths and methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For LIC calculated from R2*, both sequences demonstrated a strong correlation between 1.5-T and 3-T results, with R = 0.84 and 0.99 for the vendor and MRQuantif methods, respectively. The LIC bias between field strengths remained low (± 7% maximum) when using the same calibration group or when comparing, at 1.5 T, the SIR method and European calibrations. However, this bias increased to 26% when comparing LIC values obtained from American and European calibrations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LIC values are highly comparable when similar calibration methods are applied, but notable bias arises when comparing results from different calibration groups. For clinical convenience, a rapid and intermediate LIC (in µmol/g) can be estimated by dividing R2*values by 2 at 1.5 T or by 4 at 3 T.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question There are differences in the estimation of liver iron concentration depending on the magnetic field, method and calibration used. Findings Liver iron concentration (LIC) reproducibility is high across methods or between 1.5-T and 3-T devices-only when identical calibration groups are used. Clinical relevance LIC determination from R2 is highly reproducible, but the conversion formula must align with the referring physicians' standard references.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-12027-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare liver iron concentration (LIC) estimates obtained from 1.5-T and 3-T MRI systems, using multiple quantification methods.

Materials and methods: Seventy-eight participants from two centers were prospectively included and underwent liver MRI scans at both 1.5 T and 3 T. Two multi-echo gradient recalled echo (ME-GRE) sequences-one vendor-specific and one non-specific-were used to quantify liver fat and iron. Proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and R2* were obtained from vendor sequences via map reconstruction, and from non-specific sequences using MRQuantif software. LIC was derived from R2* using European or American calibrations, but also from signal intensity ratio (SIR) method at 1.5 T. Statistical analysis included linear correlation regression and Bland-Altman plots to evaluate agreement between LIC values across field strengths and methods.

Results: For LIC calculated from R2*, both sequences demonstrated a strong correlation between 1.5-T and 3-T results, with R = 0.84 and 0.99 for the vendor and MRQuantif methods, respectively. The LIC bias between field strengths remained low (± 7% maximum) when using the same calibration group or when comparing, at 1.5 T, the SIR method and European calibrations. However, this bias increased to 26% when comparing LIC values obtained from American and European calibrations.

Conclusion: LIC values are highly comparable when similar calibration methods are applied, but notable bias arises when comparing results from different calibration groups. For clinical convenience, a rapid and intermediate LIC (in µmol/g) can be estimated by dividing R2*values by 2 at 1.5 T or by 4 at 3 T.

Key points: Question There are differences in the estimation of liver iron concentration depending on the magnetic field, method and calibration used. Findings Liver iron concentration (LIC) reproducibility is high across methods or between 1.5-T and 3-T devices-only when identical calibration groups are used. Clinical relevance LIC determination from R2 is highly reproducible, but the conversion formula must align with the referring physicians' standard references.

采用不同方法和换算公式的1.5和3t MRI肝铁定量比较。
目的:本研究旨在通过多种定量方法比较1.5-T和3-T MRI系统获得的肝铁浓度(LIC)估计值。材料和方法:来自两个中心的78名参与者被前瞻性纳入,并接受了1.5 T和3 T的肝脏MRI扫描。两个多回声梯度回忆回声(ME-GRE)序列-一个供应商特异性和一个非特异性-被用来量化肝脏脂肪和铁。通过图谱重建获得供应商序列的质子密度脂肪分数(PDFF)和R2*,使用MRQuantif软件获得非特异性序列。使用欧洲或美国校准从R2*获得LIC,但也从1.5 T下的信号强度比(SIR)方法获得LIC。统计分析包括线性相关回归和Bland-Altman图,以评估不同场强和方法之间LIC值的一致性。结果:对于由R2*计算的LIC,两个序列在1.5-T和3-T结果之间表现出很强的相关性,供应商和MRQuantif方法的R分别为0.84和0.99。当使用相同的校准组或在1.5 T时比较SIR方法和欧洲校准时,场强之间的LIC偏差仍然很低(最大±7%)。然而,当比较从美国和欧洲校准获得的LIC值时,这种偏差增加到26%。结论:当使用相似的校准方法时,LIC值具有高度可比性,但当比较不同校准组的结果时,会出现明显的偏差。为了临床方便,可以通过在1.5 T时将R2*值除以2或在3 T时将R2*值除以4来估计快速和中间的LIC(以µmol/g为单位)。根据所使用的磁场、方法和校准,肝铁浓度的估计存在差异。发现肝铁浓度(LIC)在不同方法或1.5 t和3-T设备之间的重复性很高-只有在使用相同的校准组时。从R2确定的临床相关性LIC具有高度可重复性,但转换公式必须与转诊医生的标准参考文献保持一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信