Cross-Vendor Validation of Proton Density Fat Fraction and T1 Mapping Using a Combined Proton Density Fat Fraction—T1 Phantom
Jitka Starekova (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Sebastian Weingärtner (TU Delft - ImPhys/Computational Imaging, TU Delft - Applied Sciences)
David R. Rutkowski (Calimetrix)
Garrett C. Fullerton (University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Won C. Bae (University of California San Diego)
Hung P. Do (Canon Medical Systems USA, Inc.)
Ananth J. Madhuranthakam (Mayo Clinic, University of Texas at Dallas)
Vadim Malis (University of California San Diego)
Sheng Qing Lin (University of Texas at Dallas)
More Authors (External organisation)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
Background: In chronic liver disease, fat and fibroinflammatory changes often coexist. However, their biomarkers, proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and T1, are typically assessed separately. Their reproducibility under mutual confounding remains unclear. Purpose: To assess multicenter, multi-vendor reproducibility of confounder-corrected chemical shift-encoded (CSE)-MRI-based PDFF mapping and MOLLI-based T1 mapping using a combined PDFF-T1 phantom. Study Type: Prospective phantom study. Phantom: Commercial PDFF-T1 Phantom (Model 725) with varying PDFF (0%–30%) and T1 (200–1400 ms) values. Field Strength/Sequence: 1.5 T and 3 T multi-echo, three-dimensional spoiled-gradient-echo (SGRE) sequence for PDFF mapping, and MOLLI sequence (5(3)3 acquisition scheme) using two-dimensional SGRE readouts for T1 mapping across four centers and vendors. Assessment: PDFF and T1 maps were acquired using standardized protocols. PDFF maps were reconstructed locally, while T1 maps were generated using a centralized algorithm. All maps were quantitatively analyzed by a single radiologist using standardized region-of-interest placement. Phantom temporal stability was assessed at one center across five sessions over 9 months (baseline, retest, 1 week, 6 and 9 months). Statistical Tests: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), reproducibility coefficients (RDC), and linear regression analysis were used. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: PDFF showed overall excellent reproducibility (ICC = 0.987, RDC = 3.7%), with increased variability at higher T1 values (RDC up to 7.9% at T1 = 1400 ms). T1 mapping showed good reproducibility in the absence of fat (RDC 16–161 ms at PDFF = 0%), but moderate to poor reproducibility in the presence of fat, with RDC increasing up to 1553 ms at PDFF 30%. Temporal stability was excellent ICC ≥ 0.998 for both PDFF and T1, and RDC of 1.1%–1.3% for PDFF and 52–57 ms for T1. Data Conclusion: This phantom study demonstrated high reproducibility of PDFF, whereas T1 reproducibility deteriorated at higher fat and T1 levels, underscoring the need for fat-corrected T1 mapping for reliable assessment of fibroinflammatory changes. Evidence Level: N/A. Technical Efficacy: Stage 1.
help_outline