Premium
Multisite, multivendor validation of the accuracy and reproducibility of proton‐density fat‐fraction quantification at 1.5T and 3T using a fat–water phantom
Author(s) -
Hernando Diego,
Sharma Samir D.,
Aliyari Ghasabeh Mounes,
Alvis Bret D.,
Arora Sandeep S.,
Hamilton Gavin,
Pan Li,
Shaffer Jean M.,
Sofue Keitaro,
Szeverenyi Nikolaus M.,
Welch E. Brian,
Yuan Qing,
Bashir Mustafa R.,
Kamel Ihab R.,
Rice Mark J.,
Sirlin Claude B.,
Yokoo Takeshi,
Reeder Scott B.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
magnetic resonance in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.696
H-Index - 225
eISSN - 1522-2594
pISSN - 0740-3194
DOI - 10.1002/mrm.26228
Subject(s) - reproducibility , imaging phantom , intraclass correlation , repeatability , confidence interval , statistics , nuclear medicine , mathematics , biomedical engineering , medicine
Purpose To evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of quantitative chemical shift‐encoded (CSE) MRI to quantify proton‐density fat‐fraction (PDFF) in a fat–water phantom across sites, vendors, field strengths, and protocols. Methods Six sites (Philips, Siemens, and GE Healthcare) 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 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results PDFF measurements revealed an overall absolute bias (across sites, field strengths, and protocols) of 0.22% (95% confidence interval, 0.07%–0.38%) and R 2 > 0.995 relative to the known PDFF at each site, field strength, and protocol, with a slope between 0.96 and 1.02 and an intercept between −0.56% and 1.13%. ANCOVA did not reveal 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 a bias of −0.37% (Philips) and −1.22% (Siemens) relative to GE Healthcare. The overall ICC was 0.999. Conclusion CSE‐based fat quantification is accurate and reproducible across sites, vendors, field strengths, and protocols. Magn Reson Med 77:1516–1524, 2017. © 2016 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine