4.5 Article

MRI-based quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) and R2*mapping of liver iron overload: Comparison with SQUID-based biomagnetic liver susceptometry

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 78, Issue 1, Pages 264-270

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26358

Keywords

magnetic susceptibility; quantitative susceptibility mapping; liver iron overload; R2*mapping; SQUID

Funding

  1. NIH [R01DK083380, R01DK088925, R01DK100651, K24DK102595, UL1TR00427]
  2. GE Healthcare
  3. Bracco Diagnostics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We aimed to determine the agreement between quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM)-based biomagnetic liver susceptometry (BLS) and confounder-corrected R2* mapping with superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID)-based biomagnetic liver susceptometry in patients with liver iron overload. Methods: Data were acquired from two healthy controls and 22 patients undergoing MRI and SQUID-BLS as part of routine monitoring for iron overload. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed on a 3T system using a three-dimensional multi-echo gradient-echo acquisition. Both magnetic susceptibility and R2* of the liver were estimated from this acquisition. Linear regression was used to compare estimates of QSM-BLS and R2* to SQUID-BLS. Results: Both QSM-BLS and confounder-corrected R2* were sensitive to the presence of iron in the liver. Linear regression between QSM-BLS and SQUID-BLS demonstrated the following relationship: QSM-BLS=(-0.22 +/- 0.11)+(0.49 +/- 0.05) SQUID-BLS with r(2)=0.88. The coefficient of determination between liver R2* and SQUID-BLS was also r(2)=0.88. Conclusion: We determined a strong correlation between both QSM-BLS and confounder-corrected R2* to SQUID-BLS. This study demonstrates the feasibility of QSM-BLS and confounder-corrected R2* for assessing liver iron overload, particularly when SQUID systems are not accessible. Magn Reson Med 78:264-270, 2017. (c) 2016 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available