4.3 Article

MRI-based quantification of renal fat in obese individuals using different image analysis approaches

Journal

ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 10, Pages 3546-3553

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-022-03603-4

Keywords

Renal fat; Renal steatosis; Proton density fat fraction; Obesity; Lipid accumulation; Ectopic fat

Ask authors/readers for more resources

By evaluating different renal PDFF analysis approaches, it was found that using multiple circular ROIs can provide more accurate renal PDFF values. Obese individuals had significantly higher renal PDFF values compared to lean controls.
Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate different renal proton density fat fraction (PDFF) analysis approaches. Additionally, we assessed renal fat in obese individuals and lean individuals. Methods This was a retrospective observational case-control study. Twenty-eight obese individuals and 14 lean controls underwent MRI with multi-point Dixon technique for PDFF maps. The following renal PDFF image analysis approaches were performed and compared: (1) five circular regions of interest (ROIs) in six slices, (2) three circular ROIs in one slice, (3) freehand segmentation of renal parenchyma in one slice, and (4) freehand segmentation of renal parenchyma avoiding the renal border in one slice. Furthermore, renal PDFF was compared between obese and lean individuals. Results Methods 1, 2, and 4 were positively correlated (r >= 0.498, p <= 0.001). Renal PDFF values varied more with regards to ROI placement within slices than mean PDFF between slices. Using all methods, the obese individuals had significantly higher renal PDFF values compared with the lean controls. Conclusion Renal PDFF should be measured covering large areas of the kidney while excluding artifacts. This can be achieved using multiple circular ROIs. Increased lipid accumulation in the kidneys was related to obesity. [GRAPHICS] .

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available