Measurement of spleen fat on MRI-proton density fat fraction arises from reconstruction of noise.

PURPOSE: This study compares splenic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) measured using confounder-corrected chemical shift-encoded (CSE)-MRI to magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) in human patients at 3T. METHODS: This was a prospectively designed ancillary study to various previously described single-center studies performed in adults and children with known or suspected nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Patients underwent magnitude-based MRI (MRI-M), complex-based MRI (MRI-C), high signal-to-noise variants (Hi-SNR MRI-M and Hi-SNR MRI-C), and MRS at 3T for spleen PDFF estimation. PDFF from CSE-MRI methods were compared to MRS-PDFF using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Demographics were summarized descriptively. Spearman's rank correlations were computed pairwise between CSE-MRI methods. Individual patient measurements were plotted for qualitative assessment. A significance level of 0.05 was used. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients (20 female, 27 male) including 12 adults (median 55 years old) and 35 children (median 12 years old). Median PDFF estimated by MRS, MRI-M, Hi-SNR MRI-M, MRI-C, and Hi-SNR MRI-C was 1.0, 2.3, 1.9, 2.2, and 2.0%. The four CSE-MRI methods estimated statistically significant higher spleen PDFF values compared to MRS (p < 0.0001 for all). Pairwise associations in spleen PDFF values measured by different CSE-MRI methods were weak, with the highest Spearman's rank correlations being 0.295 between MRI-M and Hi-SNR MRI-M; none were significant after correction for multiple comparisons. No qualitative relationship was observed between PDFF measurements among the various methods. CONCLUSION: Overestimation of PDFF by CSE-MRI compared to MRS and poor agreement between related CSE-MRI methods suggest that non-zero PDFF values in human spleen are artifactual.

Assessment of a high-SNR chemical-shift-encoded MRI with complex reconstruction for proton density fat fraction (PDFF) estimation overall and in the low-fat range.

BACKGROUND: Improving the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of chemical-shift-encoded MRI acquisition with complex reconstruction (MRI-C) may improve the accuracy and precision of noninvasive proton density fat fraction (PDFF) quantification in patients with hepatic steatosis. PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of high SNR (Hi-SNR) MRI-C versus standard MRI-C acquisition to estimate hepatic PDFF in adult and pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) using an MR spectroscopy (MRS) sequence as the reference standard. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION/SUBJECTS: In all, 231 adult and pediatric patients with known or suspected NAFLD. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: PDFF estimated at 3T by three MR techniques: standard MRI-C; a Hi-SNR MRI-C variant with increased slice thickness, decreased matrix size, and no parallel imaging; and MRS (reference standard). ASSESSMENT: MRI-PDFF was measured by image analysts using a region of interest coregistered with the MRS-PDFF voxel. STATISTICAL TESTS: Linear regression analyses were used to assess accuracy and precision of MRI-estimated PDFF for MRS-PDFF as a function of MRI-PDFF using the standard and Hi-SNR MRI-C for all patients and for patients with MRS-PDFF <10%. RESULTS: In all, 271 exams from 231 patients were included (mean MRS-PDFF: 12.6% [SD: 10.4]; range: 0.9-41.9). High agreement between MRI-PDFF and MRS-PDFF was demonstrated across the overall range of PDFF, with a regression slope of 1.035 for the standard MRI-C and 1.008 for Hi-SNR MRI-C. Hi-SNR MRI-C, compared to standard MRI-C, provided small but statistically significant improvements in the slope (respectively, 1.008 vs. 1.035, P = 0.004) and mean bias (0.412 vs. 0.673, P < 0.0001) overall. In the low-fat patients only, Hi-SNR MRI-C provided improvements in the slope (1.058 vs. 1.190, P = 0.002), mean bias (0.168 vs. 0.368, P = 0.007), intercept (-0.153 vs. -0.796, P < 0.0001), and borderline improvement in the R2 (0.888 vs. 0.813, P = 0.01). DATA CONCLUSION: Compared to standard MRI-C, Hi-SNR MRI-C provides slightly higher MRI-PDFF estimation accuracy across the overall range of PDFF and improves both accuracy and precision in the low PDFF range. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:229-238.

Agreement Between Magnetic Resonance Imaging Proton Density Fat Fraction Measurements and Pathologist-Assigned Steatosis Grades of Liver Biopsies From Adults With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We assessed the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) proton density fat fraction (PDFF) in grading hepatic steatosis and change in hepatic steatosis in adults with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in a multi-center study, using central histology as reference. METHODS: We collected data from 113 adults with NASH participating in a multi-center, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial to compare the efficacy cross-sectionally and longitudinally of obeticholic acid vs placebo. Hepatic steatosis was assessed at baseline and after 72 weeks of obeticholic acid or placebo by liver biopsy and MRI (scanners from different manufacturers, at 1.5T or 3T). We compared steatosis estimates by PDFF vs histology. Histologic steatosis grade was scored in consensus by a pathology committee. Cross-validated receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed. RESULTS: At baseline, 34% of subjects had steatosis grade 0 or 1, 39% had steatosis grade 2, and 27% had steatosis grade 3; corresponding mean PDFF values were 9.8%±3.7%, 18.1%±4.3%, and 30.1%±8.1%. PDFF classified steatosis grade 0-1 vs 2-3 with an area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91-0.98), and grade 0-2 vs grade 3 steatosis with an AUROC of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.99). PDFF cut-off values at 90% specificity were 16.3% for grades 2-3 and 21.7% for grade 3, with corresponding sensitivities of 83% and 84%. After 72 weeks' of obeticholic vs placebo, 42% of subjects had a reduced steatosis grade (mean reduction in PDFF from baseline of 7.4%±8.7%), 49% had no change in steatosis grade (mean increase in PDFF from baseline of 0.3%±6.3%), and 9% had an increased steatosis grade (mean increase in PDFF from baseline of 7.7%±6.0%). PDFF change identified subjects with reduced steatosis grade with an AUROC of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.91) and increased steatosis grade with an AUROC of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63-0.99). A PDFF reduction of 5.15% identified subjects with reduced steatosis grade with 90% specificity and 58% sensitivity, whereas a PDFF increase of 5.6% identified those with increased steatosis grade with 90% specificity and 57% sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Based on data from a phase 2 randomized controlled trial of adults with NASH, PDFF estimated by MRI scanners of different field strength and at different sites, accurately classifies grades and changes in hepatic steatosis when histologic analysis of biopsies is used as a reference.

Accuracy of PDFF estimation by magnitude-based and complex-based MRI in children with MR spectroscopy as a reference.

PURPOSE: To assess and compare the accuracy of magnitude-based magnetic resonance imaging (MRI-M) and complex-based MRI (MRI-C) for estimating hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) in children, using MR spectroscopy (MRS) as the reference standard. A secondary aim was to assess the agreement between MRI-M and MRI-C. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a HIPAA-compliant, retrospective analysis of data collected in children enrolled in prospective, Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved studies between 2012 and 2014. Informed consent was obtained from 200 children (ages 8-19 years) who subsequently underwent 3T MR exams that included MRI-M, MRI-C, and T1 -independent, T2 -corrected, single-voxel stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) MRS. Both MRI methods acquired six echoes at low flip angles. T2*-corrected PDFF parametric maps were generated. PDFF values were recorded from regions of interest (ROIs) drawn on the maps in each of the nine Couinaud segments and three ROIs colocalized to the MRS voxel location. Regression analyses assessing agreement with MRS were performed to evaluate the accuracy of each MRI method, and Bland-Altman and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were performed to assess agreement between the MRI methods. RESULTS: MRI-M and MRI-C PDFF were accurate relative to the colocalized MRS reference standard, with regression intercepts of 0.63% and -0.07%, slopes of 0.998 and 0.975, and proportion-of-explained-variance values (R2 ) of 0.982 and 0.979, respectively. For individual Couinaud segments and for the whole liver averages, Bland-Altman biases between MRI-M and MRI-C were small (ranging from 0.04 to 1.11%) and ICCs were high (≥0.978). CONCLUSION: Both MRI-M and MRI-C accurately estimated hepatic PDFF in children, and high intermethod agreement was observed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1641-1647.

In vivo triglyceride composition of abdominal adipose tissue measured by 1 H MRS at 3T.

PURPOSE: To investigate the regional variability of adipose tissue triglyceride composition in vivo using 1 H MRS, examining potential confounders and corrections for artifacts, to allow for adipose tissue spectrum estimation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1 H magnetic resonance (MR) stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) spectra were acquired in vivo at 3T from 340 adult patients (mean age 48.9 years, range 21-79 years; 172 males, 168 females; mean body mass index [BMI] 34.0, range 22-49 kg/m2 ) with known or suspected nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in deep (dSCAT), surface (sSCAT) subcutaneous adipose tissue, and visceral adipose tissue (VAT). Triglyceride composition was characterized by the number of double bonds (ndb) and number of methylene-interrupted double bonds (nmidb). A subset of patients (dSCAT n = 80, sSCAT n = 55, VAT n = 194) had the acquisition repeated three times to examine the repeatability of ndb and nmidb estimation. RESULTS: Mean ndb and nmidb showed significant (P < 0.0001) differences between depots except for dSCAT and sSCAT nmidb (dSCAT ndb 2.797, nmidb 0.745; sSCAT ndb 2.826, nmidb 0.737; VAT ndb 2.723, nmidb 0.687). All ndb and nmidb estimates were highly repeatable (VAT ndb ICC = 0.888, nmidb ICC = 0.853; sSCAT: ndb ICC = 0.974, nmidb ICC = 0.964; dSCAT: ndb ICC = 0.959, nmidb ICC = 0.948). CONCLUSION: Adipose tissue composition can be estimated repeatably using 1 H MRS and different fat depots have different triglyceride compositions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;45:1455-1463.

Association of noninvasive quantitative decline in liver fat content on MRI with histologic response in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging-estimated proton-density-fat-fraction (MRI-PDFF) has been shown to be a noninvasive, accurate and reproducible imaging-based biomarker for assessing steatosis and treatment response in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) clinical trials. However, there are no data on the magnitude of MRI-PDFF reduction corresponding to histologic response in the setting of a NASH clinical trial. The aim of this study was to quantitatively compare the magnitude of MRI-PDFF reduction between histologic responders versus histologic nonresponders in NASH patients. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of the MOZART trial, which included 50 patients with biopsy-proven NASH randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg/day orally or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary aim was to perform a head-to-head comparative analysis of histologic responders [defined as a ⩾2-point reduction in the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) Activity Score (NAS) without worsening fibrosis] versus nonresponders, and the corresponding quantitative change in liver fat content measured via MRI-PDFF. RESULTS: Of the 35 patients who underwent paired liver biopsy and MRI-PDFF assessment at the beginning and end of treatment, 10 demonstrated a histologic response. Compared with histologic nonresponders, histologic responders had a statistically significant reduction in MRI-PDFF of -4.1% ± 4.9 versus -0.6 ± 4.1 (p < 0.04) with a mean relative percent change of -29.3% ± 33.0 versus +2.0% ± 24.0 (p < 0.004), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing paired MRI-PDFF and liver histology data, we demonstrate that a relative reduction of 29% in liver fat on MRI-PDFF is associated with a histologic response in NASH. After external validation by independent research groups, these results can be incorporated into designing future NASH clinical trials, especially those utilizing change in hepatic fat quantified by MRI-PDFF, as a treatment endpoint.

Sitagliptin vs. placebo for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Uncontrolled studies show sitagliptin, an oral DPP-4 inhibitor, may improve alanine aminotransferase and liver histology in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) patients. We aimed to compare sitagliptin vs. the efficacy of a placebo in reducing liver fat measured by MRI-derived proton density-fat fraction (MRI-PDFF). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled trial included 50 NAFLD patients with prediabetes or early diabetes randomized to sitagliptin orally 100mg/day or placebo for 24weeks. Primary outcome was liver fat change measured by MRI-PDFF in colocalized regions of interest within each of nine liver segments. Additional advanced assessments included MR spectroscopy (MRS) for internal validation of MRI-PDFF's accuracy, and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and FIBROSpect® II to assess liver fibrosis. RESULTS: Sitagliptin was not significantly better than placebo in reducing liver fat measured by MRI-PDFF (mean difference between sitagliptin and placebo arms: -1.3%, p=0.4). Compared to baseline, there were no significant differences in end-of-treatment MRI-PDFF for sitagliptin (18.1% to 16.9%, p=0.27) or placebo (16.6% to 14.0%, p=0.07). The groups had no significant differences for changes in alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, low-density lipoprotein, homeostatic model assessment insulin resistance, and MRE-derived liver stiffness. In both groups at baseline and post-treatment, MRI-PDFF and MRS showed robust correlation coefficients ranging from r(2)=0.96 to r(2)=0.99 (p<0.0001), demonstrating the strong internal validity of the findings. FIBROSpect® II showed no changes in the sitagliptin group but was significantly increased in the placebo group (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Sitagliptin was safe but not better than placebo in reducing liver fat in prediabetic or diabetic patients with NAFLD. LAY SUMMARY: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the anti-diabetic drug sitagliptin was no more effective than placebo for improving liver fat and liver fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. This study demonstrates that non-invasive magnetic resonance imaging techniques, including magnetic resonance imaging-proton density-fat fraction and magnetic resonance elastography, can be used to assess treatment response in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease clinical trials.

Reproducibility of MR-based liver fat quantification across field strength: Same-day comparison between 1.5T and 3T in obese subjects.

PURPOSE: To examine the reproducibility of quantitative magnetic resonance (MR) methods to estimate hepatic proton density fat-fraction (PDFF) at different magnetic field strengths. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Following informed consent, 25 severely obese subjects (mean body mass index [BMI]: 45 ± 4, range: 38-53 kg/m(2) ) were scanned at 1.5T and 3T on the same day. Two confounder-corrected multiecho chemical shift-encoded gradient-echo-based imaging methods were acquired to estimate PDFF over the entire liver: 3D complex-based (MRI-C) and 2D magnitude-based (MRI-M) MRI. Single-voxel MR spectroscopy (MRS) was performed in the right liver lobe. Using linear regression, pairwise comparisons of estimated PDFF were made between methods (MRI-C, MRI-M, MRS) at each field strength and for each method across field strengths. RESULTS: 1.5T vs. 3T regression analyses for MRI-C, MRI-M, and MRS PDFF measurements yielded R(2) values of 0.99, 0.97, and 0.90, respectively. The best-fit line was near unity (slope(m) = 1, intercept(b) = 0), indicating excellent agreement for each case: MRI-C (m = 0.92 [0.87, 0.99], b = 1.4 [0.7, 1.8]); MRI-M (m = 1.0 [0.90, 1.08], b = -1.4 [-2.4, -0.5]); MRS (m = 0.98 [0.82, 1.15], b = 1.2 [-0.2, 3.0]). Comparing MRI-C and MRI-M yielded an R(2) = 0.98 (m = 1.1 [1.02, 1.16], b = -1.8 [-2.8, -1.1]) at 1.5T, and R(2) = 0.99 (m = 0.98 [0.93, 1.03], b = 1.2 [0.7, 1.7]) at 3T. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that PDFF estimation is reproducible across field strengths and across two confounder-corrected MR-based methods.

Ezetimibe for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: assessment by novel magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance elastography in a randomized trial (MOZART trial).

UNLABELLED: Ezetimibe inhibits intestinal cholesterol absorption and lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Uncontrolled studies have suggested that it reduces liver fat as estimated by ultrasound in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Therefore, we aimed to examine the efficacy of ezetimibe versus placebo in reducing liver fat by the magnetic resonance imaging-derived proton density-fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) and liver histology in patients with biopsy-proven NASH. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 50 patients with biopsy-proven NASH were randomized to either ezetimibe 10 mg orally daily or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in liver fat as measured by MRI-PDFF in colocalized regions of interest within each of the nine liver segments. Novel assessment by two-dimensional and three-dimensional magnetic resonance elastography was also performed. Ezetimibe was not significantly better than placebo at reducing liver fat as measured by MRI-PDFF (mean difference between the ezetimibe and placebo arms -1.3%, P = 0.4). Compared to baseline, however, end-of-treatment MRI-PDFF was significantly lower in the ezetimibe arm (15%-11.6%, P < 0.016) but not in the placebo arm (18.5%-16.4%, P = 0.15). There were no significant differences in histologic response rates, serum alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels, or longitudinal changes in two-dimensional and three-dimensional magnetic resonance elastography-derived liver stiffness between the ezetimibe and placebo arms. Compared to histologic nonresponders (25/35), histologic responders (10/35) had a significantly greater reduction in MRI-PDFF (-4.35 ± 4.9% versus -0.30 ± 4.1%, P < 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Ezetimibe did not significantly reduce liver fat in NASH. This trial demonstrates the application of colocalization of MRI-PDFF-derived fat maps and magnetic resonance elastography-derived stiffness maps of the liver before and after treatment to noninvasively assess treatment response in NASH.