Bias, Repeatability and Reproducibility of Liver T1 Mapping With Variable Flip Angles.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional variable flip angle (VFA) methods are commonly used for T1 mapping of the liver, but there is no data on the accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility of this technique in this organ in a multivendor setting. PURPOSE: To measure bias, repeatability, and reproducibility of VFA T1 mapping in the liver. STUDY TYPE: Prospective observational. POPULATION: Eight healthy volunteers, four women, with no known liver disease. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5-T and 3.0-T; three-dimensional steady-state spoiled gradient echo with VFAs; Look-Locker. ASSESSMENT: Traveling volunteers were scanned twice each (30 minutes to 3 months apart) on six MRI scanners from three vendors (GE Healthcare, Philips Medical Systems, and Siemens Healthineers) at two field strengths. The maximum period between the first and last scans among all volunteers was 9 months. Volunteers were instructed to abstain from alcohol intake for at least 72 hours prior to each scan and avoid high cholesterol foods on the day of the scan. STATISTICAL TESTS: Repeated measures ANOVA, Student t-test, Levene's test of variances, and 95% significance level. The percent error relative to literature liver T1 in healthy volunteers was used to assess bias. The relative error (RE) due to intrascanner and interscanner variation in T1 measurements was used to assess repeatability and reproducibility. RESULTS: The 95% confidence interval (CI) on the mean bias and mean repeatability RE of VFA T1 in the healthy liver was 34 ± 6% and 10 ± 3%, respectively. The 95% CI on the mean reproducibility RE at 1.5 T and 3.0 T was 29 ± 7% and 25 ± 4%, respectively. DATA CONCLUSION: Bias, repeatability, and reproducibility of VFA T1 mapping in the liver in a multivendor setting are similar to those reported for breast, prostate, and brain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1.

Bias and Precision in Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Estimates of Renal Blood Flow: Assessment by Triangulation.

BACKGROUND: Renal blood flow (RBF) can be measured with dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI (DCE-MRI) and arterial spin labeling (ASL). Unfortunately, individual estimates from both methods vary and reference-standard methods are not available. A potential solution is to include a third, arbitrating MRI method in the comparison. PURPOSE: To compare RBF estimates between ASL, DCE, and phase contrast (PC)-MRI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Twenty-five patients with type-2 diabetes (36% female) and five healthy volunteers (HV, 80% female). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: A 3 T; gradient-echo 2D-DCE, pseudo-continuous ASL (pCASL) and cine 2D-PC. ASSESSMENT: ASL, DCE, and PC were acquired once in all patients. ASL and PC were acquired four times in each HV. RBF was estimated and split-RBF was derived as (right kidney RBF)/total RBF. Repeatability error (RE) was calculated for each HV, RE = 1.96 × SD, where SD is the standard deviation of repeat scans. STATISTICAL TESTS: Paired t-tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for statistical analysis. The 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference between ASL/PC and DCE/PC was assessed using two-sample F-test for variances. Statistical significance level was P < 0.05. Influential outliers were assessed with Cook's distance (Di > 1) and results with outliers removed were presented. RESULTS: In patients, the mean RBF (mL/min/1.73m2 ) was 618 ± 62 (PC), 526 ± 91 (ASL), and 569 ± 110 (DCE). Differences between measurements were not significant (P = 0.28). Intrasubject agreement was poor for RBF with limits-of-agreement (mL/min/1.73m2 ) [-687, 772] DCE-ASL, [-482, 580] PC-DCE, and [-277, 460] PC-ASL. The difference PC-ASL was significantly smaller than PC-DCE, but this was driven by a single-DCE outlier (P = 0.31, after removing outlier). The difference in split-RBF was comparatively small. In HVs, mean RE (±95% CI; mL/min/1.73 m2 ) was significantly smaller for PC (79 ± 41) than for ASL (241 ± 85). CONCLUSIONS: ASL, DCE, and PC RBF show poor agreement in individual subjects but agree well on average. Triangulation with PC suggests that the accuracy of ASL and DCE is comparable. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.