Accuracy of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Techniques for Fat Quantification in Comparison With Magnetic Resonance Proton Density Fat Fraction and Single-Energy Computed Tomography in an Anthropomorphic Phantom Environment.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate in an anthropomorphic phantom study the accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) techniques for fat quantification in comparison with magnetic resonance (MR) proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and single-energy computed tomography (SECT), using known fat content as reference standard. METHODS: Between August 2018 and November 2020, organic material-based cylinders, composed of mixtures of lean and fat tissues mimics, iodine, and iron, were constructed to simulate varying fat content levels (0%, 10%, 15%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%) in a parenchymal organ and were embedded into an anthropomorphic phantom simulating 3 patient sizes (circumference, 91, 126, and 161 cm). The phantom was imaged with multiecho MR, DECT, and SECT. Magnetic resonance PDFF, DECT fat fraction, and computed tomography (CT) numbers (SECT polychromatic and DECT monochromatic data, virtual unenhanced images) were estimated. Performances of MR PDFF and CT techniques to detect differences in fat content were measured using the area under the curve (AUC). Noninferiority of each CT technique relative to MR PDFF was tested using a noninferiority margin of -0.1. RESULTS: MR PDFF, DECT 140 keV monochromatic data, and fat fraction most closely correlated with known fat content (R2 = 0.98, 0.98, and 0.96, respectively). Unlike SECT and all other DECT techniques, DECT fat fraction was not affected by presence of iodine (mean difference, 0.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.9% to 1.5%). Dual-energy computed tomography fat fraction showed noninferiority to MR PDFF in detecting differences of 5% in fat content in medium-sized phantoms (ΔAUC, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.01), and 7% in large (ΔAUC, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.0 to 0.00) or extralarge sized phantoms (ΔAUC, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: Dual-energy computed tomography fat fraction shows linear correlation with true fat content in the range up to 50% fat fraction. Dual-energy computed tomography fat fraction has comparable estimation error and shows noninferiority to MR PDFF in detecting small differences in fat content across different body sizes.