Huimin Lin1, Hongjiang Wei2, Chunlei Liu2, Xu Yan3, Caixia Fu4, and Fuhua Yan1
1Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, People's Republic of, 2Brain Imaging and Analysis Center,Duke University, Durham, NC, United States, 3MR Collaboration NE Asia, Siemens Healthcare, Shanghai, China, People's Republic of, 4Siemens Shenzhen Magnetic Resonance Ltd, Shenzhen, China, People's Republic of
Synopsis
The purpose of this study was to estimate the Quantitative
susceptibility mapping (QSM) in hepatic iron evaluation, compared with R2 based
Liver concentration estimation (Ferriscan LIC).
7 Patients were scanned on a 1.5 T MR System using a GRE sequence and a SE
sequence, for QSM and Ferriscan analysis respectively. QSM algorithm provided susceptibility
values estimate. Approximate slices were selected according to the
corresponding cross-section on the Ferriscan LIC report. Then ROIs were drawn on
QSM images according to LIC maps. Significant positive correlation was observed
between QSM and Ferriscan LIC ( R2 = 0.8).Introduction
Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) has been demonstrated as a
promising tool for quantifying brain iron concentration in deep gray matter,
e.g., normal aging
1. QSM applications beyond the brain are also
under active development, for example, previous studies have been reported the
potential applications for iron concentration quantification in human liver
2.
However, both chemical shift and breathing artifacts pose the further
challenges for accurate susceptibility measurement in the liver. In this study,
chemical shift removal combined with recently developed two-level STAR-QSM
methods could reduce the artifacts and allows high quality susceptibility maps
of human liver. The purpose of this study was to estimate the susceptibility
map in the liver, from which the hepatic iron concentration was measured and
further compared with R2-based liver iron concentration (LIC) estimation.
Material and Method
This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board.
Informed consent was submitted by all patients. 7 Patients (5 men, 2 women;
mean age 44 year) suspected of hepatic iron
overload, with an elevated serum ferritin level (1500 mg/L) were scanned on a 1.5
T MR system (Magnetom Aera; Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) using a 3D multi-echo
GRE sequence with the following parameters: TR=10 ms; TE1/spacing/TE6=1.44/1.36/8.24
ms; bandwidth=1040 Hz/pixel; flip angle=6°; FOV=420 x 315 mm2;
matrix size =416 X 384; slice thickness =
5 mm. 2D data sets for Ferriscan LIC measurment were acquired using a 2D spin
echo sequence with the following parameters: TR =1000 ms; TE1/spacing/TE5=6/3/18
ms; bandwidth = 501 Hz/pixel; FOV = 400 x 300 mm2; matrix size=256 x
192; slice thickness =5 mm. The acquired 2D SE MR data were uploaded to
Resonance Health (Claremont, Australia) for further Ferriscan LIC analysis.
The phase was unwrapped
using Laplacian-based unwrapping and background phase was removed using V-SHARP3.
The QSM images were reconstructed using a two-level streaking artifact
reduction for QSM algorithm4. Liver susceptibility values were
calculated relative to that of the
subcutaneous adipose tissue as which doesn’t accumulate excess iron. The
computed QSM images were compared with R2* maps. Approximate slices were
selected according to the corresponding cross-section on the LIC report. The
ROIs were manually drawn on QSM images according corresponding LIC maps. Linear
regression analysis was performed to investigate the correlation between liver
susceptibility and the Ferriscan-based estimate of LIC.
Results
Fig.1 showed the magnitude, R2* and susceptibility
maps for two subjects with different levels of iron concentration. As the
hepatic iron deposition increased, the susceptibility in the liver increased more
paramagnetic (positive susceptibility). The iron deposits were in good
agreement with R2* as the iron has longer R2* (1/T2*).
As expected, liver susceptibility value increased
with increasing iron overload, which was confirmed by Ferriscan LIC (Fig.2). The
Ferriscan LIC and mean susceptibility values were 0.9, 5.9, 10.2 (mg/g dry) and
0.06, 0.1, 0.29 (ppm) for the three subjects, respectively. Significant
positive correlation was observed between QSM and Ferriscan LIC based iron
measurement (Fig.3) with the coefficient of determination R2 = 0.8.
Discussion and conclusion
In this study, we have demonstrated that high quality susceptibility
maps can be used to measure the different iron levels of liver. Liver
susceptibility demonstrated a good correlation with liver iron deposition
measured using Ferriscan LIC (R2 = 0.8). High correlation is due to
both the chemical shift removal and the promising two-level QSM reconstruction
algorithm.
Hepatic iron overload causes
oxidative hepatocellular injury and progressive fibrosis, then developing into cirrhosis
and hepatocellular carcinoma 5,6. Excessive hepatic
iron even might lead to cardiac complications and early death7. Accurate
assessment is essential for the treatment with iron chelators
to guarantee suitable chelator dose, avoiding both toxicity from iron overload
and side-effects from an excessive chelator dose8. Empirically
derived calibrations reflect the uncertainty of R2*. As for Ferriscan
LIC, the high price and long examination time restrict its wide use.
The advantage for QSM is that susceptibility is a fundamental property of
materials, with a single breath hold scanning time and appropriate price.
Note that in this study, ROIs in single slice was evaluated both in QSM
and Ferriscan LIC instead of 3D large volume.
In conclusion, high quality QSM maps may allow more reliable estimates of
iron deposition in the liver.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1 Wei Li et
al., Hum Brain Mapp. 2014 Jun;35(6):2698-713.
2 Sharma S D et al., Magn Reson Med, 2015, 74(3):
673-83.
3 Wei Li et al., Neuroimage.2012 Feb
1;59(3):2088-97.
4 Hongjiang Wei et al., NMR Biomed. 2015
Oct;28(10):1294-303.
5 Kew MC,Liver Cancer 2014;3(1):31–40.
6 Tirnitz-Parker JE et al., Crit Rev Oncog
2013;18(5):391–407.
7 Wood JC, Blood Rev 2008;22(Suppl 2):S14–S21.
8 Brittenham GM et al., Blood. 2003;101:15-19.