2-point Dixon water-fat imaging is a widely available sequence that can be used to generate fat images. Increased fat was seen in the livers of a 35+4 week anencephalic fetus and a 37 week normal fetus on 2-point Dixon images, but not with IDEAL water-fat imaging. When applied to the fetus late in gestation, caution should be taken as a shortened fetal liver T2* may appear as false liver fat. IDEAL water-fat imaging corrects for changes in T2* and is a more appropriate sequence for fetal water-fat separated imaging in the third trimester.
Animal and observational clinical studies have highlighted that childhood obesity starts with abnormal metabolic development inside the womb, in response to an adverse environment created by placental insufficiency or nutritional cues associated with maternal obesity or diabetes. Abnormal liver fat accumulation is associated with childhood obesity and can be detected as early as in infancy in children born to mothers with gestational diabetes1. We have been using 3D water-fat imaging of the fetus in an effort to measure the lipid content of fetal adipose tissue, both visceral and subcutaneous, and assess how early signs of abnormal fetal fat accumulation are detectable.
2-point Dixon water-fat imaging uses 2 echoes and B0 field mapping techniques to model water and fat2,3. It does not account for the complex fat spectrum and is unable to correct for T2* effects2,3. Quantitative IDEAL water-fat imaging uses 6 echoes and is able to model both T2* effects and the complex fat spectrum4-6. Both sequences produce water and fat images which are used to produce fat fraction images (fat/(water + fat)). Here we present cases in which there falsely appeared to be fatty liver on 2-point Dixon fat images which was not seen with quantitative IDEAL.
2-point Dixon images showed false liver fat in two of three fetuses, while the third fetus showed no liver fat in 2-point Dixon images and had a longer R2* value. 2-point Dixon incorrectly models a reduced T2* as fat signal, which can result in a false-positive identification of liver signal as liver fat. Quantitative IDEAL modeling corrects for changes in T2*4-6 and therefore is considered superior in performing water-fat MRI.
The false fetal liver fat signal occurs as the consequence of a much shorter T2* in fetal liver compared to adult liver (R2* of approximately 50s-1 in third trimester, compared to 36s-1 in adult liver at 1.5T7). This reduced T2* is the result of the fact that the fetal liver is a major hemopoietic site during fetal development and acts as a reservoir for iron in the third trimester7. We demonstrate false liver fat in both a normal and anencephalic fetus, highlighting that for fetal water-fat separated imaging, a correction for T2* needs to be applied.
1. Brumbaugh, D.E., Tearse, P., Cree-Green, M., et al., Intrahepatic fat is increased in the neonatal offspring of obese women with gestational diabetes. J Pediatr. 2013. 162(5): p. 930-6 e1.
2. Ma, J., Breath-hold water and fat imaging using a dual-echo two-point Dixon technique with an efficient and robust phase-correction algorithm. Magn Reson Med. 2004. 52(2): p. 415-9.
3. Ma, J., Dixon techniques for water and fat imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008. 28(3): p. 543-58.
4. Hines, C.D., Frydrychowicz, A., Hamilton, G., et al., T(1) independent, T(2) (*) corrected chemical shift based fat-water separation with multi-peak fat spectral modeling is an accurate and precise measure of hepatic steatosis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011. 33(4): p. 873-81.
5. Meisamy, S., Hines, C.D.G., Hamilton, G., et al., Quantification of Hepatic Steatosis with T1-independent, T2*-corrected MR Imaging with Spectral Modeling of Fat: Blinded Comparison with MR Spectroscopy. Radiology. 2011. 258(3): p. 767-775.
6. Yu, H., Shimakawa, A., Hines, C.D., et al., Combination of complex-based and magnitude-based multiecho water-fat separation for accurate quantification of fat-fraction. Magn Reson Med. 2011. 66(1): p. 199-206.
7. Goitein, O., Eshet, Y., Hoffmann, C., et al., Fetal liver T2* values: defining a standardized scale. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013. 38(6): p. 1342-5.