TY - JOUR
T1 - Linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction measurements by using MR imaging
T2 - A meta-analysis
AU - Yokoo, Takeshi
AU - Serai, Suraj D.
AU - Pirasteh, Ali
AU - Bashir, Mustafa R.
AU - Hamilton, Gavin
AU - Hernando, Diego
AU - Hu, Houchun H.
AU - Hetterich, Holger
AU - Kühn, Jens Peter
AU - Kukuk, Guido M.
AU - Loomba, Rohit
AU - Middleton, Michael S.
AU - Obuchowski, Nancy A.
AU - Song, Ji Soo
AU - Tang, An
AU - Wu, Xinhuai
AU - Reeder, Scott B.
AU - Sirlin, Claude B.
N1 - Funding Information:
Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance projects and activities have been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services (HHSN268201000050C, HH-SN268201300071C, HHSN268201500021C). T.Y supported in part by research grant from Radiological Society of North America (RSCH1625). S.B.R. supported in part by research grants from National Institutes of Health (R01DK083380, R01DK088925, R01DK100651, K24DK102595). A.T. supported in part by Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé (Career Award #26993). C.B.S. supported in part by research grants from National Institutes of Health (R01DK106419, R01DK088925, R01DK110096, U01DK061734).
PY - 2018/2
Y1 - 2018/2
N2 - Purpose: To determine the linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) measurements by using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging across different field strengths, imager manufacturers, and reconstruction methods. Materials and Methods: This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic literature search identified studies that evaluated the linearity and/or bias of hepatic PDFF measurements by using MR imaging (hereafter, MR imaging-PDFF) against PDFF measurements by using colocalized MR spectroscopy (hereafter, MR spectroscopy-PDFF) or the precision of MR imaging- PDFF. The quality of each study was evaluated by using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy 2 tool. De-identified original data sets from the selected studies were pooled. Linearity was evaluated by using linear regression between MR imaging-PDFF and MR spectroscopy- PDFF measurements. Bias, defined as the mean difference between MR imaging-PDFF and MR spectroscopy- PDFF measurements, was evaluated by using Bland- Altman analysis. Precision, defined as the agreement between repeated MR imaging-PDFF measurements, was evaluated by using a linear mixed-effects model, with field strength, imager manufacturer, reconstruction method, and region of interest as random effects. Results: Twenty-three studies (1679 participants) were selected for linearity and bias analyses and 11 studies (425 participants) were selected for precision analyses. MR imaging- PDFF was linear with MR spectroscopy-PDFF (R2 = 0.96). Regression slope (0.97; P , .001) and mean Bland-Altman bias (20.13%; 95% limits of agreement: 23.95%, 3.40%) indicated minimal underestimation by using MR imaging- PDFF. MR imaging-PDFF was precise at the region-ofinterest level, with repeatability and reproducibility coefficients of 2.99% and 4.12%, respectively. Field strength, imager manufacturer, and reconstruction method each had minimal effects on reproducibility. Conclusion: MR imaging-PDFF has excellent linearity, bias, and precision across different field strengths, imager manufacturers, and reconstruction methods.
AB - Purpose: To determine the linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) measurements by using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging across different field strengths, imager manufacturers, and reconstruction methods. Materials and Methods: This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic literature search identified studies that evaluated the linearity and/or bias of hepatic PDFF measurements by using MR imaging (hereafter, MR imaging-PDFF) against PDFF measurements by using colocalized MR spectroscopy (hereafter, MR spectroscopy-PDFF) or the precision of MR imaging- PDFF. The quality of each study was evaluated by using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy 2 tool. De-identified original data sets from the selected studies were pooled. Linearity was evaluated by using linear regression between MR imaging-PDFF and MR spectroscopy- PDFF measurements. Bias, defined as the mean difference between MR imaging-PDFF and MR spectroscopy- PDFF measurements, was evaluated by using Bland- Altman analysis. Precision, defined as the agreement between repeated MR imaging-PDFF measurements, was evaluated by using a linear mixed-effects model, with field strength, imager manufacturer, reconstruction method, and region of interest as random effects. Results: Twenty-three studies (1679 participants) were selected for linearity and bias analyses and 11 studies (425 participants) were selected for precision analyses. MR imaging- PDFF was linear with MR spectroscopy-PDFF (R2 = 0.96). Regression slope (0.97; P , .001) and mean Bland-Altman bias (20.13%; 95% limits of agreement: 23.95%, 3.40%) indicated minimal underestimation by using MR imaging- PDFF. MR imaging-PDFF was precise at the region-ofinterest level, with repeatability and reproducibility coefficients of 2.99% and 4.12%, respectively. Field strength, imager manufacturer, and reconstruction method each had minimal effects on reproducibility. Conclusion: MR imaging-PDFF has excellent linearity, bias, and precision across different field strengths, imager manufacturers, and reconstruction methods.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041488881&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041488881&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2017170550
DO - 10.1148/radiol.2017170550
M3 - Article
C2 - 28892458
AN - SCOPUS:85041488881
SN - 0033-8419
VL - 286
SP - 486
EP - 498
JO - RADIOLOGY
JF - RADIOLOGY
IS - 2
ER -