This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background Liver iron concentration (LIC) measured by MRI has become the clinical reference standard for managing iron overload in chronically transfused patients. Transverse relaxivity (R 2 or R 2 * ) measurements are converted to LIC units using empirically derived calibration curves. Hypothesis That flip angle (FA) error due to B 1 + spatial heterogeneity causes significant LIC quantitation error. B 1 + scale ( b 1 , [FA actual /FA specified ]) variation is a major problem at 3 T which could reduce the accuracy of transverse relaxivity measurements. Study Type Prospective. Population Forty‐seven subjects with chronic transfusional iron overload undergoing clinically indicated LIC assessment. Field Strength/Sequence 5 T/3 T dual‐repetition time B 1 + mapping sequence Assessment We quantified the average/standard deviation b 1 in the right and left lobes of the liver from B 1 + maps acquired at 1.5 T and 3 T. The impact of b 1 variation on spin echo LIC estimates was determined using a Monte Carlo model. Statistical Tests Mean, median, and standard deviation in whole liver and right and left lobes; two‐sided t ‐test between whole‐liver b 1 means. Results Average b 1 within the liver was 99.3% ± 12.3% at 1.5 T versus 69.6% ± 14.6% at 3 T and was independent of iron burden ( P < 0.05). Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated that b 1 systematically increased R 2 estimates at lower LIC (<~25 mg/g at 1.5 T, <~15 mg/g at 3 T) but flattened or even inverted the R 2 ‐LIC relationship at higher LIC (≥~25 mg/g to 1.5 T, ≥~15 mg/g to 3 T); changes in the R 2 ‐LIC relationship were symmetric with respect to over and under excitation and were similar at 1.5 T and 3 T (for the same R 2 value). The R 2 * ‐LIC relationship was independent of b 1 . Conclusion Spin echo R 2 measurement of LIC at 3 T is error‐prone without correction for b 1 errors. The impact of b 1 error on current 1.5 T spin echo‐based techniques for LIC quantification is large enough to introduce measurable intersubject variability but the in vivo effect size needs a dedicated validation study. Level of Evidence 1. Technical Efficacy Stage 2.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Doyle et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: