Comparison of automated and manual protocols for magnetic resonance imaging assessment of liver iron concentration

• Main Authors: Izabella de Campos Carvalho Lopes, Manuel Schütze, Marina Borges Bolina, Tarcísio Ângelo de Oliveira Sobrinho, Laura Filgueiras Mourão Ramos, Renata Lopes Furletti Caldeira Diniz, Juliano de Lara Fernandes, Maria Helena Albernaz Siqueira
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem
• Series: Radiologia Brasileira
• Subjects: fígado/diagnóstico por imagem; fígado/metabolismo; sobrecarga de ferro/diagnóstico por imagem; ferro/metabolismo; ressonância magnética/métodos; processamento de imagem assistida por computador/métodos
• Online Access: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-39842020000300005&lng=en&tlng=en

Abstract Objective: To compare automated and manual magnetic resonance imaging protocols for estimating liver iron concentrations at 1.5 T. Materials and Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging examination of the liver was performed in 53 patients with clinically suspected hepatic iron overload and in 21 control subjects. Liver iron concentrations were then estimated by two examiners who were blinded to the groups. The examiners employed automated T2* and T1 mapping, as well as manual T2* and signal-intensity-ratio method. We analyzed accuracy by using ROC curves. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement were analyzed by calculating two-way intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: The area under the ROC curve (to discriminate between patients and controls) was 0.912 for automated T2* mapping, 0.934 for the signal-intensity-ratio method, 0.908 for manual T2*, and 0.80 for T1 mapping, the last method differing significantly from the other three. The level of interobserver and intraobserver agreement was good (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.938-0.998; p < 0.05). Correlations involving T1 mapping, although still significant, were lower. Conclusion: At 1.5 T, T2* mapping is a rapid tool that shows promise for the diagnosis of liver iron overload, whereas T1 mapping shows less accuracy. The performance of T1 mapping is poorer than is that of T2* methods.