ROI方法可重复性与传统MRI对比化学位移编码MRI定量肝脂肪和铁沉积的可靠性
本研究回顾性纳入连续成人，比较圆形与自由画图两种ROI策略在PDFF和R2*定量中的读者间可重复性，并确定传统R2*阈值以提示与CSE参考方法误差增大的界值。两种ROI策略ICC均优秀，经验水平无显著差异；提出R2*三区框架（<45 s⁻¹绿色，45-80黄色，≥80红色）待外部验证。
要点
- 两种ROI策略读者间可重复性均优秀，经验水平不影响结果。
- 传统R2* <45 s⁻¹时PDFF误差低，≥80 s⁻¹时误差显著增大。
- 传统R2*随PDFF升高系统性高估铁沉积。
英文原文（摘要）· 点击展开
PURPOSE: To compare the inter-reader reproducibility of two ROI placement strategies (circular versus freehand geographic) for hepatic PDFF and R2* quantification, and determine R2* thresholds above which conventional techniques show increasing disagreement relative to confounder-corrected chemical shift-encoded (CSE) methods, used as the reference technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, consecutive adults underwent abdominal MRI at 1.5 T with CSE and conventional sequences. Four radiologists (two seniors, two fellows) independently measured PDFF and R2* using both strategies. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using ICC; conventional-CSE agreement was evaluated with MAE stratified by R2* thresholds.
RESULTS: Excellent interreader agreement was observed for all strategies: PDFF ICCs were 0.974 (five-ROI mean) and 0.975 (geographic); R2* ICCs were 0.983 for both. Correlation between strategies was near-perfect (PDFF: r = 0.995; R2*: r = 0.991). No significant differences were found between experience levels. A sliding threshold analysis identified conventional R2* = 45 s⁻¹ as a proposed exploratory cutoff (bootstrap 95% CI: 40-70 s⁻¹): below this value, conventional PDFF maintained low error (MAE = 3.2% points [pp]; 17.9% exceeding 5 pp), whereas above 80 s⁻¹, MAE increased to 11.2 pp with 93.8% exceeding 5 pp. Conventional R2* systematically overestimated iron with increasing PDFF (MAE = 12.8 s⁻¹ at PDFF ≥ 20%). In this study, reproducibility refers to inter-reader consistency (ICC), whereas agreement denotes error relative to the CSE reference (MAE).
CONCLUSION: Both ROI strategies yield excellent, comparable reproducibility regardless of reader experience. A proposed exploratory three-zone framework using conventional R2* (GREEN < 45 s⁻¹, YELLOW 45-80, RED ≥ 80) provides preliminary guidance regarding when conventional PDFF shows lower error relative to the CSE reference and when CSE methods should be strongly considered, pending external validation.
引用
- Leao Filho H, Goncalves V, Mendonca N, et al. Reproducibility of ROI methods and reliability of conventional versus chemical shift-encoded MRI for hepatic fat and iron quantification. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2026. PMID: 41998421. doi:10.1007/s00261-026-05508-y
供执业医师工作参考，不替代临床判断；数值与分级以指南原文为准。