Effect of PRESS and STEAM sequences on magnetic resonance spectroscopic liver fat quantification
Article first published online: 25 JUN 2009
Copyright © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Volume 30, Issue 1, pages 145–152, July 2009
How to Cite
Hamilton, G., Middleton, M. S., Bydder, M., Yokoo, T., Schwimmer, J. B., Kono, Y., Patton, H. M., Lavine, J. E. and Sirlin, C. B. (2009), Effect of PRESS and STEAM sequences on magnetic resonance spectroscopic liver fat quantification. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, 30: 145–152. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21809
- Issue published online: 25 JUN 2009
- Article first published online: 25 JUN 2009
- Manuscript Accepted: 8 APR 2009
- Manuscript Received: 10 DEC 2008
- National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Grant Number: R01 DK71486
- National Center of Minority Health and Health Disparities. Grant Number: P60 MD00220 for the San Diego EXPORT Center
- National Center for Research Resources for the General Clinical Research Center at UCSD. Grant Number: M01 RR000827
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Grant Number: UCSD #1U01DK061734
- Data Coordinating Center. Grant Number: #5U01DK061730
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- liver fat quantification;
- magnetic resonance spectroscopy;
To compare PRESS and STEAM MR spectroscopy for assessment of liver fat in human subjects.
Materials and Methods
Single-voxel (20 × 20 × 20 mm) PRESS and STEAM spectra were obtained at 1.5T in 49 human subjects with known or suspected fatty liver disease. PRESS and STEAM sequences were obtained with fixed TR (1500 msec) and different TE (five PRESS spectra between TE 30-70 msec, five STEAM spectra between TE 20–60 msec). Spectra were quantified and T2 and T2-corrected peak area were calculated by different techniques. The values were compared for PRESS and STEAM.
Water T2 values from PRESS and STEAM were not significantly different (P = 0.33). Fat peak T2s were 25%–50% shorter on PRESS than on STEAM (P < 0.02 for all comparisons) and there was no correlation between T2s of individual peaks. PRESS systematically overestimated the relative fat peak areas (by 7%–263%) compared to STEAM (P < 0.005 for all comparisons). The peak area given by PRESS was more dependent on the T2-correction technique than STEAM.
Measured liver fat depends on the MRS sequence used. Compared to STEAM, PRESS underestimates T2 values of fat, overestimates fat fraction, and provides a less consistent fat fraction estimate, probably due to J coupling effects. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2009;30:145–152. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.