Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of water suppression on the hepatic lipid quantification, as assessed by the LCModel, in a preclinical and clinical scenario

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the effect of water suppression on the hepatic lipid quantification, using the LCModel.

Materials and methods

MR spectra with and without water suppression were acquired in the liver of mice at 4.7 T and patients at 3 T, and processed with the LCModel. The Cramér–Rao Lower Bound (CRLB) values of the seven lipid resonances were determined to assess the impact of water suppression on hepatic lipid quantification. A paired t test was used for comparison between the CRLBs obtained with and without water suppression.

Results

For the preclinical data, in the high (low) fat fraction subset an overall impairment in hepatic lipid quantification, i.e. an increase of CRLBs (no significant change of CRLBs) was observed in spectra acquired with water suppression. For the clinical data, there were no substantial changes in the CRLB with water suppression. Because (1) the water suppression does not overall improve the quantification of the lipid resonances and (2) the MR spectrum without water suppression is always acquired for fat fraction calculation, the optimal data-acquisition strategy for liver MRS is to acquire only the MR spectrum without water suppression.

Conclusion

For quantification of hepatic lipid resonances, it is advantageous to perform MR spectroscopy without water suppression in a clinical and preclinical scenario (at moderate fields).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fabbrini E, Sullivan S, Klein S (2010) Obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: biochemical, metabolic, and clinical implications. Hepatology 51:679–689

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cowin GJ, Jonsson JR, Bauer JD, Ash S, Ali A, Osland EJ, Purdie DM, Clouston AD, Powell EE, Galloway GJ (2008) Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for monitoring liver steatosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:937–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Johnson NA, Walton DW, Sachinwalla T, Thompson C, Smith K, Ruell PA, Stannard SR, George J (2008) Noninvasive assessment of hepatic lipid composition: advancing understanding and management of fatty liver disorders. Hepatology 47:1513–1523

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Szczepaniak LS, Nurenberg P, Leonard D, Browning JD, Reingold JS, Grundy S, Hobbs HH, Dobbins RL (2005) Magnetic resonance spectroscopy to measure hepatic triglyceride content: prevalence of hepatic steatosis in the general population. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 288:E462–E468

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Machann J, Stefan N, Schick F (2008) 1H MR spectroscopy of skeletal muscle, liver and bone marrow. Eur J Radiol 67:275–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hamilton G, Yokoo T, Bydder M, Cruite I, Schroeder ME, Sirlin CB, Middleton MS (2011) In vivo characterization of the liver fat 1H MR spectrum. NMR Biomed 24:784–790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Thomsen C, Becker U, Winkler K, Christoffersen P, Jensen M, Henriksen O (1994) Quantification of liver fat using magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Magn Reson Imaging 12:487–495

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Thomas EL, Hamilton G, Patel N, O’Dwyer R, Doré CJ, Goldin RD, Bell JD, Taylor-Robinson SD (2005) Hepatic triglyceride content and its relation to body adiposity: a magnetic resonance imaging and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy study. Gut 54:122–127

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ye Q, Danzer CF, Fuchs A, Vats D, Wolfrum C, Rudin M (2013) Longitudinal evaluation of hepatic lipid deposition and composition in ob/ob and ob/+ control mice. NMR Biomed 26:1079–1088

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Reeder SB, Cruite I, Hamilton G, Sirlin CB (2011) Quantitative assessment of liver fat with magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging 34:729–749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Provencher SW (1993) Estimation of metabolite concentrations from localized in vivo proton NMR spectra. Magn Reson Med 30:672–679

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hennig J, Nauerth A, Friedburg H (1986) RARE imaging: a fast imaging method for clinical MR. Magn Reson Med 3:823–833

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bottomley PA (1984) Selective volume method for performing localized NMR spectroscopy. US Patent 4, 480, 228

  14. Tkac I, Starcuk Z, Choi IY, Gruetter R (1999) In vivo 1H NMR spectroscopy of rat brain at 1 ms echo time. Magn Reson Med 41:649–656

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kiefer B, Grässner J, Hausmann R (1994) Image acquisition in a second with half-Fourier acquisition single shot turbo spin-echo. J Magn Reson Imaging 4:86–87

    Google Scholar 

  16. Frahm J, Merbolt KD, Hänicke W (1986) Localized proton spectroscopy using stimulated echoes. J Magn Reson 72:502–508

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ogg RJ, Kingsley PB, Taylor JS (1994) WET, a T1- and B1-insensitive water-suppression method for in vivo localized 1H NMR spectroscopy. J Magn Reson 104:1–10

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Corbin IR, Furth EE, Pickup S, Siegelman ES, Delikatny EJ (2009) In vivo assessment of hepatic triglycerides in murine non-alcoholic fatty liver disease using magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) Mol Cell Biol Lipid 1791:757–763

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Strobel K, van den Hoff J, Pietzsch J (2008) Localized proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy of lipids in adipose tissue at high spatial resolution in mice in vivo. J Lipid Res 49:473–480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cheung JS, Fan SJ, Gao DS, Chow AM, Yang J, Man K, Wu EX (2011) In vivo lipid profiling using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in an experimental liver fibrosis model. Acad Radiol 18:377–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cavassila S, Deval S, Huegen C, van Ormondt D, Graveron-Demilly D (2001) Cramér-Rao bounds: an evaluation tool for quantification. NMR Biomed 14:278–283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van Werven JR, Marsman HA, Nederveen AJ, ten Kate FJ, van Gulik TM, Stoker J (2012) Hepatic lipid composition analysis using 3.0-T MR spectroscopy in a steatotic rat model. Magn Reson Imaging 30:112–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rijzewijk LJ, van der Meer RW, Lubberink M, Lamb HJ, Romijn JA, de Roos A, Twisk JW, Heine RJ, Lammertsma AA, Smit JWA, Diamant M (2010) Liver fat content in type 2 diabetes: relationship with hepatic perfusion and substrate metabolism. Diabetes 59:2747–2754

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim H, Taksali SE, Dufour S, Befroy D, Goodman TR, Petersen KF, Shulman GI, Caprio S, Constable RT (2008) Comparative MR study of hepatic fat quantification using single-voxel proton spectroscopy, two-point dixon and three-point IDEAL. Magn Reson Med 59:521–527

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Petersen KF, Dufour S, Savage DB, Bilz S, Solomon G, Yonemitsu S, Cline GW, Befroy D, Zemany L, Kahn BB, Papademetris X, Rothman DL, Shulman GI (2007) The role of skeletal muscle insulin resistance in the pathogenesis of the metabolic syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:12587–12594

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Marsman HA, van Werven JR, Nederveen AJ, Ten Kate FJ, Heger M, Stoker J, van Guilk TM (2010) Noninvasive quantification of hepatic steatosis in rats using 3.0 T 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Magn Reson Imaging 32:148–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Peng XG, Ju S, Qin Y, Fang F, Cui X, Liu G, Ni Y, Teng GJ (2011) Quantification of liver fat in mice: comparing dual-echo Dixon imaging, chemical shift imaging, and 1H-MR spectroscopy. J Lipid Res 52:1847–1855

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Krššák M, Hofer H, Wrba F, Meyerspeer M, Brehm A, Lohninger A, Steindl-Munda P, Moser E, Ferenci P, Roden M (2010) Non-invasive assessment of hepatic fat accumulation in chronic hepatitis C by 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Eur J Radiol 74:e60–e66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hájek M, Dezortová M, Wagnerová D, Škoch A, Voska L, Hejlová I, Trunečka P (2011) MR spectroscopy as a tool for in vivo determination of steatosis in liver transplant recipients. Magn Reson Mater Phy Biol Med 24:297–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Heger M, Marsman HA, Bezemer R, Cloos MA, van Golen RF, van Guilk TM (2011) Non-invasive quantification of triglyceride content in steatotic rat livers by 1H-MRS: when water meets (too much) fat. Acad Radiol 18:1582–1592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pineda N, Sharma P, Xu Q, Hu X, Vos M, Martin DR (2009) Measurement of hepatic lipid: high-speed T2-corrected multiecho acquisition at 1H MR spectroscopy-A rapid and accurate technique. Radiology 252:568–576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gambarota G, Tanner M, van der Graaf M, Mulkern RV, Newbould RD (2011) 1H-MRS of hepatic fat using short TR at 3 T: SNR optimization and fast T2 relaxometry. Magn Reson Mater Phy Biol Med 24:339–345

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are most grateful to the PRISM core facility (Biogenouest©, UMS Biosit, Université de Rennes 1—Campus de Villejean, 35043 Rennes Cedex, France) for its technical support.

Author’s contribution

Coum A.: Protocol/project development, data collection and management, data analysis, Noury F.: Protocol/project development, data collection and management, data analysis, Bannier E.: Protocol/project development, data collection and management, Begriche K.: Protocol/project development, Fromenty B.: Protocol/project development, Gandon Y.: Protocol/project development, Saint-Jalmes H.: Protocol/project development, Gambarota G.: Protocol/project development.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LTSI, Laboratoire du Traitement du Signal et de l’Image, Université de Rennes 1, 35043, Rennes Cedex, France

    Amandine Coum, Fanny Noury, Hervé Saint-Jalmes & Giulio Gambarota

  2. INSERM, UMR 1099, Université de Rennes 1, 35000, Rennes, France

    Amandine Coum, Fanny Noury, Hervé Saint-Jalmes & Giulio Gambarota

  3. Département de Radiologie, CHU de Rennes, 35000, Rennes, France

    Elise Bannier & Yves Gandon

  4. INSERM, U991, Université de Rennes 1, 35000, Rennes, France

    Karima Begriche & Bernard Fromenty

  5. CRLCC, Centre Eugène Marquis, 35000, Rennes, France

    Hervé Saint-Jalmes

Authors
  1. Amandine Coum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fanny Noury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elise Bannier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karima Begriche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bernard Fromenty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yves Gandon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hervé Saint-Jalmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Giulio Gambarota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amandine Coum.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Research involving human participants and animals

All applicable national guidelines for the car and use of animals were followed.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix

Appendix

In this appendix, an additional analysis of the MR data is given in order to provide further insight into the current study. In the preclinical (clinical) HFF subset, the mean value of the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the water resonance was 53 ± 7 Hz (46 ± 18 Hz). The preclinical (clinical) LFF subset presented a mean value of FWHM of the water resonance of 59 ± 13 Hz (32 ± 9 Hz). The linewidth observed on the preclinical data is in agreement with a previous study performed at 4.7 T on mouse liver [18].

The noise level without water suppression was 163 ± 31 (a.u.) and with water suppression was 179 ± 44 (a.u.) on the preclinical HFF subset. Thus, it appears that the VAPOR water suppression did not affect the noise level.

The quantification of the lipid composition was calculated using the Corbin et al. algorithm [18] on the HFF groups (preclinical and clinical) with and without water suppression. It should be pointed out that in the Corbin method, the UFA fraction is calculated as: 100 * 3/4 * [Lip21]/[Lip09]; and the SFA fraction is calculated as: 100-UFA. On the preclinical HFF subset, the results were of SFA = 29.23 % and UFA = 70.77 % (in both cases the standard deviation was of 4.6 %) without water suppression. With water suppression the results were SFA = 30.88 % and UFA = 69.12 % (in both cases the standard deviation was of 5.29 %). On the clinical HFF subset, the quantification of the lipid composition yielded the results of SFA = 43.25 % and UFA = 56.75 % (standard deviation = 6.08 %) without water suppression and SFA = 39.65 % and UFA = 60.35 % (standard deviation = 5.60 %) with water suppression. The values of saturated and unsaturated fatty-acid fractions obtained from spectra with water suppression were comparable to those from spectra without water suppression, both for clinical and preclinical data.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coum, A., Noury, F., Bannier, E. et al. The effect of water suppression on the hepatic lipid quantification, as assessed by the LCModel, in a preclinical and clinical scenario. Magn Reson Mater Phy 29, 29–37 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-015-0508-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-015-0508-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation