<scp>T1</scp>, <scp>T2,</scp> and Fat Fraction Cardiac MR Fingerprinting: Preliminary Clinical Evaluation
Olivier Jaubert, Gastão Cruz, Aurélien Bustin, Reza Hajhosseiny, Sohaib Nazir, Torben Schneider, Peter Koken, Mariya Doneva, Daniel Rueckert, Pier Giorgio Masci, René M. Botnar, Claudia Prieto
Abstract
Background Dixon cardiac magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) has been recently introduced to simultaneously provide water T 1 , water T 2 , and fat fraction (FF) maps. Purpose To assess Dixon cardiac MRF repeatability in healthy subjects and its clinical feasibility in a cohort of patients with cardiovascular disease. Population T1MES phantom, water‐fat phantom, 11 healthy subjects and 19 patients with suspected cardiovascular disease. Study Type Prospective. Field Strength/Sequence 1.5T, inversion recovery spin echo ( IRSE ), multiecho spin echo ( MESE ), modified Look–Locker inversion recovery ( MOLLI ), T 2 gradient spin echo ( T 2 ‐GRASE ), 6‐echo gradient rewound echo ( GRE ), and Dixon cardiac MRF . Assessment Dixon cardiac MRF precision was assessed through repeated scans against conventional MOLLI, T 2 ‐GRASE, and PDFF in phantom and 11 healthy subjects. Dixon cardiac MRF native T 1 , T 2 , FF, postcontrast T 1 and synthetic extracellular volume (ECV) maps were assessed in 19 patients in comparison to conventional sequences. Measurements in patients were performed in the septum and in late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) areas and assessed using mean value distributions, correlation, and Bland–Altman plots. Image quality and diagnostic confidence were assessed by three experts using 5‐point scoring scales. Statistical Tests Paired Wilcoxon rank signed test and paired t ‐tests were applied. Statistical significance was indicated by *( P < 0.05). Results Dixon cardiac MRF showed good overall precision in phantom and in vivo. Septal average repeatability was ~23 msec for T 1 , ~2.2 msec for T 2 , and ~1% for FF. Biases in healthy subjects/patients were measured at +37 msec*/+60 msec* and –8.8 msec*/–8 msec* when compared to MOLLI and T 2 ‐GRASE, respectively. No statistically significant differences in postcontrast T 1 ( P = 0.17) and synthetic ECV ( P = 0.19) measurements were observed in patients. Data Conclusion Dixon cardiac MRF attained good overall precision in phantom and healthy subjects, while providing coregistered T 1 , T 2 , and fat fraction maps in a single breath‐hold scan with similar or better image quality than conventional methods in patients. Level of Evidence 2. Technical Efficacy Stage 2.