Background
R2* relaxometry's capacity to calculate liver iron concentration (LIC) is limited in patients with severe overload. Hemosiderin increases in these patients, which exhibits a non‐monoexponential decay that renders a failed R2* analysis.
Purpose/Hypothesis
To evaluate a biexponential R2* relaxometry model in children with different ranges of iron overload.
Study Type
Retrospective.
Population
In all, 181 children with different conditions associated with iron overload.
Field Strength/Sequence
1.5T, T2*‐weighted gradient echo sequence.
Assessment
Bi‐ and monoexponential R2* relaxometry were measured in the liver using two regions of interest (ROIs) using a nonproprietary software: one encompassing the whole liver parenchyma (ROI‐1) and the other only the periphery (ROI‐2). These were drawn by a single trained observer. The residuals for each fitting model were estimated. A ratio between the residuals of the mono‐ and biexponential models was calculated to identify the best fitting model. Patients with 1) residual ratio ≥1.5 and 2) R2*fast ≥R2*slow were considered as having a predominant biexponential behavior.
Statistical Tests
Nonparametric tests, Bland–Altman plots, linear correlation, intraclass correlation coefficient. Patients were divided according to their LIC into stable (n = 23), mild (n = 58), moderate (n = 61), and severe (n = 39).
Results
The biexponential model was more suitable for patients with severe iron overload when compared with the other three LIC categories (P < 0.001) for both ROIs. For ROI‐1, 37 subjects met criteria for a predominant biexponential behavior. The slow component (5.7%) had a lower fraction than the fast component (94.2%). For ROI‐2, 22 subjects met criteria for a predominant biexponential behavior. The slow component (4.7%) had a lower fraction than the fast component (95.2%). The intraobserver variability between both ROIs was excellent.
Data Conclusion
The biexponential R2* relaxometry model is more suitable in children with severe iron overload.
Level of Evidence: 3
Technical Efficacy: Stage 1
J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1191–1198.