Liver Stiffness Measurements with MR Elastography: Agreement and Repeatability across Imaging Systems, Field Strengths, and Pulse Sequences

Purpose: To prospectively assess agreement and repeatability of magnetic resonance (MR) elastography liver stiffness measurements across imager manufacturers, field strengths, and pulse sequences. Materials and Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study was approved by the institutional review board; informed consent was obtained from all subjects. On the basis of an a priori power calculation, 24 volunteer adult subjects underwent MR elastography with four MR imaging systems (two vendors) and multiple pulse sequences (two-dimensional [2D] gradient-echo [GRE] imaging, 2D spin-echo [SE] echo-planar imaging, and three-dimensional [3D] SE echo-planar imaging). Each sequence was performed twice in each patient with each imaging system. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess agreement and repeatability. P < .05 was considered indicative of a statistically significant difference. Results: Pairwise ICCs were 0.67-0.82 and 0.62-0.83 for agreement between pulse sequences across manufacturers (n = 4) and field strengths (n = 5), respectively. ICCs were 0.45-0.90 for pairwise agreement between sequences while fixing manufacturer and field strength (n = 8). Test-retest repeatability across the various manufacturer, field strength, and pulse sequence combinations (n = 10) was excellent (ICCs, 0.77-0.94). The overall ICC for all manufacturer, field strength, and sequence combinations (n = 10) was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55, 0.82). ICC according to field strength was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.88) at 1.5 T (n = 5) and 0.64 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.78) at 3.0 T (n = 5). ICCs according to vendor were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.73, 0.91) (n = 4) and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.51, 0.79) (n = 6). Average patient level variance was 0.042 kPa, with a coefficient of variation of 10.7%. Conclusion: MR elastography is a reliable method for assessing liver stiffness, with small amounts of variability between imager manufacturers, field strengths, and pulse sequences. (C) RSNA, 2016