Study on consistency between liver fat fraction quantification based on photon-counting CT and MRI proton density fat fraction

doi:10.16150/j.1671-2870.2025.02.005

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To investigate the consistency between CT-derived fat fraction (CT-FF) based on photon-counting CT material decomposition under different scanning conditions and magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF), thereby developing a CT-based method for liver fat quantification suitable for the Chinese population. Methods From September 2023 to February 2024, a total of 383 healthy volunteers were prospectively recruited at Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine (176 with PDFF < 5% and 207 with PDFF≥5%), and randomly assigned to four photon-counting CT scanning groups based on tube voltage (120 kVp/140 kVp) and radiation dose (standard dose/low dose). All subjects underwent photon-counting CT liver scanning and MRI examinations, with liver PDFF used as the reference standard for liver fat quantification. From the standard-dose group (n = 243), this study randomly selected 50 individuals each from the 120 kVp group (n = 123) and 140 kVp group (n = 120) to form a test cohort (n = 100), and the remaining subjects were assigned to the validation cohort (n = 283). Among volunteers with PDFF < 5% (n = 66) in the test cohort, this study randomly selected 20 individuals each from the 120 kVp group (n = 33) and 140 kVp group (n = 33) to form a threshold adjustment cohort (n = 40). The average CT values of liver and subcutaneous abdominal fat tissues were measured under low and high energy bins to serve as the thresholds for material decomposition. In the test cohort, the correlation and consistency between CT-FF and PDFF values obtained using thresholds before and after adjustment were compared. The performance of the adjusted threshold in measuring liver fat content was evaluated in the validation cohort, as well as the consistency across subgroups with different scanning protocols. Results BBased on data from the threshold adjustment cohort, the average CT values of liver tissue at 120 kVp and 140 kVp were 65 HU and 70 HU in the low and high energy bins, respectively. For fat tissue, the average CT values in the low and high energy bins were -127 HU and -96 HU at 120 kVp, and -125 HU and -92 HU at 140 kVp, which were used as the density thresholds for material decomposition. In the test cohort, after threshold adjustment, the correlation (r, 0.98 vs. 0.77), consistency (ICC, 0.980 vs. 0.770; r², 0.96 vs. 0.60), and mean difference (-0.7% vs. -18.1%) between CT-FF and PDFF values were significantly improved. In the entire validation cohort and across subgroups with different tube voltages and radiation doses, CT-FF and PDFF showed excellent correlation and consistency (r = 0.99, P < 0.001, r² = 0.98, ICC = 0.99), with mean differences not exceeding -0.7%. Conclusion Based on the liver tissue characteristics of the Chinese population, this study optimizes the density thresholds of the photon-counting CT material decomposition algorithm, and develops a fat quantification correction standard applicable to Chinese individuals for the first time, significantly improving measurement accuracy. This method may provide a new non-invasive and precise approach for liver fat quantification.

Key words: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, Fat quantification, Photon-counting CT, Magnetic resonance imaging, Proton density fat fraction

CLC Number:

R814.42

CAI Xinxin, DENG Rong, XU Xinxin, XU Zhihan, CHANG Rui, DONG Haipeng, LIN Huimin, YAN Fuhua. Study on consistency between liver fat fraction quantification based on photon-counting CT and MRI proton density fat fraction[J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2025, 24(02): 146-154.

Figures/Tables 7

Table 1

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Table 2

Table 3

References 36

[1]	WANG D Q, PORTINCASA P, NEUSCHWANDER-TETRI B A. Steatosis in the liver[J]. Compr Physiol,2013,3(4):1493-1532. doi: 10.1002/cphy.c130001 pmid: 24265237
[2]	RINELLA M E, LAZARUS J V, RATZIU V, et al. A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disea-se nomenclature[J]. Ann Hepatol,2024,29(1):101133.
[3]	MAN S, DENG Y, MA Y, et al. Prevalence of liver steatosis and fibrosis in the general population and various high-risk populations: a nationwide study with 5.7 million adults in china[J]. Gastroenterology,2023,165(4):1025-1040. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.053 pmid: 37380136
[4]	WALKER R W, BELBIN G M, SOROKIN E P, et al. A common variant in PNPLA3 is associated with age at diagnosis of NAFLD in patients from a multi-ethnic biobank[J]. J Hepatol,2020,72(6):1070-1081. doi: S0168-8278(20)30123-9 pmid: 32145261
[5]	YOUNOSSI Z M, KOENIG A B, ABDELATIF D, et al. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes[J]. Hepatology,2016,64(1):73-84. doi: 10.1002/hep.28431 pmid: 26707365
[6]	DULAI P S, SINGH S, PATEL J, et al. Increased risk of mortality by fibrosis stage in nonalcoholic fatty liver di-sease: Systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Hepatology,2017,65(5):1557-1565.
[7]	SEEFF L B, EVERSON G T, MORGAN T R, et al. Complication rate of percutaneous liver biopsies among persons with advanced chronic liver disease in the HALT-C trial[J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol,2010,8(10):877-883.
[8]	REGEV A, BERHO M, JEFFERS L J, et al. Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection[J]. Am J Gastroenterol,2002,97(10):2614-2618. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.06038.x pmid: 12385448
[9]	REEDER S B, HU H H, SIRLIN C B. Proton density fat-fraction: a standardized MR-based biomarker of tissue fat concentration[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging,2012,36(5):1011-1014. doi: 10.1002/jmri.23741 pmid: 22777847
[10]	STAREKOVA J, HERNANDO D, PICKHARDT P J, et al. Quantification of liver fat content with CT and MRI: state of the art[J]. Radiology,2021,301(2):250-262.
[11]	JOHNSON T R, KRAUSS B, SEDLMAIR M, et al. Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience[J]. Eur Radiol,2007,17(6):1510-1517. doi: 10.1007/s00330-006-0517-6 pmid: 17151859
[12]	DEMONDION E, ERNST O, LOUVET A, et al. Hepatic fat quantification in dual-layer computed tomography using a three-material decomposition algorithm[J]. Eur Radiol,2024,34(6):3708-3718.
[13]	HUR B Y, LEE J M, HYUNSIK W, et al. Quantification of the fat fraction in the liver using dual-energy computed tomography and multimaterial decomposition[J]. J Comput Assist Tomogr,2014,38(6):845-852. doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000142 pmid: 25162291
[14]	GASSENMAIER S, KäHM K, WALTER S S, et al. Quantification of liver and muscular fat using contrast-enhanced dual source dual energy computed tomography compared to an established multi-echo Dixon MRI sequence[J]. Eur J Radiol,2021,142:109845.
[15]	MOLWITZ I, CAMPBELL G M, YAMAMURA J, et al. Fat quantification in dual-layer detector spectral computed tomography: Experimental Development and first in-patient validation[J]. Invest Radiol,2022,57(7):463-469. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000858 pmid: 35148536
[16]	GOODSITT M M, CHRISTODOULOU E G, LARSON S C. Accuracies of the synthesized monochromatic CT numbers and effective atomic numbers obtained with a rapid kVp switching dual energy CT scanner[J]. Med Phys,2011,38(4):2222-2232. pmid: 21626956
[17]	MILETO A, BARINA A, MARIN D, et al. Virtual monochromatic images from dual-energy multidetector CT: variance in CT numbers from the same lesion between single-source projection-based and dual-source image-based implementations[J]. Radiology,2016,279(1):269-277. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015150919 pmid: 26536403
[18]	YANG Y, QIN L, LIN H, et al. Consistency of monoenergetic attenuation measurements for a clinical dual-source photon-counting detector CT system across scanning paradigms: a phantom study[J]. Am J Roentgenol,2024,222(5):e2330631.
[19]	SCHWARTZ F R, ASHTON J, WILDMAN-TOBRINER B, et al. Liver fat quantification in photon-counting CT in head to head comparison with clinical MRI-First experie-nce[J]. Eur J Radiol,2023,161:110734.
[20]	HOLLÝ S, CHMELíK M, SUCHá S, et al. Photon-counting CT using multi-material decomposition algorithm enables fat quantification in the presence of iron deposits[J]. Phys Med,2024,118:103210.
[21]	Appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies[J]. Lancet,2004,363(9403):157-163. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15268-3 pmid: 14726171
[22]	HERNANDO D, COOK R J, QAZI N, et al. Complex confounder-corrected R2* mapping for liver iron quantification with MRI[J]. Eur Radiol,2021,31(1):264-275.
[23]	SARI N, SUZANA M, MUSLIM M, et al. Analysis of the effect of Care Dose 4D software use on image quality and radiation dose on the ct scan abdomen[J]. Spektra: J Fisika dan Aplikasinya,2020,5:31-40.
[24]	LIU X, YU L, PRIMAK A N, et al. Quantitative imaging of element composition and mass fraction using dual-energy CT: three-material decomposition[J]. Med Phys,2009,36(5):1602-1609. doi: 10.1118/1.3097632 pmid: 19544776
[25]	LISKA D, DUFOUR S, ZERN T L, et al. Interethnic diffe-rences in muscle, liver and abdominal fat partitioning in obese adolescents[J]. PLoS One,2007,2(6):e569.
[26]	FLOHR T, SCHMIDT B. Technical basics and clinical benefits of photon-counting CT[J]. Invest Radiol,2023,58(7): 441-450. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000980 pmid: 37185302
[27]	D'ADAMO E, NORTHRUP V, WEISS R, et al. Ethnic differences in lipoprotein subclasses in obese adolescents: importance of liver and intraabdominal fat accretion[J]. Am J Clin Nutr,2010,92(3):500-508. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29270 pmid: 20573788
[28]	CAO Q, YAN C, HAN X, et al. Quantitative evaluation of nonalcoholic fatty liver in rat by material decomposition techniques using rapid-switching dual energy CT[J]. Acad Radiol,2022,29(6):e91-e97.
[29]	CORRIAS G, ERTA M, SINI M, et al. Comparison of multimaterial decomposition fat fraction with DECT and proton density fat fraction with IDEAL IQ MRI for quantification of liver steatosis in a population exposed to chemotherapy[J]. Dose Response,2021,19(2):1559325820 984938.
[30]	SALYAPONGSE A M, ROSE S D, PICKHARDT P J, et al. CT number accuracy and association with object size: a phantom study comparing energy-integrating detector CT and deep silicon photon-counting detector CT[J]. Am J Roentgenol,2023,221(4):539-547. doi: 10.2214/AJR.23.29463 pmid: 37255042
[31]	KALRA M K, SODICKSON A D, MAYO-SMITH W W. CT radiation: Key concepts for gentle and wise use[J]. Radiographics,2015,35(6):1706-1721. doi: 10.1148/rg.2015150118 pmid: 26466180
[32]	MERGEN V, RACINE D, JUNGBLUT L, et al. Virtual noncontrast abdominal imaging with photon-counting detector CT [J]. Radiology,2022,305(1):107-115.
[33]	SARTORETTI T, MERGEN V, HIGASHIGAITO K, et al. Virtual noncontrast imaging of the liver using photon-counting detector computed tomography: a systematic phantom and patient study[J]. Invest Radiol,2022,57(7):488-493. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000860 pmid: 35136003
[34]	WILLEMINK M J, PERSSON M, POURMORTEZA A, et al. Photon-counting CT: technical principles and clinical prospects[J]. Radiology,2018,289(2):293-312. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018172656 pmid: 30179101
[35]	PICKHARDT P J, PARK S H, HAHN L, et al. Specificity of unenhanced CT for non-invasive diagnosis of hepatic steatosis: implications for the investigation of the natural history of incidental steatosis[J]. Eur Radiol,2012,22(5):1075-1082. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2349-2 pmid: 22138733
[36]	BOLL D T, MERKLE E M. Diffuse liver disease: strategies for hepatic CT and MR imaging[J]. Radiographics,2009,29(6):1591-1614. doi: 10.1148/rg.296095513 pmid: 19959510

Parameter	Number/ Range	Mean ± Standard Deviation/ Median (Interquartile Range)
Age	19-87	42(30, 53)
Sex
Male	215	/
Female	168	/
BMI(Kg/m²)	17.13-47.91	25.44(22.86，28.07)
CT-FF(%)	(-4.2)-42.1	5.3(2.0,14.2)
PDFF(%)	0.8-41.3	5.7(2.5,14.6)
Subgroups
Tube voltage (kVp)
120	194	/
140	189	/
Radiation dose
Low dose	142	/
Standard dose	241	/
Effective dose(mSv)
Low dose	0.56-4.11	1.23(1.02, 1.58)
Standard dose	0.71-6.48	1.88(1.49, 2.60)

Adjustment	Tube voltage	Fat		Liver
Adjustment	Tube voltage	Low energy	High energy	Low energy	High energy
Before	120 kVp	-100 HU	-92 HU	59 HU	58 HU
Before	140 kVp	-100 HU	-92 HU	59 HU	58 HU
After	120 kVp	-127 HU	-96 HU	65 HU	70 HU
After	140 kVp	-125 HU	-92 HU	65 HU	70 HU

Analysis	Correlation	Consistency			Bland-Altman analysis
	r	r²	Intraclass correlation (ICC)		Mean of bias		Limits of agreement (%)
	r	r²	ICC	95%CI	Mean of bias		Limits of agreement (%)
Whole-group analysis	0.99	0.98	0.991	0.989 to 0.992	-0.5	-3.1 to 2.0
Subgroup analysis
Tube voltage (kVp)
120	0.99	0.98	0.991	0.989 to 0.992	-0.4	-3.1 to 2.3
140	0.99	0.98	0.991	0.989 to 0.992	-0.7	-2.9 to 1.6
Radiation dose
Standard	0.99	0.98	0.991	0.989 to 0.992	-0.7	-3.3 to 1.8
Low	0.99	0.98	0.991	0.989 to 0.993	-0.3	-2.8 to 2.1