Comparison of Inline R2 MRI versus FerriScan for liver iron quantification in patients on chelation therapy for iron overload: preliminary results

Objectives MRI quantification of liver iron concentration (LIC) using R 2 or R 2 * relaxometry requires offline post-processing causing reporting delays, administrative overhead, and added costs. A prototype 3D multi-gradient-echo pulse sequence, with inline post-processing, allows immediate calcula...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European radiology 2021-12, Vol.31 (12), p.9296-9305
Hauptverfasser: Healy, Gerard M., Kannengiesser, Stephan A. R., Espin-Garcia, Osvaldo, Ward, Richard, Kuo, Kevin H. M., Jhaveri, Kartik S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 9305
container_issue 12
container_start_page 9296
container_title European radiology
container_volume 31
creator Healy, Gerard M.
Kannengiesser, Stephan A. R.
Espin-Garcia, Osvaldo
Ward, Richard
Kuo, Kevin H. M.
Jhaveri, Kartik S.
description Objectives MRI quantification of liver iron concentration (LIC) using R 2 or R 2 * relaxometry requires offline post-processing causing reporting delays, administrative overhead, and added costs. A prototype 3D multi-gradient-echo pulse sequence, with inline post-processing, allows immediate calculation of LIC from an R 2 * map (inline R 2 *-LIC) without offline processing. We compared inline R 2 *-LIC to FerriScan and offline R 2 * calibration methods. Methods Forty patients (25 women, 15 men; age 18–82 years), prospectively underwent FerriScan and the prototype sequence, which produces two R 2 * maps, with and without fat modeling, as well as an inline R 2 *-LIC map derived from the R 2 * map with fat modeling, with informed consent. For each map, the following contours were drawn: ROIs, whole-axial-liver contour, and an exact copy of contour utilized by FerriScan. LIC values from the FerriScan report and those calculated using an alternative R 2 calibration were the reference standards. Results were compared using Pearson and interclass correlation coefficients (PCC, ICC), linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and estimation of area under the receiver operator curve (ROC-AUC). Results Inline R 2 *-LIC demonstrated good agreement with the reference standards. Compared to FerriScan, inline R 2 *-LIC with whole-axial-liver contour, ROIs, and FerriScan contour demonstrated PCC of 94.8%, 94.8%, and 92%; ICC 93%, 92.7%, and 90.2%; regression slopes 1.004, 0.974, and 1.031; mean bias 5.54%, 10.91%, and 0.36%; and ROC-AUC estimates 0.903, 0.906, and 0.890 respectively. Agreement was maintained when adjusted for sex, age, diagnosis, liver fat content, and fat-water swap. Conclusion Inline R 2 *-LIC provides robust and comparable quantification of LIC compared to FerriScan, without the need for offline post-processing. Key Points • In patients being treated for iron overload with chelation therapy, liver iron concentration (LIC) is regularly assessed in order to monitor and adjust therapy. • Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used to quantify LIC. Several R 2 and R 2 * methods are available, all of which require offline post-processing. • A novel R 2 * MRI method allows for immediate calculation of LIC and provides comparable quantification of LIC to the FerriScan and recently published alternative R 2 * methods.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00330-021-08019-0
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2533314296</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2533314296</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2670-54c4dda2940ff57653d950b90acc0d03d64eb1a1e9de8f98793a094d2db1ad143</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctqHDEQRUWIIRMnP5CVIJtsOi49-qHswmA7AzYBJ1kLWaqOZTRSW-o2-Df8xZGnAwYvvJKq6p6LVJeQTwy-MoD-pAAIAQ1w1sAATDXwhmyYFLxhMMi3ZANKDE2vlHxH3pdyCwCKyX5DHrdpP5nsS4o0jXQXg49Irzi9vNrRe8xlKfQMc_a_rIl0TJkGX9vU5wrcLSbOfvTWzL6WPtKp3jDOhdbS3mBYB_MNZjM9HPADmKpFSMZ9o1PG4Pc-mvxAM5YlzOUDORpNKPjx_3lM_pyd_t7-aC5-nu-23y8ay7semlZa6ZzhSsI4tn3XCqdauFZgrAUHwnUSr5lhqBwOoxp6JQwo6birXVd3c0y-rL5TTncLllnvfbEYgomYlqJ5K4RgkquuSj-_kN6mJcf6uqpS3cCYGp4M-aqyOZWScdRT9vv6M81AP8Wk15h0jUkfYtJQIbFCpYrjX8zP1q9Q_wDlZpdk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2596811984</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Inline R2 MRI versus FerriScan for liver iron quantification in patients on chelation therapy for iron overload: preliminary results</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Healy, Gerard M. ; Kannengiesser, Stephan A. R. ; Espin-Garcia, Osvaldo ; Ward, Richard ; Kuo, Kevin H. M. ; Jhaveri, Kartik S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Healy, Gerard M. ; Kannengiesser, Stephan A. R. ; Espin-Garcia, Osvaldo ; Ward, Richard ; Kuo, Kevin H. M. ; Jhaveri, Kartik S.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives MRI quantification of liver iron concentration (LIC) using R 2 or R 2 * relaxometry requires offline post-processing causing reporting delays, administrative overhead, and added costs. A prototype 3D multi-gradient-echo pulse sequence, with inline post-processing, allows immediate calculation of LIC from an R 2 * map (inline R 2 *-LIC) without offline processing. We compared inline R 2 *-LIC to FerriScan and offline R 2 * calibration methods. Methods Forty patients (25 women, 15 men; age 18–82 years), prospectively underwent FerriScan and the prototype sequence, which produces two R 2 * maps, with and without fat modeling, as well as an inline R 2 *-LIC map derived from the R 2 * map with fat modeling, with informed consent. For each map, the following contours were drawn: ROIs, whole-axial-liver contour, and an exact copy of contour utilized by FerriScan. LIC values from the FerriScan report and those calculated using an alternative R 2 calibration were the reference standards. Results were compared using Pearson and interclass correlation coefficients (PCC, ICC), linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and estimation of area under the receiver operator curve (ROC-AUC). Results Inline R 2 *-LIC demonstrated good agreement with the reference standards. Compared to FerriScan, inline R 2 *-LIC with whole-axial-liver contour, ROIs, and FerriScan contour demonstrated PCC of 94.8%, 94.8%, and 92%; ICC 93%, 92.7%, and 90.2%; regression slopes 1.004, 0.974, and 1.031; mean bias 5.54%, 10.91%, and 0.36%; and ROC-AUC estimates 0.903, 0.906, and 0.890 respectively. Agreement was maintained when adjusted for sex, age, diagnosis, liver fat content, and fat-water swap. Conclusion Inline R 2 *-LIC provides robust and comparable quantification of LIC compared to FerriScan, without the need for offline post-processing. Key Points • In patients being treated for iron overload with chelation therapy, liver iron concentration (LIC) is regularly assessed in order to monitor and adjust therapy. • Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used to quantify LIC. Several R 2 and R 2 * methods are available, all of which require offline post-processing. • A novel R 2 * MRI method allows for immediate calculation of LIC and provides comparable quantification of LIC to the FerriScan and recently published alternative R 2 * methods.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08019-0</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Calibration ; Chelation ; Chelation therapy ; Contours ; Correlation coefficient ; Correlation coefficients ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Imaging ; Informed consent ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Iron ; Liver ; Magnetic Resonance ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Men ; Modelling ; Neuroradiology ; Overloading ; Prototypes ; Radiology ; Therapy ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2021-12, Vol.31 (12), p.9296-9305</ispartof><rights>European Society of Radiology 2021</rights><rights>European Society of Radiology 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2670-54c4dda2940ff57653d950b90acc0d03d64eb1a1e9de8f98793a094d2db1ad143</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2670-54c4dda2940ff57653d950b90acc0d03d64eb1a1e9de8f98793a094d2db1ad143</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0938-0321</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-021-08019-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-021-08019-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Healy, Gerard M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kannengiesser, Stephan A. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Espin-Garcia, Osvaldo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ward, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuo, Kevin H. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jhaveri, Kartik S.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Inline R2 MRI versus FerriScan for liver iron quantification in patients on chelation therapy for iron overload: preliminary results</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Objectives MRI quantification of liver iron concentration (LIC) using R 2 or R 2 * relaxometry requires offline post-processing causing reporting delays, administrative overhead, and added costs. A prototype 3D multi-gradient-echo pulse sequence, with inline post-processing, allows immediate calculation of LIC from an R 2 * map (inline R 2 *-LIC) without offline processing. We compared inline R 2 *-LIC to FerriScan and offline R 2 * calibration methods. Methods Forty patients (25 women, 15 men; age 18–82 years), prospectively underwent FerriScan and the prototype sequence, which produces two R 2 * maps, with and without fat modeling, as well as an inline R 2 *-LIC map derived from the R 2 * map with fat modeling, with informed consent. For each map, the following contours were drawn: ROIs, whole-axial-liver contour, and an exact copy of contour utilized by FerriScan. LIC values from the FerriScan report and those calculated using an alternative R 2 calibration were the reference standards. Results were compared using Pearson and interclass correlation coefficients (PCC, ICC), linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and estimation of area under the receiver operator curve (ROC-AUC). Results Inline R 2 *-LIC demonstrated good agreement with the reference standards. Compared to FerriScan, inline R 2 *-LIC with whole-axial-liver contour, ROIs, and FerriScan contour demonstrated PCC of 94.8%, 94.8%, and 92%; ICC 93%, 92.7%, and 90.2%; regression slopes 1.004, 0.974, and 1.031; mean bias 5.54%, 10.91%, and 0.36%; and ROC-AUC estimates 0.903, 0.906, and 0.890 respectively. Agreement was maintained when adjusted for sex, age, diagnosis, liver fat content, and fat-water swap. Conclusion Inline R 2 *-LIC provides robust and comparable quantification of LIC compared to FerriScan, without the need for offline post-processing. Key Points • In patients being treated for iron overload with chelation therapy, liver iron concentration (LIC) is regularly assessed in order to monitor and adjust therapy. • Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used to quantify LIC. Several R 2 and R 2 * methods are available, all of which require offline post-processing. • A novel R 2 * MRI method allows for immediate calculation of LIC and provides comparable quantification of LIC to the FerriScan and recently published alternative R 2 * methods.</description><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Chelation</subject><subject>Chelation therapy</subject><subject>Contours</subject><subject>Correlation coefficient</subject><subject>Correlation coefficients</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Informed consent</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Iron</subject><subject>Liver</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Men</subject><subject>Modelling</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Overloading</subject><subject>Prototypes</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Therapy</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctqHDEQRUWIIRMnP5CVIJtsOi49-qHswmA7AzYBJ1kLWaqOZTRSW-o2-Df8xZGnAwYvvJKq6p6LVJeQTwy-MoD-pAAIAQ1w1sAATDXwhmyYFLxhMMi3ZANKDE2vlHxH3pdyCwCKyX5DHrdpP5nsS4o0jXQXg49Irzi9vNrRe8xlKfQMc_a_rIl0TJkGX9vU5wrcLSbOfvTWzL6WPtKp3jDOhdbS3mBYB_MNZjM9HPADmKpFSMZ9o1PG4Pc-mvxAM5YlzOUDORpNKPjx_3lM_pyd_t7-aC5-nu-23y8ay7semlZa6ZzhSsI4tn3XCqdauFZgrAUHwnUSr5lhqBwOoxp6JQwo6birXVd3c0y-rL5TTncLllnvfbEYgomYlqJ5K4RgkquuSj-_kN6mJcf6uqpS3cCYGp4M-aqyOZWScdRT9vv6M81AP8Wk15h0jUkfYtJQIbFCpYrjX8zP1q9Q_wDlZpdk</recordid><startdate>20211201</startdate><enddate>20211201</enddate><creator>Healy, Gerard M.</creator><creator>Kannengiesser, Stephan A. R.</creator><creator>Espin-Garcia, Osvaldo</creator><creator>Ward, Richard</creator><creator>Kuo, Kevin H. M.</creator><creator>Jhaveri, Kartik S.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0938-0321</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211201</creationdate><title>Comparison of Inline R2 MRI versus FerriScan for liver iron quantification in patients on chelation therapy for iron overload: preliminary results</title><author>Healy, Gerard M. ; Kannengiesser, Stephan A. R. ; Espin-Garcia, Osvaldo ; Ward, Richard ; Kuo, Kevin H. M. ; Jhaveri, Kartik S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2670-54c4dda2940ff57653d950b90acc0d03d64eb1a1e9de8f98793a094d2db1ad143</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Chelation</topic><topic>Chelation therapy</topic><topic>Contours</topic><topic>Correlation coefficient</topic><topic>Correlation coefficients</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Informed consent</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Iron</topic><topic>Liver</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Men</topic><topic>Modelling</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Overloading</topic><topic>Prototypes</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Therapy</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Healy, Gerard M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kannengiesser, Stephan A. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Espin-Garcia, Osvaldo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ward, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuo, Kevin H. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jhaveri, Kartik S.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Healy, Gerard M.</au><au>Kannengiesser, Stephan A. R.</au><au>Espin-Garcia, Osvaldo</au><au>Ward, Richard</au><au>Kuo, Kevin H. M.</au><au>Jhaveri, Kartik S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Inline R2 MRI versus FerriScan for liver iron quantification in patients on chelation therapy for iron overload: preliminary results</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><date>2021-12-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>9296</spage><epage>9305</epage><pages>9296-9305</pages><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Objectives MRI quantification of liver iron concentration (LIC) using R 2 or R 2 * relaxometry requires offline post-processing causing reporting delays, administrative overhead, and added costs. A prototype 3D multi-gradient-echo pulse sequence, with inline post-processing, allows immediate calculation of LIC from an R 2 * map (inline R 2 *-LIC) without offline processing. We compared inline R 2 *-LIC to FerriScan and offline R 2 * calibration methods. Methods Forty patients (25 women, 15 men; age 18–82 years), prospectively underwent FerriScan and the prototype sequence, which produces two R 2 * maps, with and without fat modeling, as well as an inline R 2 *-LIC map derived from the R 2 * map with fat modeling, with informed consent. For each map, the following contours were drawn: ROIs, whole-axial-liver contour, and an exact copy of contour utilized by FerriScan. LIC values from the FerriScan report and those calculated using an alternative R 2 calibration were the reference standards. Results were compared using Pearson and interclass correlation coefficients (PCC, ICC), linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and estimation of area under the receiver operator curve (ROC-AUC). Results Inline R 2 *-LIC demonstrated good agreement with the reference standards. Compared to FerriScan, inline R 2 *-LIC with whole-axial-liver contour, ROIs, and FerriScan contour demonstrated PCC of 94.8%, 94.8%, and 92%; ICC 93%, 92.7%, and 90.2%; regression slopes 1.004, 0.974, and 1.031; mean bias 5.54%, 10.91%, and 0.36%; and ROC-AUC estimates 0.903, 0.906, and 0.890 respectively. Agreement was maintained when adjusted for sex, age, diagnosis, liver fat content, and fat-water swap. Conclusion Inline R 2 *-LIC provides robust and comparable quantification of LIC compared to FerriScan, without the need for offline post-processing. Key Points • In patients being treated for iron overload with chelation therapy, liver iron concentration (LIC) is regularly assessed in order to monitor and adjust therapy. • Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used to quantify LIC. Several R 2 and R 2 * methods are available, all of which require offline post-processing. • A novel R 2 * MRI method allows for immediate calculation of LIC and provides comparable quantification of LIC to the FerriScan and recently published alternative R 2 * methods.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1007/s00330-021-08019-0</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0938-0321</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0938-7994
ispartof European radiology, 2021-12, Vol.31 (12), p.9296-9305
issn 0938-7994
1432-1084
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2533314296
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Calibration
Chelation
Chelation therapy
Contours
Correlation coefficient
Correlation coefficients
Diagnostic Radiology
Imaging
Informed consent
Internal Medicine
Interventional Radiology
Iron
Liver
Magnetic Resonance
Magnetic resonance imaging
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Men
Modelling
Neuroradiology
Overloading
Prototypes
Radiology
Therapy
Ultrasound
title Comparison of Inline R2 MRI versus FerriScan for liver iron quantification in patients on chelation therapy for iron overload: preliminary results
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T10%3A11%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Inline%20R2%20MRI%20versus%20FerriScan%20for%20liver%20iron%20quantification%20in%20patients%20on%20chelation%20therapy%20for%20iron%20overload:%20preliminary%20results&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Healy,%20Gerard%20M.&rft.date=2021-12-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=9296&rft.epage=9305&rft.pages=9296-9305&rft.issn=0938-7994&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-021-08019-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2533314296%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2596811984&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true