Zumbo G, Barton SV, Thompson D, Sun M, Abdel-Gadir A, Treibel TA, Knight D, Martinez-Naharro A, Thirusha L, Gillmore JD, Moon JC, Hawkins PN, Fontana M. Extracellular volume with bolus-only technique in amyloidosis patients: Diagnostic accuracy, correlation with other clinical cardiac measures, and ability to track changes in amyloid load over time.
J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;
47:1677-1684. [PMID:
29159946 DOI:
10.1002/jmri.25907]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2017] [Accepted: 11/06/2017] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Extracellular volume (ECV) by T1 mapping requires the contrast agent distribution to be at equilibrium. This can be achieved either definitively with a primed contrast infusion (infusion ECV), or sufficiently with a delay postbolus (bolus-only ECV). For large ECV, the bolus-only approach measures higher than the infusion ECV, causing some uncertainty in diseases such as amyloidosis.
PURPOSE
To characterize the relationship between the bolus-only and current gold-standard infusion ECV in patients with amyloidosis.
STUDY TYPE
Bolus-only and infusion ECV were prospectively measured.
POPULATION
In all, 186 subjects with systemic amyloidosis attending our clinic and 23 subjects with systemic amyloidosis who were participating in an open-label, two-part, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial.
FIELD STRENGTH
Avanto 1.5T, Siemens Medical Solutions, Erlangen, Germany.
ASSESSMENT
Bolus-only and infusion ECV were measured in all subjects using shortened modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (ShMOLLI) T1 mapping sequence.
STATISTICAL TESTS
Pearson correlation coefficient (r); Bland-Altman; receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Linear regression model with a fractional polynomial transformation.
RESULTS
The difference between the bolus-only and infusion myocardial ECV increased as the average of the two measures increased, with the bolus-ECV measuring higher. For an average ECV of 0.4, the difference was 0.013. The 95% limits of agreement for the two methods, after adjustment for the bias, were ±0.056. However, cardiac diagnostic accuracy was comparable (bolus-only vs. infusion ECV area under the curve [AUC] = 0.839 vs. 0.836), as were correlations with other clinical cardiac measures, and, in the trial patients, the ability to track changes in the liver/spleen with therapy.
DATA CONCLUSION
In amyloidosis, with large ECVs, the bolus-only technique reads higher than the infusion technique, but clinical performance by any measure is the same. Given the work-flow advantages, these data suggest that the bolus-only approach might be acceptable for amyloidosis, and might support its use as a surrogate endpoint in future clinical trials.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 4 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1677-1684.
Collapse