Search

Background: Quantitative imaging studies of the pancreas have often targeted the three main anatomical segments, head, body, and tail, using manual region of interest strategies to assess geographic heterogeneity. Existing automated analyses have implemented whole‐organ segmentation, providing overall quantification but failing to address spatial heterogeneity. Purpose: To develop and validate an automated method for pancreas segmentation into head, body, and tail subregions in abdominal MRI. Study Type: Retrospective. Subjects: One hundred and fifty nominally healthy subjects from UK Biobank (100 subjects for method development and 50 subjects for validation). A separate 390 UK Biobank triples of subjects including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) subjects and matched nondiabetics. Field strength/Sequence: A 1.5 T, three‐dimensional two‐point Dixon sequence (for segmentation and volume assessment) and a two‐dimensional axial multiecho gradient‐recalled echo sequence. Assessment: Pancreas segments were annotated by four raters on the validation cohort. Intrarater agreement and interrater agreement were reported using Dice overlap (Dice similarity coefficient [DSC]). A segmentation method based on template registration was developed and evaluated against annotations. Results on regional pancreatic fat assessment are also presented, by intersecting the three‐dimensional parts segmentation with one available proton density fat fraction (PDFF) image. Statistical Test: Wilcoxon signed rank test and Mann–Whitney U‐test for comparisons. DSC and volume differences for evaluation. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Good intrarater (DSC mean, head: 0.982, body: 0.940, tail: 0.961) agreement and interrater (DSC mean, head: 0.968, body: 0.905, tail: 0.943) agreement were observed. No differences (DSC, head: P = 0.4358, body: P = 0.0992, tail: P = 0.1080) were observed between the manual annotations and our method's segmentations (DSC mean, head: 0.965, body: 0.893, tail: 0.934). Pancreatic body PDFF was different between T2DM and nondiabetics matched by body mass index. Data Conclusion: The developed segmentation's performance was no different from manual annotations. Application on type 2 diabetes subjects showed potential for assessing pancreatic disease heterogeneity. Level of Evidence: 4 Technical Efficacy Stage: 3 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To develop a postprocessing algorithm for multiecho chemical‐shift encoded water–fat separation that estimates proton density fat fraction (PDFF) maps over the full dynamic range (0‐100%) using multipeak fat modeling and multipoint search optimization. To assess its accuracy, reproducibility, and agreement with state‐of‐the‐art complex‐based methods, and to evaluate its robustness to artefacts in abdominal PDFF maps. Methods: We introduce MAGO (MAGnitude‐Only), a magnitude‐based reconstruction that embodies multipeak liver fat spectral modeling and multipoint optimization, and which is compatible with asymmetric echo acquisitions. MAGO is assessed first for accuracy and reproducibility on publicly available phantom data. Then, MAGO is applied to N = 178 UK Biobank cases, in which its liver PDFF measures are compared using Bland‐Altman analysis with those from a version of the hybrid iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least squares estimation (IDEAL) algorithm, LiverMultiScan IDEAL (LMS IDEAL, Perspectum Diagnostics Ltd, Oxford, UK). Finally, MAGO is tested on a succession of high field challenging cases for which LMS IDEAL generated artefacts in the PDFF maps. Results: Phantom data showed accurate, reproducible MAGO PDFF values across manufacturers, field strengths, and acquisition protocols. Moreover, we report excellent agreement between MAGO and LMS IDEAL for 6‐echo, 1.5 tesla human acquisitions (bias = −0.02% PDFF, 95% confidence interval = ±0.13% PDFF). When tested on 12‐echo, 3 tesla cases from different manufacturers, MAGO was shown to be more robust to artefacts compared to LMS IDEAL. Conclusion: MAGO resolves the water–fat ambiguity over the entire fat fraction dynamic range without compromising accuracy, therefore enabling robust PDFF estimation where phase data is inaccessible or unreliable and complex‐based and hybrid methods fail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]