Repeatability of MRI Biomarkers in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: The NIMBLE Consortium.

Background There is a need for reliable noninvasive methods for diagnosing and monitoring nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Thus, the multidisciplinary Non-invasive Biomarkers of Metabolic Liver disease (NIMBLE) consortium was formed to identify and advance the regulatory qualification of NAFLD imaging biomarkers. Purpose To determine the different-day same-scanner repeatability coefficient of liver MRI biomarkers in patients with NAFLD at risk for steatohepatitis. Materials and Methods NIMBLE 1.2 is a prospective, observational, single-center short-term cross-sectional study (October 2021 to June 2022) in adults with NAFLD across a spectrum of low, intermediate, and high likelihood of advanced fibrosis as determined according to the fibrosis based on four factors (FIB-4) index. Participants underwent up to seven MRI examinations across two visits less than or equal to 7 days apart. Standardized imaging protocols were implemented with six MRI scanners from three vendors at both 1.5 T and 3 T, with central analysis of the data performed by an independent reading center (University of California, San Diego). Trained analysts, who were blinded to clinical data, measured the MRI proton density fat fraction (PDFF), liver stiffness at MR elastography (MRE), and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) for each participant. Point estimates and CIs were calculated using χ2 distribution and statistical modeling for pooled repeatability measures. Results A total of 17 participants (mean age, 58 years ± 8.5 [SD]; 10 female) were included, of which seven (41.2%), six (35.3%), and four (23.5%) participants had a low, intermediate, or high likelihood of advanced fibrosis, respectively. The different-day same-scanner mean measurements were 13%-14% for PDFF, 6.6 L for VAT, and 3.15 kPa for two-dimensional MRE stiffness. The different-day same-scanner repeatability coefficients were 0.22 L (95% CI: 0.17, 0.29) for VAT, 0.75 kPa (95% CI: 0.6, 0.99) for MRE stiffness, 1.19% (95% CI: 0.96, 1.61) for MRI PDFF using magnitude reconstruction, 1.56% (95% CI: 1.26, 2.07) for MRI PDFF using complex reconstruction, and 19.7% (95% CI: 15.8, 26.2) for three-dimensional MRE shear modulus. Conclusion This preliminary study suggests that thresholds of 1.2%-1.6%, 0.22 L, and 0.75 kPa for MRI PDFF, VAT, and MRE, respectively, should be used to discern measurement error from real change in patients with NAFLD. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT05081427 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kozaka and Matsui in this issue.

[1]  H. Kirikoshi,et al.  Diagnostic comparison of vibration-controlled transient elastography and MRI techniques in overweight and obese patients with NAFLD , 2022, Scientific reports.

[2]  Kathryn J Fowler,et al.  Non-Invasive Biomarkers of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis: the FNIH NIMBLE project , 2022, Nature Medicine.

[3]  C. Ayers,et al.  Cardiometabolic Health Outcomes Associated With Discordant Visceral and Liver Fat Phenotypes: Insights From the Dallas Heart Study and UK Biobank. , 2021, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[4]  S. Reeder,et al.  Multi-Site Multi-Vendor Validation of a Quantitative MRI and CT Compatible Fat Phantom. , 2021, Medical physics.

[5]  M. Borga,et al.  Reproducibility and repeatability of MRI‐based body composition analysis , 2020, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[6]  S. Reeder,et al.  Diurnal Variation of Proton Density Fat Fraction in the Liver Using Quantitative Chemical Shift Encoded MRI , 2020, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[7]  Bohyun Kim,et al.  Accuracy and precision of proton density fat fraction measurement across field strengths and scan intervals: A phantom and human study , 2018, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[8]  Rohit Loomba,et al.  Noninvasive, Quantitative Assessment of Liver Fat by MRI‐PDFF as an Endpoint in NASH Trials , 2018, Hepatology.

[9]  D. Brenner,et al.  Association Between Obesity and Discordance in Fibrosis Stage Determination by Magnetic Resonance vs Transient Elastography in Patients With Nonalcoholic Liver Disease , 2017, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[10]  B. Neuschwander‐Tetri,et al.  Case definitions for inclusion and analysis of endpoints in clinical trials for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis through the lens of regulatory science , 2017, Hepatology.

[11]  Nancy A Obuchowski,et al.  Repeatability of MR Elastography of Liver: A Meta-Analysis. , 2017, Radiology.

[12]  M. Borga,et al.  Quantifying Abdominal Adipose Tissue and Thigh Muscle Volume and Hepatic Proton Density Fat Fraction: Repeatability and Accuracy of an MR Imaging-based, Semiautomated Analysis Method. , 2017, Radiology.

[13]  Magnus Borga,et al.  Feasibility of MR-Based Body Composition Analysis in Large Scale Population Studies , 2016, PloS one.

[14]  L. Henry,et al.  Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease—Meta‐analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes , 2016, Hepatology.

[15]  B. Taouli,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Elastography Is Superior to Transient Elastography for Detection of Liver Fibrosis and Fat in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. , 2016, Gastroenterology.

[16]  Alexandra N. Schlein,et al.  Accuracy and the effect of possible subject‐based confounders of magnitude‐based MRI for estimating hepatic proton density fat fraction in adults, using MR spectroscopy as reference , 2016, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[17]  Rohit Loomba,et al.  Magnetic resonance elastography is superior to acoustic radiation force impulse for the Diagnosis of fibrosis in patients with biopsy‐proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A prospective study , 2016, Hepatology.

[18]  Magnus Borga,et al.  Validation of a fast method for quantification of intra‐abdominal and subcutaneous adipose tissue for large‐scale human studies , 2015, NMR in biomedicine.

[19]  Teresa Wu,et al.  Magnetic resonance elastography: evaluation of new inversion algorithm and quantitative analysis method , 2015, Abdominal Imaging.

[20]  Anthony Gamst,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Elastography Predicts Advanced Fibrosis in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Prospective Study , 2014, Hepatology.

[21]  Eun Sun Lee,et al.  MR elastography for noninvasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis: Reproducibility of the examination and reproducibility and repeatability of the liver stiffness value measurement , 2014, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[22]  Scott Reeder,et al.  Effect of flip angle on the accuracy and repeatability of hepatic proton density fat fraction estimation by complex data‐based, T1‐independent, T2*‐corrected, spectrum‐modeled MRI , 2014, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[23]  Rohit Loomba,et al.  Utility of magnetic resonance imaging versus histology for quantifying changes in liver fat in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease trials , 2013, Hepatology.

[24]  Richard L Ehman,et al.  Advanced fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: noninvasive assessment with MR elastography. , 2013, Radiology.

[25]  Sabrina Fox‐Bosetti,et al.  Test–retest repeatability of MR elastography for noninvasive liver fibrosis assessment in hepatitis C , 2011, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[26]  William M. Lee,et al.  Complication rate of percutaneous liver biopsies among persons with advanced chronic liver disease in the HALT-C trial. , 2010, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[27]  Scott B Reeder,et al.  Repeatability of magnetic resonance elastography for quantification of hepatic stiffness , 2010, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[28]  D. Kleiner,et al.  Pathologic assessment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. , 2007, Clinics in liver disease.

[29]  J. Montaner,et al.  Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection , 2006, Hepatology.

[30]  L. Henry,et al.  NAFLD AND NASH: Global burden of NAFLD and NASH: trends, predictions, risk factors and prevention , 2018 .

[31]  Mithat Gönen,et al.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers: A review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment , 2015, Statistical methods in medical research.