Comparison of fat quantification methods: A phantom study at 3.0T

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>To compare different imaging methods with single‐voxel MR spectroscopy (MRS) for the quantification of fat content in phantoms at 3.0T.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Materials and Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Imaging and spectroscopy was performed on a GE Signa system. Eleven novel homogeneous fat‐water phantoms were constructed with variation in fat content from 0% to 100%. These were imaged using three techniques and compared with single‐voxel non‐water‐suppressed MRS. Pixel‐by‐pixel maps of fat fraction were produced and mean values compared to MRS‐determined measurements. Preliminary in vivo examinations were subsequently performed in the breast and spine to compare the best imaging technique with MRS.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>All imaging methods significantly correlated with MRS (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> < 0.001): IDEAL (<jats:italic>r</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 0.985), IOP (<jats:italic>r</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 0.888), WS (<jats:italic>r</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 0.939), and FS (<jats:italic>r</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 0.938). In addition, IDEAL provided artifact‐free maps of fat fraction with superior uniformity. In vivo results using IDEAL produced values that were between 9% to 16% of the corresponding MRS values.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>This work demonstrates that imaging may be utilized as a high‐resolution alternative to MRS for the quantification of fat content. In the future we intend to replace MRS with IDEAL in our clinical studies involving fat measurement. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2007. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</jats:p></jats:sec>