Quantification of volumetric thigh and paravertebral muscle fat content: comparison of quantitative Dixon (Q-Dixon) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with high-speed T2-corrected multiecho MR spectroscopy

Abstract

Background Muscle fat infiltration (MFI) is increasingly recognized as a critical factor influencing muscle function and metabolic health. Accurate quantification of MFI is essential for diagnosing and monitoring various muscular and metabolic disorders. Quantitative Dixon (Q-Dixon) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and high-speed T 2 -corrected multi-echo (HISTO) magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) are both advanced imaging techniques that offer potential for detailed assessment of MFI. However, the validity and reliability of these methods in measuring volumetric changes in muscle composition, particularly in both thigh and paravertebral muscles, have not been thoroughly compared. This study aims to validate volumetric measurements using Q-Dixon MRI against HISTO MRS in thigh and paravertebral muscles, taking into account the heterogeneity of MFI. Methods A retrospective study was conducted with 54 subjects [mean age, 60 years; 38 male (M)/16 female (F)] for thigh muscle and 56 subjects (mean age, 50 years; 22 M/34 F) for paravertebral muscle assessment using a 3-Tesla MRI. The proton density fat fraction (PDFF) was measured with Q-Dixon MRI and HISTO MRS within the upper-middle part of quadriceps femoris and paravertebral muscles at L4/5 level in volumes-of-interest (VOIs). The corresponding volumetric Q-Dixon freehand VOI PDFF was measured. Scatterplots, Bland-Altman plots, Spearman correlation coefficients, and Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferroni correction were employed. The Kruskal-Wallis H tests followed by Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests were analyzed to compare parameter differences with visual MFI grades. Results Q-Dixon cubic VOI PDFF correlated positively with HISTO MRS PDFF in thigh (r=0.96, P<0.001) and paravertebral groups (r=0.98, P<0.001), with insignificant differences (P=0.29, 0.82, respectively). Both PDFF values from cubic VOIs in Q-Dixon and HISTO MRS differed from the freehand Q-Dixon PDFF (all P<0.001). Only for <5% HISTO MRS PDFF, there was a difference between HISTO MRS PDFF and Q-Dixon cubic VOI PDFF (P=0.002). Conclusions Volumetric Q-Dixon cubic VOI PDFF exhibited good correlation and consistency with HISTO MRS PDFF for quantitative fat assessment in thigh and paravertebral muscles except for muscles with fat fraction <5%, and the Q-Dixon freehand VOI PDFF offers a more comprehensive assessment of the actual MFI compared to cubic VOI.