129 Xe and Free-Breathing 1 H Ventilation MRI in Patients With Cystic Fibrosis: A Dual-Center Study.

BACKGROUND:Free-breathing 1 H ventilation MRI shows promise but only single-center validation has yet been performed against methods which directly image lung ventilation in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). PURPOSE:To investigate the relationship between 129 Xe and 1 H ventilation images using data acquired at two centers. STUDY TYPE:Sequence comparison. POPULATION:Center 1; 24 patients with CF (12 female) aged 9-47 years. Center 2; 7 patients with CF (6 female) aged 13-18 years, and 6 healthy controls (6 female) aged 21-31 years. Data were acquired in different patients at each center. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE:1.5 T, 3D steady-state free precession and 2D spoiled gradient echo. ASSESSMENT:Subjects were scanned with 129 Xe ventilation and 1 H free-breathing MRI and performed pulmonary function tests. Ventilation defect percent (VDP) was calculated using linear binning and images were visually assessed by H.M., L.J.S., and G.J.C. (10, 5, and 8 years' experience). STATISTICAL TESTS:Correlations and linear regression analyses were performed between 129 Xe VDP, 1 H VDP, FEV1 , and LCI. Bland-Altman analysis of 129 Xe VDP and 1 H VDP was carried out. Differences in metrics were assessed using one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS:129 Xe VDP and 1 H VDP correlated strongly with; each other (r = 0.84), FEV1 z-score (129 Xe VDP r = -0.83, 1 H VDP r = -0.80), and LCI (129 Xe VDP r = 0.91, 1 H VDP r = 0.82). Bland-Altman analysis of 129 Xe VDP and 1 H VDP from both centers had a bias of 0.07% and limits of agreement of -16.1% and 16.2%. Linear regression relationships of VDP with FEV1 were not significantly different between 129 Xe and 1 H VDP (P = 0.08), while 129 Xe VDP had a stronger relationship with LCI than 1 H VDP. DATA CONCLUSION:1 H ventilation MRI shows large-scale agreement with 129 Xe ventilation MRI in CF patients with established lung disease but may be less sensitive to subtle ventilation changes in patients with early-stage lung disease. EVIDENCE LEVEL:2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.