PURPOSE: To compare liver ADC obtained with breathhold and free-breathing diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in healthy volunteers and patients with liver disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight subjects, 12 healthy volunteers and 16 patients (9 NAFLD, 7 chronic active HCV), underwent breathhold (BH) and free-breathing (FB) DWI MRI at 1.5 Tesla. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to determine correlation while paired t-tests assessed differences between BH and FB ADC. Estimated bias was calculated using the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: Liver ADC (×10(-3) mm(2) /s) was lower on BH for all groups (mean difference 0.36 ± 0.20; P < 0.01). ADC was higher in healthy volunteers (BH 1.80 ± 0.18; FB 2.24 ± 0.20) compared with NAFLD patients (BH 1.43 ± 0.27; FB 1.78 ± 0.28) (P < 0.001) and HCV patients (BH 1.63 ± 0.191; FB 1.88 ± 0.12). Overall correlation between BH and FB ADC was (r = 0.75), greatest in NAFLD (r = 0.90) compared with the correlation in HCV (r = 0.24) and healthy subjects (r = 0.34). Bland-Altman plots did not show agreement in mean absolute difference and estimated bias between subjects. CONCLUSION: Correlation between BH and FB liver ADC is moderate indicating that BH and FB should not be used interchangeably. Additionally, the lower ADC values in BH versus FB should be accounted for when comparing different liver DWI studies.
PURPOSE: To compare liver ADC obtained with breathhold and free-breathing diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in healthy volunteers and patients with liver disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight subjects, 12 healthy volunteers and 16 patients (9 NAFLD, 7 chronic active HCV), underwent breathhold (BH) and free-breathing (FB) DWI MRI at 1.5 Tesla. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to determine correlation while paired t-tests assessed differences between BH and FB ADC. Estimated bias was calculated using the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: Liver ADC (×10(-3) mm(2) /s) was lower on BH for all groups (mean difference 0.36 ± 0.20; P < 0.01). ADC was higher in healthy volunteers (BH 1.80 ± 0.18; FB 2.24 ± 0.20) compared with NAFLD patients (BH 1.43 ± 0.27; FB 1.78 ± 0.28) (P < 0.001) and HCV patients (BH 1.63 ± 0.191; FB 1.88 ± 0.12). Overall correlation between BH and FB ADC was (r = 0.75), greatest in NAFLD (r = 0.90) compared with the correlation in HCV (r = 0.24) and healthy subjects (r = 0.34). Bland-Altman plots did not show agreement in mean absolute difference and estimated bias between subjects. CONCLUSION: Correlation between BH and FB liver ADC is moderate indicating that BH and FB should not be used interchangeably. Additionally, the lower ADC values in BH versus FB should be accounted for when comparing different liver DWI studies.
Authors: S E Barkan; S L Melnick; S Preston-Martin; K Weber; L A Kalish; P Miotti; M Young; R Greenblatt; H Sacks; J Feldman Journal: Epidemiology Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Thomas C Kwee; Taro Takahara; Tetsu Niwa; Marko K Ivancevic; Gwenael Herigault; Marc Van Cauteren; Peter R Luijten Journal: MAGMA Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Paul Murphy; Jonathan Hooker; Brandon Ang; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony Gamst; Mark Bydder; Michael Middleton; Michael Peterson; Cynthia Behling; Rohit Loomba; Claude Sirlin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-09-25 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Sean McTavish; Anh T Van; Johannes M Peeters; Kilian Weiss; Marcus R Makowski; Rickmer F Braren; Dimitrios C Karampinos Journal: MAGMA Date: 2021-12-11 Impact factor: 2.533