PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWMRI) and transient elastography (TE) in quantification of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic cholestatic liver diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients underwent DWMRI, TE, and liver biopsy for staging of liver fibrosis. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was calculated for six locations in the liver for combination of five diffusion sensitivity values b=0, 50, 200, 400 and 800 s/mm(2). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the diagnostic performance of DWMRI and TE. Segmental ADC variations were evaluated by means of coefficient of variation. RESULTS: The mean ADCs (× 10(-3)mm(2)/s; b=0-800 s/mm(2)) were significantly different at stage F1 versus F ≥ 2 (p<0.05) and F2 versus F4. However, no significant difference was found between F2 and F3. For prediction of F ≥ 2 and F ≥ 3 areas under the ROC curves were 0.868 and 0.906 for DWMRI, and 0.966 and 0.960 for TE, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity were 90.9% and 89.3% for F ≥ 2 (ADC ≤ 1.65), and 92.3% and 92.1% for F ≥ 3 (ADC ≤ 1.63). Segmental ADC variation was lowest for F4 (CV=9.54 ± 6.3%). CONCLUSION: DWMRI and TE could be used for assessment of liver fibrosis with TE having higher diagnostic accuracy and DWMRI providing insight into liver fibrosis distribution.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWMRI) and transient elastography (TE) in quantification of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic cholestatic liver diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients underwent DWMRI, TE, and liver biopsy for staging of liver fibrosis. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was calculated for six locations in the liver for combination of five diffusion sensitivity values b=0, 50, 200, 400 and 800 s/mm(2). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the diagnostic performance of DWMRI and TE. Segmental ADC variations were evaluated by means of coefficient of variation. RESULTS: The mean ADCs (× 10(-3)mm(2)/s; b=0-800 s/mm(2)) were significantly different at stage F1 versus F ≥ 2 (p<0.05) and F2 versus F4. However, no significant difference was found between F2 and F3. For prediction of F ≥ 2 and F ≥ 3 areas under the ROC curves were 0.868 and 0.906 for DWMRI, and 0.966 and 0.960 for TE, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity were 90.9% and 89.3% for F ≥ 2 (ADC ≤ 1.65), and 92.3% and 92.1% for F ≥ 3 (ADC ≤ 1.63). Segmental ADC variation was lowest for F4 (CV=9.54 ± 6.3%). CONCLUSION: DWMRI and TE could be used for assessment of liver fibrosis with TE having higher diagnostic accuracy and DWMRI providing insight into liver fibrosis distribution.
Authors: S Keller; J Sedlacik; T Schuler; R Buchert; M Avanesov; R Zenouzi; A W Lohse; H Kooijman; J Fiehler; C Schramm; J Yamamura Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 5.315