OBJECTIVES: To investigate the reliability of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) for staging liver fibrosis in the presence of fat and iron. METHODS: Ninety-five patients, including 48 men and 47 women, aged 57.0 ± 14.2 years, underwent liver biopsy. Ninety-six samples were histologically staged for liver fibrosis (0-Ishak score 0; 1-Ishak score 1-4; 2-Ishak score 5-6) and semiquantitatively graded for hepatic iron (0, no; 1, low; 2, moderate; 3, high iron) and for hepatic steatosis. Within 72 h after biopsy, navigator-triggered DW-MRI using b-values of 50/400/800 s/mm(2) was performed in a 1.5-T system, and apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) were analysed. ADCs were correlated with fibrosis stage, steatosis grade, and iron grade using linear regression. RESULTS: ADC did not correlate with fibrosis stages in either the overall group (n = 96; R (2) = 0.38; P = 0.17) or in the subgroup without liver iron and steatosis (n = 40; R (2) = 0.01; P = 0.75). ADC decreased significantly with steatosis grade in cases without iron and fibrosis (n = 42; R (2) = 0.28; ß = -5.3; P < 0.001). Liver iron was modestly correlated with ADC in patients without fibrosis and steatosis (n = 33; R (2) = 0.29; P = 0.04), whereas high iron concentrations were associated with low ADC values (group 3: β = -489; P = 0.005; reference:group 0) but intermediate levels were not (group 1/group 2: P = 0.93/P = 0.54; reference group: 0). CONCLUSIONS: ADC values are confounded by fat and iron. However, even in patients without fat or iron, DW-MRI does not adequately discriminate the stage of fibrosis. KEY POINTS: • Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) is increasingly used to evaluate liver disease. • DWI using b-values of 50/400/800 s/mm (2) does not adequately quantify fibrosis. • Assessment of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is confounded by fat and iron. • Fat may influence ADCs by altering water diffusion. • Iron may influence ADCs by signal decay and noise floor effects.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the reliability of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) for staging liver fibrosis in the presence of fat and iron. METHODS: Ninety-five patients, including 48 men and 47 women, aged 57.0 ± 14.2 years, underwent liver biopsy. Ninety-six samples were histologically staged for liver fibrosis (0-Ishak score 0; 1-Ishak score 1-4; 2-Ishak score 5-6) and semiquantitatively graded for hepatic iron (0, no; 1, low; 2, moderate; 3, high iron) and for hepatic steatosis. Within 72 h after biopsy, navigator-triggered DW-MRI using b-values of 50/400/800 s/mm(2) was performed in a 1.5-T system, and apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) were analysed. ADCs were correlated with fibrosis stage, steatosis grade, and iron grade using linear regression. RESULTS: ADC did not correlate with fibrosis stages in either the overall group (n = 96; R (2) = 0.38; P = 0.17) or in the subgroup without liver iron and steatosis (n = 40; R (2) = 0.01; P = 0.75). ADC decreased significantly with steatosis grade in cases without iron and fibrosis (n = 42; R (2) = 0.28; ß = -5.3; P < 0.001). Liver iron was modestly correlated with ADC in patients without fibrosis and steatosis (n = 33; R (2) = 0.29; P = 0.04), whereas high iron concentrations were associated with low ADC values (group 3: β = -489; P = 0.005; reference:group 0) but intermediate levels were not (group 1/group 2: P = 0.93/P = 0.54; reference group: 0). CONCLUSIONS: ADC values are confounded by fat and iron. However, even in patients without fat or iron, DW-MRI does not adequately discriminate the stage of fibrosis. KEY POINTS: • Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) is increasingly used to evaluate liver disease. • DWI using b-values of 50/400/800 s/mm (2) does not adequately quantify fibrosis. • Assessment of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is confounded by fat and iron. • Fat may influence ADCs by altering water diffusion. • Iron may influence ADCs by signal decay and noise floor effects.
Authors: K Ishak; A Baptista; L Bianchi; F Callea; J De Groote; F Gudat; H Denk; V Desmet; G Korb; R N MacSween Journal: J Hepatol Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: D Hernando; D C Karampinos; K F King; J P Haldar; S Majumdar; J G Georgiadis; Z-P Liang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-12-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Laurence Annet; Frank Peeters; Jorge Abarca-Quinones; Isabelle Leclercq; Pierre Moulin; Bernard E Van Beers Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: M Colombo; R de Franchis; E Del Ninno; A Sangiovanni; C De Fazio; M Tommasini; M F Donato; A Piva; V Di Carlo; N Dioguardi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-09-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Behzad Ebrahimi; Ahmed Saad; Kai Jiang; Christopher M Ferguson; Hui Tang; John R Woollard; James F Glockner; Stephen C Textor; Lilach O Lerman Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 6.016