Hui Zhang1, Qihua Yang2, Taihui Yu2, Xiaodong Chen1,2,3, Jingwen Huang2, Cui Tan4, Biling Liang2, Hua Guo1. 1. Center for Biomedical Imaging Research, Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Radiology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 3. Department of Radiology, Affiliated hospital of Guangdong Medical College, Guangdong, China. 4. Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the value of T2 , T1 rho, and diffusion metrics in assessment of liver fibrosis in rats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Liver fibrosis in a rat model (n = 72) was induced by injection of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4 ) at 3T. T2 , T1 rho, and diffusion parameters (apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), Dtrue ) via spin echo (SE) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) DWI with three diffusion times (DT: 80, 106, 186 msec) were obtained in surviving rats with hepatic fibrosis (n = 52) and controls (n = 8). Liver fibrosis stage (F0-F6) was identified based on pathological results using the traditional liver fibrosis staging method for rodents. Nonparametric statistical methods and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were employed to determine the diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Mean T2 , T1 rho, ADC, and Dtrue with DT = 186 msec correlated with the severity of fibrosis with r = 0.73, 0.83, -0.83, and -0.85 (all P < 0.001), respectively. The average areas under the ROC curve at different stages for T1 rho and diffusion parameters (DT = 186 msec) were larger than those of T2 and SE DWI (0.92, 0.92, and 0.92 vs. 0.86, 0.82, and 0.83). The corresponding average sensitivity and specificity for T1 rho and diffusion parameters with a long DT were larger (89.35 and 88.90, 88.36 and 89.97, 90.16 and 87.13) than T2 and SE DWI (90.28 and 79.93, 85.30 and 77.64, 78.21 and 82.41). The performances of T1 rho and Dtrue (DT = 186 msec) were comparable (average AUC: 0.92 and 0.92). CONCLUSION: Among the evaluated sequences, T1 rho and STEAM DWI with a long DT may serve as superior imaging biomarkers for assessing liver fibrosis and monitoring disease severity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:741-750.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the value of T2 , T1 rho, and diffusion metrics in assessment of liver fibrosis in rats. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Liver fibrosis in a rat model (n = 72) was induced by injection of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4 ) at 3T. T2 , T1 rho, and diffusion parameters (apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), Dtrue ) via spin echo (SE) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) DWI with three diffusion times (DT: 80, 106, 186 msec) were obtained in surviving rats with hepatic fibrosis (n = 52) and controls (n = 8). Liver fibrosis stage (F0-F6) was identified based on pathological results using the traditional liver fibrosis staging method for rodents. Nonparametric statistical methods and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were employed to determine the diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Mean T2 , T1 rho, ADC, and Dtrue with DT = 186 msec correlated with the severity of fibrosis with r = 0.73, 0.83, -0.83, and -0.85 (all P < 0.001), respectively. The average areas under the ROC curve at different stages for T1 rho and diffusion parameters (DT = 186 msec) were larger than those of T2 and SE DWI (0.92, 0.92, and 0.92 vs. 0.86, 0.82, and 0.83). The corresponding average sensitivity and specificity for T1 rho and diffusion parameters with a long DT were larger (89.35 and 88.90, 88.36 and 89.97, 90.16 and 87.13) than T2 and SE DWI (90.28 and 79.93, 85.30 and 77.64, 78.21 and 82.41). The performances of T1 rho and Dtrue (DT = 186 msec) were comparable (average AUC: 0.92 and 0.92). CONCLUSION: Among the evaluated sequences, T1 rho and STEAM DWI with a long DT may serve as superior imaging biomarkers for assessing liver fibrosis and monitoring disease severity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:741-750.
Authors: Jeanne M Horowitz; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Richard L Ehman; Kartik Jhaveri; Patrick Kamath; Michael A Ohliger; Anthony E Samir; Alvin C Silva; Bachir Taouli; Michael S Torbenson; Michael L Wells; Benjamin Yeh; Frank H Miller Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-08
Authors: Christian E Anderson; Charlie Y Wang; Yuning Gu; Rebecca Darrah; Mark A Griswold; Xin Yu; Chris A Flask Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Feng Wang; Daniel C Colvin; Suwan Wang; Hua Li; Zhongliang Zu; Raymond C Harris; Ming-Zhi Zhang; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Charlotte de Lange; Marjolein J E Reichert; Joseph J Pagano; Mike Seed; Shi-Joon Yoo; Craig S Broberg; Christopher Z Lam; Lars Grosse-Wortmann Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2019-07-15 Impact factor: 5.364