Literature DB >> 27788034

Hepatic Fibrosis, Inflammation, and Steatosis: Influence on the MR Viscoelastic and Diffusion Parameters in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease.

Helena S Leitão1, Sabrina Doblas1, Philippe Garteiser1, Gaspard d'Assignies1, Valérie Paradis1, Feryel Mouri1, Carlos F G C Geraldes1, Maxime Ronot1, Bernard E Van Beers1.   

Abstract

Purpose To determine the relationship of liver fibrosis, inflammation, and steatosis with the magnetic resonance (MR) viscoelastic and diffusion parameters in patients with chronic liver disease and to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the imaging parameters in staging liver fibrosis. Materials and Methods Consecutive patients with chronic liver disease scheduled for liver biopsy were prospectively recruited from November 2010 to October 2012 for this institutional review board-approved study after they provided written informed consent. Sixty-eight patients underwent three-dimensional MR elastography and intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging with a 1.5-T MR system. Fibrosis, inflammation, and steatosis were assessed with the METAVIR and steatosis, activity, and fibrosis (or SAF) scoring systems. Spearman correlation and multiple regression analyses were performed to determine the relationship between liver fibrosis, inflammation, steatosis, and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels and viscoelastic and diffusion parameters. The accuracy of three-dimensional MR elastography and diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the determination of fibrosis stage was assessed with Obuchowski measures. Results At multiple regression analysis, fibrosis was the only variable associated with viscoelastic parameters (β = 0.6, P < .001, R2 = 0.33 for shear modulus; β = 0.6, P < .001, R2 = 0.32 for elasticity). Fibrosis had a weaker independent association with the apparent diffusion coefficient (β = -0.3, P = .02, R2 = 0.33) than did steatosis (β = -0.5, P < .001, R2 = 0.33). Steatosis was the only factor independently associated with the pure diffusion coefficient (β = -0.4, P = .002, R2 = 0.22). Inflammation and ALT level were not associated with the viscoelastic or diffusion parameters. The diagnostic accuracy of fibrosis staging was significantly higher when measuring the shear modulus rather than the apparent diffusion coefficient (Obuchowski measures, 0.82 ± 0.04 vs 0.30 ± 0.06; P < .001). Conclusion Fibrosis is independently associated with the MR viscoelastic parameters and is less associated with the diffusion parameters than is steatosis. These results and those of diagnostic accuracy suggest that MR elastography should be preferred over diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the staging of liver fibrosis. © RSNA, 2016.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27788034     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016151570

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  20 in total

1.  Liver fibrosis: stretched exponential model outperforms mono-exponential and bi-exponential models of diffusion-weighted MRI.

Authors:  Nieun Seo; Yong Eun Chung; Yung Nyun Park; Eunju Kim; Jinwoo Hwang; Myeong-Jin Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Diffusion-weighted MRI of the liver: challenges and some solutions for the quantification of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion.

Authors:  Yi Xiang J Wang; Hua Huang; Cun-Jing Zheng; Ben-Heng Xiao; Olivier Chevallier; Wei Wang
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-04-15

Review 3.  Diffusion-weighted imaging and texture analysis: current role for diffuse liver disease.

Authors:  Sofia Gourtsoyianni; Joao Santinha; Celso Matos; Nikolaos Papanikolaou
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-10-16

Review 4.  Magnetic Resonance imaging analysis of liver fibrosis and inflammation: overwhelming gray zones restrict clinical use.

Authors:  D Marti-Aguado; A Rodríguez-Ortega; A Alberich-Bayarri; L Marti-Bonmati
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-08-28

5.  Staging liver fibrosis with DWI: is there an added value for diffusion kurtosis imaging?

Authors:  Li Yang; Shengxiang Rao; Wentao Wang; Caizhong Chen; Ying Ding; Chun Yang; Robert Grimm; Xu Yan; Caixia Fu; Mengsu Zeng
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Quantitative Liver MRI-Biopsy Correlation in Pediatric and Young Adult Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Can One Be Used to Predict the Other?

Authors:  Jonathan R Dillman; Andrew T Trout; Emma N Costello; Suraj D Serai; Kristin S Bramlage; Rohit Kohli; Stavra A Xanthakos
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Liver stiffness measurement by magnetic resonance elastography is not affected by hepatic steatosis.

Authors:  Jie Chen; Alina M Allen; Terry M Therneau; Jun Chen; Jiahui Li; Safa Hoodeshenas; Jingbiao Chen; Xin Lu; Zheng Zhu; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Bin Song; Richard L Ehman; Meng Yin
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-08-25       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Role of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis and Grading of Hepatic Steatosis in Patients With Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Comparison With Ultrasonography and Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy.

Authors:  Nikhil Makhija; Naval K Vikram; Deep N Srivastava; Kumble S Madhusudhan
Journal:  J Clin Exp Hepatol       Date:  2021-02-27

9.  Assessment of liver fibrosis with liver and spleen magnetic resonance elastography, serum markers in chronic liver disease.

Authors:  Xiao-Pei Wang; Yu Wang; Hong Ma; Han Wang; Da-Wei Yang; Xin-Yan Zhao; Er-Hu Jin; Zheng-Han Yang
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-06

Review 10.  MicroRNAs in shaping the resolution phase of inflammation.

Authors:  Raza Ali Naqvi; Meenal Gupta; Anne George; Afsar R Naqvi
Journal:  Semin Cell Dev Biol       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 7.727

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.