PURPOSE: To compare the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of hyperpolarized (HP) [13 C,15 N]urea to the ADC of endogenous water in healthy and fibrotic mouse liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ADC measurements for water and [13 C]urea were made in agarose phantoms at 14.1T. Next, the ADC of water and injected HP [13 C,15 N]urea were measured in eight CD1 mouse livers before and after induction of liver fibrosis using CCl4 . Liver fibrosis was quantified pathologically using the modified Brunt fibrosis score and compared to the measured ADC of water and urea. RESULTS: In cell-free phantoms with 12.5% agarose, water ADC was nearly twice the ADC of urea (1.93 × 10-3 mm2 /s vs. 1.00 × 10-3 mm2 /s). The mean ADC values of water and [13 C,15 N]urea in healthy mouse liver (±SD) were nearly identical [(0.75 ± 0.11) × 10-3 mm2 /s and (0.75 ± 0.22) × 10-3 mm2 /s, respectively]. Mean water and [13 C,15 N]urea ADC values in fibrotic liver (±SD) were (0.84 ± 0.22) × 10-3 mm2 /s and (0.75 ± 0.15) × 10-3 mm2 /s, respectively. Neither water nor urea ADCs were statistically different in the fibrotic livers compared to baseline (P = 0.14 and P = 0.99, respectively). Water and urea ADCs were positively correlated at baseline (R2 = 0.52 and P = 0.045) but not in fibrotic livers (R2 = 0.23 and P = 0.23). CONCLUSION: ADC of injected hyperpolarized urea in healthy liver reflects a smaller change as compared to free solution than ADC of water. This may reflect differences in cellular compartmentalization of the two compounds. No significant change in ADC of either water or urea were observed in relatively mild stages of liver fibrosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:141-151.
PURPOSE: To compare the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of hyperpolarized (HP) [13 C,15 N]urea to the ADC of endogenous water in healthy and fibrotic mouse liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ADC measurements for water and [13 C]urea were made in agarose phantoms at 14.1T. Next, the ADC of water and injected HP [13 C,15 N]urea were measured in eight CD1mouse livers before and after induction of liver fibrosis using CCl4 . Liver fibrosis was quantified pathologically using the modified Brunt fibrosis score and compared to the measured ADC of water and urea. RESULTS: In cell-free phantoms with 12.5% agarose, water ADC was nearly twice the ADC of urea (1.93 × 10-3 mm2 /s vs. 1.00 × 10-3 mm2 /s). The mean ADC values of water and [13 C,15 N]urea in healthy mouse liver (±SD) were nearly identical [(0.75 ± 0.11) × 10-3 mm2 /s and (0.75 ± 0.22) × 10-3 mm2 /s, respectively]. Mean water and [13 C,15 N]urea ADC values in fibrotic liver (±SD) were (0.84 ± 0.22) × 10-3 mm2 /s and (0.75 ± 0.15) × 10-3 mm2 /s, respectively. Neither water nor urea ADCs were statistically different in the fibrotic livers compared to baseline (P = 0.14 and P = 0.99, respectively). Water and urea ADCs were positively correlated at baseline (R2 = 0.52 and P = 0.045) but not in fibrotic livers (R2 = 0.23 and P = 0.23). CONCLUSION: ADC of injected hyperpolarized urea in healthy liver reflects a smaller change as compared to free solution than ADC of water. This may reflect differences in cellular compartmentalization of the two compounds. No significant change in ADC of either water or urea were observed in relatively mild stages of liver fibrosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:141-151.
Authors: Cornelius von Morze; Peder E Z Larson; Simon Hu; Kayvan Keshari; David M Wilson; Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen; Andrei Goga; Robert Bok; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Cornelius von Morze; Robert A Bok; Galen D Reed; Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-12-31 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: Galen D Reed; Cornelius von Morze; Robert Bok; Bertram L Koelsch; Mark Van Criekinge; Kenneth J Smith; Peder E Z Larson; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Bertram L Koelsch; Galen D Reed; John Kurhanewicz; Peder E Z Larson; Kayvan R Keshari; Myriam M Chaumeil; Robert Bok; Sabrina M Ronen; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Sarah J Nelson; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron; Peder E Z Larson; Andrea L Harzstark; Marcus Ferrone; Mark van Criekinge; Jose W Chang; Robert Bok; Ilwoo Park; Galen Reed; Lucas Carvajal; Eric J Small; Pamela Munster; Vivian K Weinberg; Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen; Albert P Chen; Ralph E Hurd; Liv-Ingrid Odegardstuen; Fraser J Robb; James Tropp; Jonathan A Murray Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Wellington Francisco Rodrigues; Camila Botelho Miguel; Marcelo Henrique Napimoga; Carlo Jose Freire Oliveira; Javier Emilio Lazo-Chica Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Geoffrey J Topping; Christian Hundshammer; Luca Nagel; Martin Grashei; Maximilian Aigner; Jason G Skinner; Rolf F Schulte; Franz Schilling Journal: MAGMA Date: 2019-12-06 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Renuka Sriram; Jeremy Gordon; Celine Baligand; Fayyaz Ahamed; Justin Delos Santos; Hecong Qin; Robert A Bok; Daniel B Vigneron; John Kurhanewicz; Peder E Z Larson; Zhen J Wang Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 6.639