| Literature DB >> 29872492 |
Cuiyun Chen1, Fangfang Fu1, Jing Zhang2, Fangfang Guo3, Meiyun Wang1, Shaocheng Zhu1, Dapeng Shi1, Yuwei Tian2.
Abstract
To evaluate hepatic fibrosis with a monoexponential model of intravoxel incoherent motion magnetic resonance imaging, and assess the potential application value of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) in diffusion-weighted imaging (IVIM-DWI) in determining staging of liver fibrosis. 28 patients with hepatic fibrosis and 25 volunteers with healthy livers had IVIM examination and conventional MRI. All standard apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of IVIM raw data were post-processed off-line after completion of data collection. All regions of interest (ROIs) were manually positioned by two experienced radiologists. All values of the different fibrosis stages in the study group were compared using independent sample t tests. Using ROC analysis, both AUC values of ADCtotal and ADC0-400-600-800 from study and control group were found to be between 0.8 and 1 for staging fibrosis. The mean ADCtotal and ADC0-400-600-800 values of the liver in the study group were significantly lower than the values in the control group (P < 0.05). Spearman rho correlation analysis was used to determine the relationship among fibrosis stages and the ADCtotal and ADC0-400-600-800 in the study group. As the stage of the fibrosis increased, the values decreased. Significant differences between the two subgroups of liver fibrosis stages were found (P < 0.05). The monoexponential model of IVIM-DWI adopted multiple b values for quantitative analysis of the water molecules diffused in the tissue. It could be used as a noninvasive and valuable method for assessment of liver fibrosis.Entities:
Keywords: IVIM-DWI; liver fibrosis; magnetic resonance imaging; monoexponential model
Year: 2018 PMID: 29872492 PMCID: PMC5973853 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.24758
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Distribution of various stages of fibrosis with biochemical markers of liver function
| Fibrosis Stage | ALT | AST | TP | ALB | TBIL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1(Mild fibrosis) | 65 | 33 | 75.1 | 45.5 | 12.2 |
| F1(Mild fibrosis) | 38 | 25 | 70.4 | 44.7 | 9.2 |
| F1(Mild fibrosis) | 56 | 45 | 66.3 | 44.7 | 16.9 |
| F1(Mild fibrosis) | 23 | 27 | 66.3 | 42.9 | 10.3 |
| F2(Moderate fibrosis) | 27 | 28 | 83.2 | 52 | 9.3 |
| F2(Moderate fibrosis) | 32 | 16 | 73.1 | 45.1 | 7.8 |
| F2(Moderate fibrosis) | 60 | 40 | 86.4 | 46.8 | 21.6 |
| F2(Moderate fibrosis) | 86 | 81 | 75.5 | 44.9 | 8.7 |
| F2(Moderate fibrosis) | 42 | 38 | 69.3 | 38.6 | 10.1 |
| F2(Moderate fibrosis) | 33 | 26 | 72.2 | 41.2 | 11.2 |
| F2(Moderate fibrosis) | 49 | 36 | 66.8 | 48 | 6.9 |
| F2(Moderate fibrosis) | 33 | 31 | 74.2 | 41.3 | 18.9 |
| F2(Moderate fibrosis) | 38 | 28 | 78.2 | 38.7 | 9.2 |
| F3(Advanced fibrosis) | 26 | 27 | 80.6 | 45.9 | 16.7 |
| F3(Advanced fibrosis) | 54 | 40 | 81 | 45.7 | 10.3 |
| F3(Advanced fibrosis) | 47 | 37 | 60.2 | 34.9 | 17.1 |
| F3(Advanced fibrosis) | 57 | 29 | 68.5 | 40.3 | 15.9 |
| F3(Advanced fibrosis) | 69 | 58 | 59.6 | 32.7 | 18.7 |
| F3(Advanced fibrosis) | 73 | 69 | 69.3 | 42.1 | 15.4 |
| F3(Advanced fibrosis) | 63 | 49 | 70 | 49.3 | 13.1 |
| F3(Advanced fibrosis) | 72 | 63 | 57.2 | 33.6 | 18.7 |
| F3(Advanced fibrosis) | 69 | 45 | 66.4 | 39.2 | 12.6 |
| F3(Advanced fibrosis) | 60 | 51 | 68.2 | 40.5 | 12.9 |
| F3(Advanced fibrosis) | 49 | 32 | 60.3 | 39.3 | 10.6 |
| F4(Cirrhosis) | 53 | 43 | 70.9 | 37.8 | 13.4 |
| F4(Cirrhosis) | 57 | 49 | 69.5 | 39.2 | 15.3 |
| F4(Cirrhosis) | 60 | 55 | 70.3 | 38.4 | 16.1 |
| F4(Cirrhosis) | 58 | 50 | 69.6 | 39 | 14.7 |
Figure 1A 40-year-old male patient with a history of hepatitis
(A, B) Multiple b DWIs, standard ADC. (C, D) HE staining with microscopic observation (×40) and Masson staining with microscopic observation (×40), respectively.
Multiple comparison analysis of variance among NL and LF segments
| Parameters | RP | RA | LM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| NL-ADCtotal | 1.36 ± 0.29 | 1.31 ± 0.21 | 1.40 ± 0.22 | 0.538*, 0.241†, 0.576‡ |
| NL-ADC0-400-600-800 | 1.23 ± 0.04 | 1.22 ± 0.04 | 1.22 ± 0.03 | 0.179*, 1.000†, 0.179‡ |
| LF-ADCtotal | 1.10 ± 0.17 | 1.10 ± 0.27 | 1.10 ± 0.26 | 0.952*, 0.971†, 0.981‡ |
| LF-ADC0-400-600-800 | 1.04 ± 0.15 | 1.02 ± 0.18 | 1.03 ± 0.17 | 0.582*, 0.859†, 0.709‡ |
RP = right posterior hepatic lobe; RA = right anterior hepatic lobe; LM = medial segment of the left lobe; NL = normal liver; LF = liver fibrosis; *= RP vs RA; †= RA vs LM; ‡= RP vs LM.
Figure 2Results of receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis for study and control groups
(A) ADCtotal. (B) ADC0-400-600-800.
ROC analysis of ADCtotal and ADC0-400-600-800 for the diagnosis of fibrosis
| Parameters | ADCtotal | ADC0-400-600-800 |
|---|---|---|
| AUC | 0.855 | 0.939 |
| 95% CI | 0.750–0.960 | 0.871–1.007 |
| Cutoff values | 1.240 | 1.173 |
| Sensitivity (%) | 88 | 100 |
| Specificity (%) | 78.6 | 85.7 |
| PPV (%) | 80.4 | 87.5 |
| NPV (%) | 86.8 | 100 |
Comparison of the mean ADCtotal and ADC0-400-600-800 values
| Parameters | Control Group (×10–3 mm2/s) | 95% CI | Study Group (×10–3 mm2/s) | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADCtotal | 1.36 ± 0.16 | 1.29–1.42 | 1.10 ± 0.20 | 1.02–1.17 | 0.000 | |
Comparison of mean values between fibrosis stages (t test)
| F0-1 VS F2-4 | values | F0-2 VS F3-4 | values | F0-3 VS F4 | values | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | |||
| ADCtotal | 1.34 ± 0.20 | 1.08 ± 0.19 | 0.001 | 1.27 ± 0.20 | 1.04 ± 0.20 | 0.002 | 1.22 ± 0.19 | 0.84 ± 0.21 | 0.001 |
| ADC0-400-600-800 | 1.20 ± 0.08 | 1.01 ± 0.17 | 0.000 | 1.16 ± 0.09 | 0.95 ± 0.18 | 0.000 | 1.13 ± 0.09 | 0.68 ± 0.14 | 0.000 |