BACKGROUND: Signal intensity on T1 -weighted images (T1 WI) is associated with pancreatic fibrosis and HbA1c levels. PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of the pancreatic T1 value for assessment of subjects with normal and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). STUDY TYPE: A prospective single-institution study. POPULATION: In all, 95 consecutive patients with a known or suspected pancreatic disease. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: 3T/fast pancreatic T1 mapping using a modified Look-Locker sequence. ASSESSMENT: Following the American Diabetes Association criteria, patients were classified into three groups, as follows: no-diabetes subject, HbA1c < 5.7%; prediabetes, 5.7% ≤ HbA1c < 6.5%; and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), HbA1c ≥ 6.5%. Pancreatic T1 value and signal intensity ratio (SIR = SIpancreas /SImuscle ) using T1 WI were compared with the HbA1c values. STATISTICAL TESTS: Quantitative data were assessed with one-way analysis of variance, Fisher's and Mann-Whitney U tests, and receiver-operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The pancreatic T1 value was significantly longer in T2DM than in no-diabetes and prediabetes subjects (P < 0.05) and was significantly longer in prediabetes than in no-diabetes subjects (P < 0.05). The mean pancreatic T1 value was significantly lower in the low-value group (HbA1c < 5.7%) (906.3 msec) compared with the high-value group (HbA1c ≥ 6.5%) (993.8 msec) (P < 0.0001). SIR on T1 WI was significantly higher in the low-value group compared with the high-value group (P = 0.029). The sensitivities, specificities, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUCs) for differentiating the low- and high-value groups were 74.1%, 83.8%, and 0.82 in the pancreatic T1 values and 77.8%, 54.4%, and 0.63 in SIR on T1 WI, respectively. The specificity (P < 0.0001) and AUC (P = 0.0020) were significantly higher in the pancreatic T1 values than in SIR on T1 WI. DATA CONCLUSION: Pancreatic T1 value has the potential of being an imaging biomarker for the assessment of IGT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:711-718.
BACKGROUND: Signal intensity on T1 -weighted images (T1 WI) is associated with pancreatic fibrosis and HbA1c levels. PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of the pancreatic T1 value for assessment of subjects with normal and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). STUDY TYPE: A prospective single-institution study. POPULATION: In all, 95 consecutive patients with a known or suspected pancreatic disease. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: 3T/fast pancreatic T1 mapping using a modified Look-Locker sequence. ASSESSMENT: Following the American Diabetes Association criteria, patients were classified into three groups, as follows: no-diabetes subject, HbA1c < 5.7%; prediabetes, 5.7% ≤ HbA1c < 6.5%; and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), HbA1c ≥ 6.5%. Pancreatic T1 value and signal intensity ratio (SIR = SIpancreas /SImuscle ) using T1 WI were compared with the HbA1c values. STATISTICAL TESTS: Quantitative data were assessed with one-way analysis of variance, Fisher's and Mann-Whitney U tests, and receiver-operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The pancreatic T1 value was significantly longer in T2DM than in no-diabetes and prediabetes subjects (P < 0.05) and was significantly longer in prediabetes than in no-diabetes subjects (P < 0.05). The mean pancreatic T1 value was significantly lower in the low-value group (HbA1c < 5.7%) (906.3 msec) compared with the high-value group (HbA1c ≥ 6.5%) (993.8 msec) (P < 0.0001). SIR on T1 WI was significantly higher in the low-value group compared with the high-value group (P = 0.029). The sensitivities, specificities, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUCs) for differentiating the low- and high-value groups were 74.1%, 83.8%, and 0.82 in the pancreatic T1 values and 77.8%, 54.4%, and 0.63 in SIR on T1 WI, respectively. The specificity (P < 0.0001) and AUC (P = 0.0020) were significantly higher in the pancreatic T1 values than in SIR on T1 WI. DATA CONCLUSION:Pancreatic T1 value has the potential of being an imaging biomarker for the assessment of IGT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:711-718.
Authors: John Virostko; Richard C Craddock; Jonathan M Williams; Taylor M Triolo; Melissa A Hilmes; Hakmook Kang; Liping Du; Jordan J Wright; Mara Kinney; Jeffrey H Maki; Milica Medved; Michaela Waibel; Thomas W H Kay; Helen E Thomas; Siri Atma W Greeley; Andrea K Steck; Daniel J Moore; Alvin C Powers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lixia Wang; Srinivas Gaddam; Nan Wang; Yibin Xie; Zixin Deng; Zhengwei Zhou; Zhaoyang Fan; Tao Jiang; Anthony G Christodoulou; Fei Han; Simon K Lo; Ashley M Wachsman; Andrew Eugene Hendifar; Stephen J Pandol; Debiao Li Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 4.566