Jinning Li1, Huanhuan Liu1, Caiyuan Zhang1, Shuyan Yang1, Yanshu Wang1, Weibo Chen2, Xin Li3, Dengbin Wang4. 1. Department of Radiology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 1665, Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, 200092, China. 2. Philips Healthcare, Shanghai, 200233, China. 3. GE Healthcare, Shanghai, 210000, China. 4. Department of Radiology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 1665, Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, 200092, China. wangdengbin@xinhuamed.com.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the repeatability, reproducibility, and staging and monitoring of the performance of native T1 mapping for noninvasively assessing liver fibrosis in comparison with acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography. METHODS: The repeatability and reproducibility were explored in 8 male Sprague-Dawley rats with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Different degrees of fibrosis were induced in 52 rats by carbon-tetrachloride (CCl4) insult. Another 16 rats were used to build fibrosis progression and regression models. The native T1 values and shear wave velocity (SWV) were quantified by using native T1 mapping and ARFI elastography, respectively. The METAVIR system (F0-F4) was used for the staging of fibrosis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was determined to assess the performance of quantitative parameters for staging and monitoring fibrosis. RESULTS: Native T1 values shared similar good repeatability (ICC = 0.93) and reproducibility (ICC = 0.87) with SWV (ICC = 0.84-0.93). The AUC of native T1 values were 0.84, 0.84, and 0.75 for diagnosing significant fibrosis (≥ F2) and liver cirrhosis (F4) and detecting fibrosis progression, and those of SWV were 0.81, 0.86, and 0.7, respectively. No significant difference in performance was found between the two quantitative parameters (p ≥ 0.496). For detecting fibrosis regression, native T1 values had a better accuracy (AUC = 0.99) than SWV (AUC = 0.56; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Native T1 mapping may be a reliable and accurate method for noninvasively assessing liver fibrosis. Compared with ARFI elastography, it provides similar good repeatability and reproducibility, a similar high accuracy for staging fibrosis, and a better accuracy for detecting fibrosis regression. KEY POINTS: • Native T1 mapping is a valuable tool for noninvasively assessing liver fibrosis and can be measured on virtually all clinical MRI machines without additional hardware or gadolinium chelate injection. • Compared with acoustic radiation force impulse elastography, native T1 mapping yields similar good repeatability and reproducibility and a similar high accuracy for staging fibrosis. • Native T1 mapping provides a significantly better performance for detecting fibrosis regression than acoustic radiation force impulse elastography.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the repeatability, reproducibility, and staging and monitoring of the performance of native T1 mapping for noninvasively assessing liver fibrosis in comparison with acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography. METHODS: The repeatability and reproducibility were explored in 8 male Sprague-Dawley rats with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Different degrees of fibrosis were induced in 52 rats by carbon-tetrachloride (CCl4) insult. Another 16 rats were used to build fibrosis progression and regression models. The native T1 values and shear wave velocity (SWV) were quantified by using native T1 mapping and ARFI elastography, respectively. The METAVIR system (F0-F4) was used for the staging of fibrosis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was determined to assess the performance of quantitative parameters for staging and monitoring fibrosis. RESULTS: Native T1 values shared similar good repeatability (ICC = 0.93) and reproducibility (ICC = 0.87) with SWV (ICC = 0.84-0.93). The AUC of native T1 values were 0.84, 0.84, and 0.75 for diagnosing significant fibrosis (≥ F2) and liver cirrhosis (F4) and detecting fibrosis progression, and those of SWV were 0.81, 0.86, and 0.7, respectively. No significant difference in performance was found between the two quantitative parameters (p ≥ 0.496). For detecting fibrosis regression, native T1 values had a better accuracy (AUC = 0.99) than SWV (AUC = 0.56; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Native T1 mapping may be a reliable and accurate method for noninvasively assessing liver fibrosis. Compared with ARFI elastography, it provides similar good repeatability and reproducibility, a similar high accuracy for staging fibrosis, and a better accuracy for detecting fibrosis regression. KEY POINTS: • Native T1 mapping is a valuable tool for noninvasively assessing liver fibrosis and can be measured on virtually all clinical MRI machines without additional hardware or gadolinium chelate injection. • Compared with acoustic radiation force impulse elastography, native T1 mapping yields similar good repeatability and reproducibility and a similar high accuracy for staging fibrosis. • Native T1 mapping provides a significantly better performance for detecting fibrosis regression than acoustic radiation force impulse elastography.
Entities:
Keywords:
Elastography; Liver cirrhosis; Liver fibrosis; Magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: Caroline L Hoad; Naaventhan Palaniyappan; Philip Kaye; Yulia Chernova; Martin W James; Carolyn Costigan; Andrew Austin; Luca Marciani; Penny A Gowland; Indra N Guha; Susan T Francis; Guruprasad P Aithal Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Preeti Ramachandran; Suraj D Serai; Gruschen R Veldtman; Sean M Lang; Wojciech Mazur; Andrew T Trout; Jonathan R Dillman; Robert J Fleck; Michael D Taylor; Tarek Alsaied; Ryan A Moore Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-07
Authors: Ruo Fan Sheng; He Qing Wang; Li Yang; Kai Pu Jin; Yan Hong Xie; Cai Xia Fu; Meng Su Zeng Journal: Dig Liver Dis Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 4.088
Authors: Jayant A Talwalkar; Meng Yin; Jeff L Fidler; Schuyler O Sanderson; Patrick S Kamath; Richard L Ehman Journal: Hepatology Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Jeffrey Cui; Elhamy Heba; Carolyn Hernandez; William Haufe; Jonathan Hooker; Michael P Andre; Mark A Valasek; Hamed Aryafar; Claude B Sirlin; Rohit Loomba Journal: Hepatology Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Philippe Germain; Soraya El Ghannudi; Mi-Young Jeung; Patrick Ohlmann; Eric Epailly; Catherine Roy; Afshin Gangi Journal: Clin Med Insights Cardiol Date: 2014-12-01
Authors: Michael Pavlides; Rajarshi Banerjee; Joanne Sellwood; Catherine J Kelly; Matthew D Robson; Jonathan C Booth; Jane Collier; Stefan Neubauer; Eleanor Barnes Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Guilherme Moura Cunha; Patrick J Navin; Kathryn J Fowler; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Richard L Ehman; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 3.629
Authors: Sirisha Tadimalla; Daniel J Wilson; David Shelley; Gavin Bainbridge; Margaret Saysell; Iosif A Mendichovszky; Martin J Graves; J Ashley Guthrie; John C Waterton; Geoffrey J M Parker; Steven P Sourbron Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-02-27 Impact factor: 5.119