Literature DB >> 31439261

Liver MRI susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) compared to T2* mapping in the presence of steatosis and fibrosis.

Verena C Obmann1, Christina Marx1, Annalisa Berzigotti2, Nando Mertineit1, Joris Hrycyk1, Christoph Gräni3, Lukas Ebner1, Michael Ith1, Johannes T Heverhagen1, Andreas Christe1, Adrian T Huber4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To show that both susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) and T2*-mapping are dependent on liver steatosis, which should be taken into account when using these parameters to grade liver fibrosis and cirrhosis.
METHODS: In this prospective study, a total of 174 patients without focal liver disease underwent multiparametric MRI at 3 T including SWI, T1- and T2* mapping, proton density fat fraction (PDFF) quantification and MR elastography. SWI, T2* and T1 were measured in the liver (4 locations), as well as in paraspinal muscles, to calculate the liver-to-muscle ratio (LMR). Liver and LMR values were compared among patients with different steatosis grades (PDFF < 5%, 5-10%, 10-20% and >20%), patients with normal, slightly increased and increased liver stiffness (<2.8 kPa, 2.8-3.5 kPa and >3.5 kPa, respectively). ANOVA with Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests as well as a multivariate analysis were used to compare values among groups and parameters.
RESULTS: SWI and T2* both differed significantly among groups with different steatosis grades (p < 0.001). However, SWI allowed a better differentiation among liver fibrosis grades (p < 0.001) than did T2* (p = 0.05). SWI LMR (p < 0.001) and T2* LMR (p = 0.036) showed a similar performance in differentiating among liver fibrosis grades.
CONCLUSION: SWI and T2*-mapping are strongly dependent on the liver steatosis grades. Nevertheless, both parameters are useful predictors for liver fibrosis when using a multiparametric approach.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hepatic fibrosis; Liver steatosis; Magnetic resonance elastography; Proton density fat fraction; Susceptibility weighted imaging; T2* mapping

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31439261     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.07.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  6 in total

Review 1.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Liver Fibrosis, Fat, and Iron.

Authors:  Christopher L Welle; Michael C Olson; Scott B Reeder; Sudhakar K Venkatesh
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 1.947

2.  Susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) for evaluating renal dysfunction in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a preliminary study using SWI parameters and SWI-based texture features.

Authors:  Zhenxing Jiang; Yu Wang; Jiule Ding; Shengnan Yu; Jinggang Zhang; Hua Zhou; Jia Di; Wei Xing
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-12

3.  The Efficiency of Fractional Anisotropy, Apparent Diffusion Coefficient, and Contrast Enhancement Index in Liver Fibrosis Staging.

Authors:  Umut Percem Orhan Soylemez; Deniz Turkyilmaz Mut; Canan Alatas Alkim; Huseyin Alkim; Banu Yılmaz Ozguven; Salih Boga; Muzaffer Basak; Sukru Mehmet Erturk
Journal:  Sisli Etfal Hastan Tip Bul       Date:  2022-03-28

Review 4.  Multiparametric MR mapping in clinical decision-making for diffuse liver disease.

Authors:  Helena B Thomaides-Brears; Rita Lepe; Rajarshi Banerjee; Carlos Duncker
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-08-05

5.  Liver segmental volume and attenuation ratio (LSVAR) on portal venous CT scans improves the detection of clinically significant liver fibrosis compared to liver segmental volume ratio (LSVR).

Authors:  V C Obmann; C Marx; J Hrycyk; A Berzigotti; L Ebner; N Mertineit; Ch Gräni; J T Heverhagen; A Christe; A T Huber
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-11-06

Review 6.  Survey of water proton longitudinal relaxation in liver in vivo.

Authors:  John Charles Waterton
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 2.310

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.