| Literature DB >> 31790429 |
Shingo Kato1, Akito Iwasaki1, Yusuke Kurita1, Jun Arimoto1, Toh Yamamoto2, Sho Hasegawa1, Takamitsu Sato1, Kento Imajo1, Kunihiro Hosono1, Noritoshi Kobayashi3, Masato Yoneda1, Takuma Higurashi1, Kensuke Kubota1, Daisuke Utsunomiya2, Atsushi Nakajima1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since pancreatic steatosis is reported as a possible risk factor for pancreatic cancer, the development of a non-invasive method to quantify pancreatic steatosis is needed. Proton density fat fraction (PDFF) measurement is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) based method for quantitatively assessing the steatosis of a region of interest (ROI). Although it is commonly used for quantification of hepatic steatosis, pancreatic PDFF can greatly vary depending on the ROI's location because of the patchy nature of pancreatic fat accumulation. In this study, we attempted to quantify pancreatic steatosis by fat-water MRI with improved reproducibility.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31790429 PMCID: PMC6886808 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224921
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The schema of whole-pancreatic analysis and representative fat-water MRI images of low or high degree of pancreatic steatosis.
(A) The schema of whole-pancreatic analysis is shown. (B) Representative pancreatic images of fat-water MRI are shown. A white arrow indicates the pancreas. The left panel shows the low degree of pancreatic steatosis in a sample whose whole-pancreatic FF value was determined to be 1.20%. The right panel shows the high degree of pancreatic steatosis in a sample whose whole-pancreatic FF value was determined to be 34.87%.
Fig 2Evaluation of reproducibility of each measurement method.
(A) The representative result of the evaluation of the variations in values of hepatic or pancreatic PDFF depending on the positions of the ROIs is shown. The values of the pancreatic PDFF measured using small ROIs varied widely depending on the locations of the ROIs. (B) All measurements by observer #1 for intra-observer variability analysis are shown. (C) All measurements by 6 observers for inter-observer variability analysis are shown. The average value of five repeated measurements by each observer was taken as the measured value of the observer.
Clinical, serologic and histologic characteristics of the subjects.
| Characteristic | |
|---|---|
| N | 159 |
| Age, y, mean ± SD | 57.2 ± 14.5 |
| Sex, male/female | 87 / 71 |
| BMI, kg/m2, mean ± SD | 28.1 ± 4.6 |
| Diabetes, % | 41.1 |
| HbA1c, %, mean ± SD | 6.3 ± 1.1 |
| Fasting Blood Glucose, mg/dl, mean ± SD | 122.0 ± 40.5 |
| HOMA-IR (n = 129), mean ± SD | 7.4 ± 11.2 |
| smoke, % | 32.3 |
| Hypertension, % | 41.1 |
| Dyslipidemia, % | 79.1 |
| TG, mg/dl, mean ± SD | 171 ± 127 |
| LDL-C, mg/dl, mean ± SD | 118.2 ± 31.1 |
| HDL-C, mg/dl, mean ± SD | 55.5 ± 15.7 |
| LH ratio, mean ± SD | 2.29 ± 0.85 |
Fig 3Correlation between whole-pancreatic PDFF and the clinical characteristics.
Whole-pancreatic FF was correlated with age (left panel, p = 0.039), BMI (middle panel, p = 0.0093), and presence/absence of diabetes (right panel, p = 0.0055).
Correlation between whole-pancreatic PDFF and the clinical characteristics.
| Pancreas | Liver | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole | Head | Body and Tail | ||
| Characteristics | ||||
| Sex | 0.44 | 0.58 | 0.28 | 0.91 |
| Age >65 y | 0.49 | |||
| BMI >25 kg/m2 | 0.058 | |||
| Diabetes | 0.16 | |||
| HbA1c >6.5% | 0.43 | |||
| Fasting Blood Glucose >126mg/dl | 0.28 | 0.20 | 0.36 | 0.082 |
| HOMA-IR >2.5 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.77 | 0.069 |
| Smoker | 0.75 | 0.15 | 0.31 | 0.69 |
| Hypertension | 0.070 | 0.053 | 0.15 | 0.73 |
| Dyslipidemia | 0.50 | 0.61 | 0.15 | 0.053 |
| TG >150 mg/dl | 0.46 | 0.17 | 0.78 | |
| LDL-C >140 mg/dl | 0.071 | 0.25 | 0.26 | |
| LH ratio <1.5 | 0.15 | 0.22 | 0.12 | 0.016 |
*Significant
**For analysis of HOMA-IR, the sample number decreased to n = 129 because of missing data.
***Inverse correlation
Identified factors which were correlated with the degree of pancreatic steatosis by multiple logistic regression analysis.
| BMI >25 kg/m2 | 0.00095 | 4.13 (1.78–9.58) | |
| Sex (male/female) | 0.0015 | 3.21 (1.57–6.57) | |
| Age >65 y | 0.0065 | 2.94 (1.35–6.37) | |
| Diabetes (presence/absence) | 0.0041 | 2.06 (1.03–4.14) | |
| BMI >25 kg/m2 | 0.0045 | 3.14 (1.42–6.90) | |
| Diabetes (presence/absence) | 0.014 | 2.44 (1.20–4.97) | |
| TG >150 mg/dl | 0.042 | 2.06 (1.03–4.11) | |
| LDL >140 mg/dl | 0.0065 | 0.31 (0.14–0.72) | |
| Age >65 y | 0.00021 | 4.48 (2.02–9.89) | |
| BMI >25 kg/m2 | 0.020 | 3.76 (1.62–8.73) | |
| Sex (male/female) | 0.033 | 2.14 (1.06–4.31) | |
Hosmer-Lemeshow Test: p = 0.87 (whole-pancreatic PDFF), p = 0.51 (Head-PDFF), p = 0.61 (Body-tail PDFF).
Fig 4Correlation between whole-pancreatic PDFF and the hepatic PDFF or NAS score.
Whole-pancreatic PDFF was not correlated with hepatic PDFF (left panel, p = 0.76), and NAS score (right panel, p = 0.29). (B) Head-PDFF was not correlated with hepatic PDFF (left panel, p = 0.29), and NAS score (right panel, p = 0.25). (C) Body-tail PDFF was not correlated with hepatic PDFF (left panel, p = 0.87), and NAS score (right panel, p = 0.42).