David H Hoffman1, Abimbola Ayoola1, Dominik Nickel2, Fei Han2, Hersh Chandarana1, Krishna Prasad Shanbhogue3. 1. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, 660 First Ave, New York, NY, 10016, USA. 2. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, 660 First Ave, New York, NY, 10016, USA. Krishna.Shanbhogue@nyulangone.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare liver stiffness measurements obtained from MR elastography with liver T1 relaxation times obtained from T1 mapping and T2 relaxation times obtained from T2 mapping for detection and staging of liver fibrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 223 patients with known or suspected liver disease underwent MRI of the liver with T1 mapping (Look-Locker sequence) and 2D SE-EPI MR elastography (MRE) sequences. 139 of these patients also underwent T2 mapping with radial T2 TSE sequence. Two readers (R1 & R2) measured liver stiffness, T1 relaxation times and T2 relaxation times. T1 and T2 times were correlated with stiffness measurements. ROC analysis was used to compare the performance of both techniques in discriminating fibrosis stage in 23 patients who underwent liver biopsy. RESULTS: For each reader there was significant moderate positive correlation between liver MRE and liver T1 mapping (r = 0.49 and 0.36). There was significant moderate positive correlation between liver T2 mapping and each of MRE and T1 mapping for one of the readers (r = 0.40 and 0.27). AUC for differentiating early (F0-F2) from advanced (F3-F4) fibrosis in biopsied patients was 0.975 (R1) and 0.925 (R2) for MRE, 0.671 (R1) and 0.642 (R2) for T1 mapping and 0.671 (R1) and 0.743 (R2) for T2 mapping. Inter-reader agreement was good for MRE (ICC = 0.84) substantial for T1 mapping (0.94) and T2 mapping (0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Liver T1 and T2 mapping showed moderate positive correlation with MR elastography. Accuracy of MRE is however superior to T1 and T2 mapping in the subset of patients who underwent liver biopsy. Accuracy of combination of MRE and T1 mapping/T2 mapping was not superior to MRE alone.
PURPOSE: To compare liver stiffness measurements obtained from MR elastography with liver T1 relaxation times obtained from T1 mapping and T2 relaxation times obtained from T2 mapping for detection and staging of liver fibrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 223 patients with known or suspected liver disease underwent MRI of the liver with T1 mapping (Look-Locker sequence) and 2D SE-EPI MR elastography (MRE) sequences. 139 of these patients also underwent T2 mapping with radial T2 TSE sequence. Two readers (R1 & R2) measured liver stiffness, T1 relaxation times and T2 relaxation times. T1 and T2 times were correlated with stiffness measurements. ROC analysis was used to compare the performance of both techniques in discriminating fibrosis stage in 23 patients who underwent liver biopsy. RESULTS: For each reader there was significant moderate positive correlation between liver MRE and liver T1 mapping (r = 0.49 and 0.36). There was significant moderate positive correlation between liver T2 mapping and each of MRE and T1 mapping for one of the readers (r = 0.40 and 0.27). AUC for differentiating early (F0-F2) from advanced (F3-F4) fibrosis in biopsied patients was 0.975 (R1) and 0.925 (R2) for MRE, 0.671 (R1) and 0.642 (R2) for T1 mapping and 0.671 (R1) and 0.743 (R2) for T2 mapping. Inter-reader agreement was good for MRE (ICC = 0.84) substantial for T1 mapping (0.94) and T2 mapping (0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Liver T1 and T2 mapping showed moderate positive correlation with MR elastography. Accuracy of MRE is however superior to T1 and T2 mapping in the subset of patients who underwent liver biopsy. Accuracy of combination of MRE and T1 mapping/T2 mapping was not superior to MRE alone.
Authors: Michel Ble; Bogdan Procopet; Rosa Miquel; Virginia Hernandez-Gea; Juan Carlos García-Pagán Journal: Clin Liver Dis Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 6.126
Authors: Rahul Rustogi; Jeanne Horowitz; Carla Harmath; Yi Wang; Hamid Chalian; Daniel R Ganger; Zongming E Chen; Bradley D Bolster; Saurabh Shah; Frank H Miller Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: A Manduca; T E Oliphant; M A Dresner; J L Mahowald; S A Kruse; E Amromin; J P Felmlee; J F Greenleaf; R L Ehman Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Heng Chi; Bettina E Hansen; Wing Yin Tang; Jeoffrey N L Schouten; Dave Sprengers; Pavel Taimr; Harry L A Janssen; Robert J de Knegt Journal: Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 2.566
Authors: Aparna Srinivasa Babu; Michael L Wells; Oleg M Teytelboym; Justin E Mackey; Frank H Miller; Benjamin M Yeh; Richard L Ehman; Sudhakar K Venkatesh Journal: Radiographics Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Siddharth Singh; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Zhen Wang; Frank H Miller; Utaroh Motosugi; Russell N Low; Tarek Hassanein; Patrick Asbach; Edmund M Godfrey; Meng Yin; Jun Chen; Andrew P Keaveny; Mellena Bridges; Anneloes Bohte; Mohammad Hassan Murad; David J Lomas; Jayant A Talwalkar; Richard L Ehman Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 11.382
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
Authors: Jonathan R Dillman; Stefanie W Benoit; Deep B Gandhi; Andrew T Trout; Jean A Tkach; Katherine VandenHeuvel; Prasad Devarajan Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2022-03-02