Fangfang Fu1, Xiaodong Li1, Qiuyu Liu2, Cuiyun Chen1, Yan Bai1, Dapeng Shi1, Jia Sang3, Kaiyu Wang4, Meiyun Wang5. 1. Department of Medical Imaging, Henan Provincial People's Hospital & People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, 7 Weiwu Road, Zhengzhou, 450003, Henan, China. 2. Department of Pathology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450003, Henan, China. 3. Department of Infectious Diseases, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450003, Henan, China. 4. Department of MR Research China, GE Healthcare, Beijing, 100000, China. 5. Department of Medical Imaging, Henan Provincial People's Hospital & People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, 7 Weiwu Road, Zhengzhou, 450003, Henan, China. mywang@ha.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the value of various diffusion parameters obtained from monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched-exponential diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) models for staging hepatic fibrosis (HF) and grading inflammatory activity in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). METHODS: 82 patients with CHB and 30 healthy volunteers underwent DWI with 13 b-values on a 3T MRI unit. The standard apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCst) was calculated using a monoexponential model. The true diffusion coefficient (Dt), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (Dp), and perfusion fraction (f) were calculated using a biexponential model. The distributed diffusion coefficient (DDC) and water-molecule diffusion heterogeneity index (α) were calculated using a stretched-exponential model. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed for diffusion parameters to compare the diagnosis performance. RESULTS: The distributions of hepatic fibrosis stages and the inflammatory activity grades (METAVIR scoring system) were as follows: F0, n = 1; F1, n = 16; F2, n = 31; F3, n = 19; and F4, n = 15. A0, n = 1; A1, n = 14; A2, n = 46; and A3, n = 21. ADCst, Dt and DDC values showed negative correlation with the fibrosis stage (r = - 0.418, - 0.717 and - 0.630, all P < 0.001) and the inflammatory activity grade (r = - 0.514, - 0.626 and - 0.550, all P < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of Dt (AUC = 0.854, 0.881) and DDC (AUC = 0.794, 0.834) were significantly higher than that of ADCst (AUC = 0.637, 0.717) in discriminating significant fibrosis (≥ F2) and advanced fibrosis (≥ F3) (all P < 0.05). Although Dt (AUC = 0.867, 0.836) and DDC (AUC = 0.810, 0.808) showed higher AUCs than ADCst (AUC = 0.767, 0.803), there was no significant difference in their ability in detecting inflammatory activity grade ≥ A2/A3 (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Dt and DDC are promising indicators and outperform ADCst for staging HF. While both Dt and DDC have similar diagnostic performance compared with ADCst for grading inflammatory activity.
PURPOSE: To assess the value of various diffusion parameters obtained from monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched-exponential diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) models for staging hepatic fibrosis (HF) and grading inflammatory activity in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). METHODS: 82 patients with CHB and 30 healthy volunteers underwent DWI with 13 b-values on a 3T MRI unit. The standard apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCst) was calculated using a monoexponential model. The true diffusion coefficient (Dt), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (Dp), and perfusion fraction (f) were calculated using a biexponential model. The distributed diffusion coefficient (DDC) and water-molecule diffusion heterogeneity index (α) were calculated using a stretched-exponential model. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed for diffusion parameters to compare the diagnosis performance. RESULTS: The distributions of hepatic fibrosis stages and the inflammatory activity grades (METAVIR scoring system) were as follows: F0, n = 1; F1, n = 16; F2, n = 31; F3, n = 19; and F4, n = 15. A0, n = 1; A1, n = 14; A2, n = 46; and A3, n = 21. ADCst, Dt and DDC values showed negative correlation with the fibrosis stage (r = - 0.418, - 0.717 and - 0.630, all P < 0.001) and the inflammatory activity grade (r = - 0.514, - 0.626 and - 0.550, all P < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of Dt (AUC = 0.854, 0.881) and DDC (AUC = 0.794, 0.834) were significantly higher than that of ADCst (AUC = 0.637, 0.717) in discriminating significant fibrosis (≥ F2) and advanced fibrosis (≥ F3) (all P < 0.05). Although Dt (AUC = 0.867, 0.836) and DDC (AUC = 0.810, 0.808) showed higher AUCs than ADCst (AUC = 0.767, 0.803), there was no significant difference in their ability in detecting inflammatory activity grade ≥ A2/A3 (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Dt and DDC are promising indicators and outperform ADCst for staging HF. While both Dt and DDC have similar diagnostic performance compared with ADCst for grading inflammatory activity.
Authors: Kevin M Bennett; Kathleen M Schmainda; Raoqiong Tong Bennett; Daniel B Rowe; Hanbing Lu; James S Hyde Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ricardo Donners; Carmen Zaugg; Julian E Gehweiler; Tuyana Boldanova; Markus H Heim; Luigi M Terracciano; Daniel T Boll Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2022-02
Authors: Sophie von Ulmenstein; Sanja Bogdanovic; Hanna Honcharova-Biletska; Sena Blümel; Ansgar R Deibel; Daniel Segna; Christoph Jüngst; Achim Weber; Thomas Kuntzen; Christoph Gubler; Cäcilia S Reiner Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2022-08-29