Ke Ding1, Manrong Liu2, Xue Wei3, Ruisui Huang3, Jiong Chen3, Shanjin Lu3, Dacheng Wang3, Wei Lu4. 1. Department of Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 13, Dancun Road, Nanning, 530031, China. dingke005@aliyun.com. 2. Department of Ultrasound, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530031, China. 3. Department of Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 13, Dancun Road, Nanning, 530031, China. 4. Department of Pathology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, 530031, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate different stages of liver fibrosis in cynomolgus monkeys by comparing magnetic resonance-perfusion weighted imaging (MR-PWI) quantitative and semi-quantitative parameters, and confirm the best detection indicators for diagnosis of liver fibrosis. METHODS: A liver fibrosis model of different stages (S0-S4) was established in cynomolgus monkeys. The changes in MR-PWI quantitative and semi-quantitative parameters with the progression of liver fibrosis were investigated. RESULTS: MR-PWI quantitative parameters gradually decreased with the progression of liver fibrosis. Hepatic arterial perfusion index (HPI) was found to increase with the progression of liver fibrosis and significant differences of HPI between each group were observed. There was a highly positive correlation between HPI and the stages of liver fibrosis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that HPI had the highest efficacy of the MR-PWI quantitative parameters for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis. The MR-PW semi-quantitative parameters gradually reduced with the progression of liver fibrosis, and the differences were statistically significant between stages S3-S4 and S0-S2. Time to peak (TPP) gradually extended and showed a positive correlation with the stages of liver fibrosis. TTP had the highest efficacy of the semi-quantitative parameters for diagnosis of liver fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Both the MR-PWI quantitative and semi-quantitative parameters of the liver fibrosis model in cynomolgus monkeys varied at different stages of liver fibrosis, and HPI and TTP were the best detection indices for quantitative and semi-quantitative evaluation of liver fibrosis, respectively.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate different stages of liver fibrosis in cynomolgus monkeys by comparing magnetic resonance-perfusion weighted imaging (MR-PWI) quantitative and semi-quantitative parameters, and confirm the best detection indicators for diagnosis of liver fibrosis. METHODS: A liver fibrosis model of different stages (S0-S4) was established in cynomolgus monkeys. The changes in MR-PWI quantitative and semi-quantitative parameters with the progression of liver fibrosis were investigated. RESULTS: MR-PWI quantitative parameters gradually decreased with the progression of liver fibrosis. Hepatic arterial perfusion index (HPI) was found to increase with the progression of liver fibrosis and significant differences of HPI between each group were observed. There was a highly positive correlation between HPI and the stages of liver fibrosis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that HPI had the highest efficacy of the MR-PWI quantitative parameters for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis. The MR-PW semi-quantitative parameters gradually reduced with the progression of liver fibrosis, and the differences were statistically significant between stages S3-S4 and S0-S2. Time to peak (TPP) gradually extended and showed a positive correlation with the stages of liver fibrosis. TTP had the highest efficacy of the semi-quantitative parameters for diagnosis of liver fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Both the MR-PWI quantitative and semi-quantitative parameters of the liver fibrosis model in cynomolgus monkeys varied at different stages of liver fibrosis, and HPI and TTP were the best detection indices for quantitative and semi-quantitative evaluation of liver fibrosis, respectively.
Authors: W Ray Kim; Thomas Berg; Tarik Asselah; Robert Flisiak; Scott Fung; Stuart C Gordon; Harry L A Janssen; Pietro Lampertico; Daryl Lau; Jeffrey D Bornstein; Raul E Aguilar Schall; Phillip Dinh; Leland J Yee; Eduardo B Martins; Seng Gee Lim; Rohit Loomba; Jörg Petersen; Maria Buti; Patrick Marcellin Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2015-12-02 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Mireen Friedrich-Rust; Katrin Wunder; Susanne Kriener; Fariba Sotoudeh; Swantje Richter; Joerg Bojunga; Eva Herrmann; Thierry Poynard; Christoph F Dietrich; Johannes Vermehren; Stefan Zeuzem; Christoph Sarrazin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mari Hagiwara; Henry Rusinek; Vivian S Lee; Mariela Losada; Michael A Bannan; Glenn A Krinsky; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 11.105