| Literature DB >> 36210451 |
Caixin Qiu1, Shuangshuang Xie1, Yajie Sun1, Yongquan Yu2, Kun Zhang1, Xuyang Wang3, Jinxia Zhu4, Robert Grimm5, Wen Shen6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the correlation between the pathological changes and multi-parameter MRI characteristics of liver regeneration (LR) in a standard partial hepatectomy (PH) rat model.Entities:
Keywords: Diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI); Hepatectomy; Liver regeneration; Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36210451 PMCID: PMC9549623 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-022-02517-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Gastroenterol ISSN: 1471-230X Impact factor: 2.847
Fig. 1The experimental protocol in this study. PH = partial hepatectomy
Fig. 2A, representative cropped T1, T2, D, and K parametric maps of the regenerating liver from preoperative and postoperative rats; B, Changes of T1,T2,D and K values after PH. Error bars represent the standard deviations of the mean values. *Significant changes compared with control group
MR parameters of MRph and MRctrl groups changes and comparison across different time points
| Time point | T1 (ms) | T2 (ms) | D (× 10–3 mm2/s) | K | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MRph | MRctrl | MRph | MRctrl | MRph | MRctrl | MRph | MRctrl | |
| Baseline | 916.0 ± 62.9 | 921.8 ± 8.4 | 35.8 ± 1.4 | 35.4 ± 0.6 | 1.60 ± 0.09 | 1.54 ± 0.04 | 0.68 ± 0.02 | 0.68 ± 0.04 |
| Day 1 | 1031.3 ± 84.2 | 943.7 ± 31.7 | 48.8 ± 3.2*# | 36.1 ± 1.2 | 1.30 ± 0.17*# | 1.64 ± 0.04 | 0.55 ± 0.07*# | 0.65 ± 0.02 |
| Day 2 | 1081.8 ± 85.2* | 954.0 ± 54.7 | 50.00 ± 3.7* | 36.1 ± 0.8 | 1.21 ± 0.14* | 1.61 ± 0.05 | 0.46 ± 0.06* | 0.64 ± 0.02 |
| Day 3 | 1011.74 ± 36.7 | 941.9 ± 62.1 | 44.6 ± 3.2*# | 36.4 ± 1.1 | 1.14 ± 0.10* | 1.63 ± 0.06 | 0.54 ± 0.06* | 0.65 ± 0.02 |
| Day 5 | 1038.5 ± 86.1 | 958.7 ± 89.9 | 46.1 ± 1.6* | 34.5 ± 0.6# | 1.15 ± 0.17* | 1.64 ± 0.05 | 0.60 ± 0.05* | 0.67 ± 0.03 |
| Day 7 | 1050.1 ± 61.3* | 937.8 ± 34.6 | 41.7 ± 3.2*# | 34.6 ± 1.3 | 1.16 ± 0.18* | 1.60 ± 0.03 | 0.67 ± 0.03 | 0.66 ± 0.05 |
| Day 14 | 955.3 ± 141.8# | 895.3 ± 58.8 | 39.7 ± 2.7* | 36.0 ± 2.3# | 1.24 ± 0.09* | 1.62 ± 0.13 | 0.66 ± 0.03 | 0.65 ± 0.02 |
| Day 21 | 918.8 ± 68.4 | 902.1 ± 64.9 | 37.1 ± 3.6# | 34.3 ± 1.8# | 1.33 ± 0.12* | 1.61 ± 0.03 | 0.66 ± 0.04 | 0.63 ± 0.03 |
| F | 3.947 | 1.469 | 22.587 | 3.300 | 8.771 | 2.213 | 19.802 | 2.225 |
| 0.04 | 0.201 | < 0.001 | 0.006 | < 0.001 | 0.063 | < 0.001 | 0.052 | |
Data are shown as mean and standard deviation. D, corrected apparent diffusion; K, kurtosis
*Data are significantly different compared to baseline
#Data are significantly different compared to the adjacent time points
Changes and comparison of liver volume and pathologic parameters related to liver regeneration
| Time point | LV (cm3) | HTS (um) | Ki-67 indices (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 10.23 ± 0.56 | 197.54 ± 18.04 | 4.61 ± 1.08 |
| Day 1 | 4.84 ± 0.42*# | 537.02 ± 38.69*# | 31.78 ± 1.16*# |
| Day 2 | 6.06 ± 0.61*# | 464.11 ± 28.35*# | 44.52 ± 2.02*# |
| Day 3 | 7.01 ± 0.73*# | 452.6 ± 54.69* | 19.22 ± 1.39*# |
| Day 5 | 7.87 ± 0.66*# | 408.66 ± 17.57* | 11.38 ± 1.33*# |
| Day 7 | 8.31 ± 0.56* | 367.76 ± 25.41* | 8.51 ± 0.78*# |
| Day 14 | 8.79 ± 0.33* | 304.31 ± 25.05*# | 5.08 ± 1.29# |
| Day 21 | 9.21 ± 0.65* | 215.57 ± 19.01 | 4.35 ± 0.98 |
| F | 115.080 | 93.381 | 903.031 |
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
Data are shown as mean and standard deviation. LV, Liver volume; HTS, Hepatocyte size
*Data are significantly different compared to baseline
#Data are significantly different compared to the adjacent time points
Fig. 3Characteristics of liver tissue preoperative and postoperative. A, Hematoxylin–eosin staining (× 400) and Ki-67 proliferation activity staining (× 400). B, Liver volume growth, hepatocyte size, Ki-67 proliferation indexes, inflammation score, and steatosis grade. Error bars represent the standard deviations of the mean values. * Data are significantly different compared to baseline
Correlations between MR and pathologic analysis parameters
| Characteristic | T1(ms) | T2(ms) | D (× 10−3mm2/s) | K | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | r | r | r | |||||
| LV (cm3) | − 0.481 | < 0.001 | − 0.764 | < 0.001 | 0.364 | 0.006 | 0.595 | < 0.001 |
| Ki-67 (%) | 0.444 | < 0.001 | 0.765 | < 0.001 | − 0.208 | 0.124 | − 0.807 | < 0.001 |
| Hepatocyte size (µm) | 0.495 | < 0.001 | 0.830 | < 0.001 | − 0.415 | < 0.001 | − 0.615 | < 0.001 |
| Steatosis grade | 0.476 | < 0.001 | 0.814 | < 0.001 | − 0.337 | 0.011 | − 0.725 | < 0.001 |
| Inflammation | 0.421 | 0.001 | 0.809 | < 0.001 | − 0.072 | 0.596 | − 0.724 | < 0.001 |
Significant results are in bold
D, corrected apparent diffusion; K, kurtosis; LV, Liver volume
r = : |0.0–0.2|, very weak to negligible correlation; |0.2–0.4|, weak correlation; |0.4–0.7|, moderate correlation; |0.7–0.9|, strong correlation; and |0.9–1.0|, very strong correlation
Fig. 4A, Correlation heatmaps for quantitative MR imaging parameters and pathological measurements related to liver regeneration. LV, liver volume; HTS, hepatocyte size; B, Spearman correlation between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters and steatosis grade; C, Spearman correlation between MR parameters and inflammation score