Experimental study on early diagnosis of liver fibrosis using multi-parametric MRI
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005-1201.2019.10.021
- VernacularTitle: MR多参数成像诊断肝纤维化分期的价值
- Author:
Hao ZHANG
1
;
Liqiu ZOU
2
;
Kai ZHANG
1
;
Wenxin ZHONG
1
;
Hui GAO
1
;
Shoufang YAN
1
Author Information
1. Department of Radiology, Shenzhen Nanshan People's Hospital, Shenzhen 518052, China
2. Department of Radiology, the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518052, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Liver fibrosis;
Magnetic resonance elastography;
Susceptibility-weighted imaging
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiology
2019;53(10):900-904
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To assess diagnostic performance of multi-parametric MRI including MR elastography (MRE), susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) and T1ρ imaging in detecting the early stage of liver fibrosis (LF).
Methods:Eighty healthy rabbits were randomly divided into LF group (n=60) and control group (n=20). The LF group (n=12) and control group (n=5) were randomly selected at the end of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 15th week after injection of 50% CCl4 oil solution, respectively. All rabbits underwent 3.0 T MRI scans and histopathological Scheuer staging. Differences between groups were examined using one-way analysis of variance with Dunnett's T3 test. Spearman correlation was used to analyze the correlation between liver stiffness (LS), liver-to-muscle SI ratio (SIR), T1ρ value in different LF stages. ROC curve analysis was used to assess the diagnostic performance.
Results:Fifty-five rabbits were included in our study, which covered F0 (n=14), F1 (n=11), F2 (n=10), F3 (n=9) and F4 (n=11). Significant differences of all characteristic values were found among different LF stages (P<0.05).There were significant differences in LS values between F0 and F2, F3, F4, respectively; F1 and F3, F4, respectively; F2 and F4; F3 and F4 (P<0.05). There were significant differences in SIR between F0 and F2, F3, F4, respectively; F1 and F2, F3, F4, respectively; F2 and F4 (P<0.05). T1ρ value showed significant differences between F0, F1, F2, F3 and F4, respectively (P<0.05). LS, SIR, and T1ρ values were correlated with LF stage (r=0.910, -0.808, 0.512, respectively, P<0.01). The area under curve (AUC) for LS value were greater than those for the other two methods (0.953 for≥F1, 0.949 for≥F2, 0.986 for≥F3, 0.979 for F4). The AUCs of the combination of MRE and SWI for detecting≥F1 was 0.965, for≥F2 was 0.983, for≥F3 was 0.991, and for F4 was 0.950. Combining all three MR methods showed the highest diagnostic performance for staging LF with AUCs of 0.969, 0.985, 0.996 and 1.000.
Conclusion:MRE is the most prominent MRI method, and combination of MRE and SWI show higher diagnostic performance than the others for staging LF; however, combining all three MR methods exhibits the most excellent diagnostic efficacy.
