Comparison between T1 relaxation time of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI and liver stiffness measurement of ultrasound elastography in the evaluation of cirrhotic liver

Purpose To compare four imaging approaches in cirrhotic estimation; pre‐enhancement T1 relaxation time (T1RT), reduction rate (RR) of T1RT, signal‐based liver‐to‐muscle ratio (L/M ratio) on gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (Gd‐EOB‐DTPA)‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of magnetic resonance imaging 2015-02, Vol.41 (2), p.329-338
Hauptverfasser: Okada, Masahiro, Murakami, Takamichi, Yada, Norihisa, Numata, Kazushi, Onoda, Minori, Hyodo, Tomoko, Inoue, Tatsuo, Ishii, Kazunari, Kudo, Masatoshi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose To compare four imaging approaches in cirrhotic estimation; pre‐enhancement T1 relaxation time (T1RT), reduction rate (RR) of T1RT, signal‐based liver‐to‐muscle ratio (L/M ratio) on gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (Gd‐EOB‐DTPA)‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) of US elastography. Materials and Methods Consecutive 58 patients with chronic liver diseases who underwent both Gd‐EOB‐DTPA‐enhanced MRI and FibroScan were analyzed. Four imaging approaches were evaluated by fibrosis score from liver biopsy and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results RR was found to be inversely correlated with LSM (r = −0.65). RR decreased with degree of fibrosis (F0‐F1, 58.5 ± 6.2%, versus F2‐F3‐F4, 48.8 ± 11.7%, P = 0.010, F0‐F1‐F2, 58.2 ± 6.2% versus F3‐F4, 45.5 ± 12.3%, P = 0.010 and F0‐F1, 58.5 ± 6.2%, versus F2‐F3, 52.1 ± 12.0%, P = 0.0038). LSM increased with degree of fibrosis (F0‐F1, 5.4 ± 2.2 kPa versus F2‐F3‐F3, 19.3 ± 15.5 kPa, P = 0.0011 and F0‐F1‐F2, 6.8 ± 3.6 kPa versus F3‐F4, 23.8 ± 17.1 kPa, P = 0.0029 and F0‐F1, 5.4 ± 2.2 kPa, versus F2‐F3, 11.4 ± 7.2 kPa, P = 0.0098). Area under ROC curves were 0.83 (F3‐F4), 0.72 (F2‐F3‐F4), 0.68 (F2‐F3) for RR and 0.83 (F3‐F4), 0.88 (F2‐F3‐F4), 0.81 (F2‐F3) for LSM in discriminating between patients with fibrosis. Conclusion The capability by LSM was better than those by RR of T1RT, pre‐enhancement T1RT, and L/M ratio to differentiate F ≥ 2, but LSM and RR of T1RT showed the same value to differentiate F ≥ 3. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015;41:329–338.© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
ISSN:1053-1807
1522-2586
DOI:10.1002/jmri.24529