Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 2812–2822 | Cite as

Liver fibrosis: stretched exponential model outperforms mono-exponential and bi-exponential models of diffusion-weighted MRI

  • Nieun Seo
  • Yong Eun Chung
  • Yung Nyun Park
  • Eunju Kim
  • Jinwoo Hwang
  • Myeong-Jin Kim
Magnetic Resonance

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the ability of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) parameters acquired from three different models for the diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis (HF).

Methods

Ninety-five patients underwent DWI using nine b values at 3 T magnetic resonance. The hepatic apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from a mono-exponential model, the true diffusion coefficient (D t ), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D p ) and perfusion fraction (f) from a biexponential model, and the distributed diffusion coefficient (DDC) and intravoxel heterogeneity index (α) from a stretched exponential model were compared with the pathological HF stage. For the stretched exponential model, parameters were also obtained using a dataset of six b values (DDC#, α#). The diagnostic performances of the parameters for HF staging were evaluated with Obuchowski measures and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. The measurement variability of DWI parameters was evaluated using the coefficient of variation (CoV).

Results

Diagnostic accuracy for HF staging was highest for DDC# (Obuchowski measures, 0.770 ± 0.03), and it was significantly higher than that of ADC (0.597 ± 0.05, p < 0.001), D t (0.575 ± 0.05, p < 0.001) and f (0.669 ± 0.04, p = 0.035). The parameters from stretched exponential DWI and D p showed higher areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) for determining significant fibrosis (≥F2) and cirrhosis (F = 4) than other parameters. However, D p showed significantly higher measurement variability (CoV, 74.6%) than DDC# (16.1%, p < 0.001) and α# (15.1%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Stretched exponential DWI is a promising method for HF staging with good diagnostic performance and fewer b-value acquisitions, allowing shorter acquisition time.

Key Points

• Stretched exponential DWI provides a precise and accurate model for HF staging.

• Stretched exponential DWI parameters are more reliable than D p from bi-exponential DWI model

• Acquisition of six b values is sufficient to obtain accurate DDC and α

Keywords

Liver Fibrosis Liver cirrhosis Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging 

Abbreviations

α

Alpha, Intravoxel heterogeneity index

α#

α obtained using a six-b-value dataset (in this study)

CoV

Coefficient of variation

DDC

Distributed diffusion coefficient

DDC#

DDC obtained using a six-b-value dataset (in this study)

Dp

Pseudo-diffusion coefficient

Dt

True diffusion coefficient

f

Perfusion fraction

HF

Hepatic fibrosis

IVIM

Intravoxel incoherent motion

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Yong Eun Chung.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Hyunsoo Yang in Yonsei University Health System performed statistical analysis, and he is not one of the authors.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Friedman SL (2003) Liver fibrosis—from bench to bedside. J Hepatol 38:S38–S53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fattovich G, Stroffolini T, Zagni I, Donato F (2004) Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: incidence and risk factors. Gastroenterology 127:S35–S50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Friedman SL, Bansal MB (2006) Reversal of hepatic fibrosis—fact or fantasy? Hepatology 43:S82–S88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Robertis R, D’Onofrio M, Demozzi E, Crosara S, Canestrini S, Pozzi Mucelli R (2014) Noninvasive diagnosis of cirrhosis: a review of different imaging modalities. World J Gastroenterol 20:7231–7241CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Asrani SK (2015) Incorporation of noninvasive measures of liver fibrosis into clinical practice: diagnosis and prognosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 13:2190–2204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aube C (2015) Imaging modalities for the diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 39:38–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poynard T, Munteanu M, Luckina E et al (2013) Liver fibrosis evaluation using real-time shear wave elastography: applicability and diagnostic performance using methods without a gold standard. J Hepatol 58:928–935Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang QB, Zhu H, Liu HL, Zhang B (2012) Performance of magnetic resonance elastography and diffusion-weighted imaging for the staging of hepatic fibrosis: a meta-analysis. Hepatology 56:239–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taouli B, Tolia AJ, Losada M et al (2007) Diffusion-weighted MRI for quantification of liver fibrosis: preliminary experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:799–806Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koinuma M, Ohashi I, Hanafusa K, Shibuya H (2005) Apparent diffusion coefficient measurements with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of hepatic fibrosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 22:80–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Laval-Jeantet M (1988) Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 168:497–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yoon JH, Lee JM, Baek JH et al (2014) Evaluation of hepatic fibrosis using intravoxel incoherent motion in diffusion-weighted liver MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:110–116Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chung SR, Lee SS, Kim N et al (2015) Intravoxel incoherent motion MRI for liver fibrosis assessment: a pilot study. Acta Radiol 56:1428–1436Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bennett KM, Schmainda KM, Bennett RT, Rowe DB, Lu H, Hyde JS (2003) Characterization of continuously distributed cortical water diffusion rates with a stretched-exponential model. Magn Reson Med 50:727–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson SW, Barry B, Soto J, Ozonoff A, O’Brien M, Jara H (2014) Characterizing non-gaussian, high b-value diffusion in liver fibrosis: stretched exponential and diffusional kurtosis modeling. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:827–834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bai Y, Lin Y, Tian J et al (2016) Grading of gliomas by using monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched exponential diffusion-weighted MR imaging and diffusion kurtosis MR imaging. Radiology 278:496–504Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winfield JM, OrtonMR, Collins DJ et al (2017) Separation of type and grade in cervical tumours using non-mono-exponential models of diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol 27:627–636Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Orton MR, Messiou C, Collins D et al (2016) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of metastatic abdominal and pelvic tumours is sensitive to early changes induced by a VEGF inhibitor using alternative diffusion attenuation models. Eur Radiol 26:1412–1419Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leitao HS, Doblas S, Garteiser P et al (2017) Hepatic fibrosis, inflammation, and steatosis: influence on the MR viscoelastic and diffusion parameters in patients with chronic liver disease. Radiology 283:98–107Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bulow R, Mensel B, Meffert P, Hernando D, Evert M, Kuhn JP (2013) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for staging liver fibrosis is less reliable in the presence of fat and iron. Eur Radiol 23:1281–1287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang Q, Yu NN, Wen LJ et al (2012) A preliminary study of apparent diffusion coefficient in chemotherapy-induced liver damage. Eur J Radiol 81:2943–2946Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Franca M, Marti-Bonmati L, Alberich-Bayarri A et al (2017) Evaluation of fibrosis and inflammation in diffuse liver diseases using intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:468–477Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Batts KP, Ludwig J (1995) Chronic hepatitis. An update on terminology and reporting. Am J Surg Pathol 19:1409–1417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cho A, Chung YE, Choi JS et al (2017) Feasibility of preoperative FDG PET/CT total hepatic glycolysis in the remnant liver for the prediction of postoperative liver function. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:624–631Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luciani A, Vignaud A, Cavet M et al (2008) Liver cirrhosis: intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging—pilot study. Radiology 249:891–899Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Merisaari H, Jambor I (2015) Optimization of b-value distribution for four mathematical models of prostate cancer diffusion-weighted imaging using b values up to 2000 s/mm(2): simulation and repeatability study. Magn Reson Med 73:1954–1969CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kwee TC, Galban CJ, Tsien C et al (2010) Intravoxel water diffusion heterogeneity imaging of human high-grade gliomas. NMR Biomed 23:179–187Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee Y, Lee SS, Kim N et al (2015) Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver: effect of triggering methods on regional variability and measurement repeatability of quantitative parameters. Radiology 274:405–415Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lambert J, Halfon P, Penaranda G, Bedossa P, Cacoub P, Carrat F (2008) How to measure the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive liver fibrosis indices: the area under the ROC curve revisited. Clin Chem 54:1372–1378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jiang H, Chen J, Gao R, Huang Z, Wu M, Song B (2017) Liver fibrosis staging with diffusion-weighted imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:490–501Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sheng RF, Wang HQ, Yang L et al (2017) Diffusion kurtosis imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging in assessment of liver fibrosis stage and necroinflammatory activity. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:1176–1182Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hennedige TP, Wang G, Leung FP et al (2017) Magnetic resonance elastography and diffusion weighted imaging in the evaluation of hepatic fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B. Gut Liver 11:401–408Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Li YT, Cercueil JP, Yuan J, Chen W, Loffroy R, Wang YX (2017) Liver intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) magnetic resonance imaging: a comprehensive review of published data on normal values and applications for fibrosis and tumor evaluation. Quant Imaging Med Surg 7:59–78CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ichikawa S, Motosugi U, Morisaka H et al (2015) MRI-based staging of hepatic fibrosis: comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging with magnetic resonance elastography. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:204–210Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Andreou A, Koh DM, Collins DJ et al (2013) Measurement reproducibility of perfusion fraction and pseudodiffusion coefficient derived by intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging in normal liver and metastases. Eur Radiol 23:428–434Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jerome NP, Miyazaki K, Collins DJ et al (2017) Repeatability of derived parameters from histograms following non-Gaussian diffusion modelling of diffusion-weighted imaging in a paediatric oncological cohort. Eur Radiol 27:345–353Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lemke A, Stieltjes B, Schad LR, Laun FB (2011) Toward an optimal distribution of b values for intravoxel incoherent motion imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 29:766–776CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    ter Voert EE, Delso G, Porto M, Huellner M, Veit-Haibach P (2016) Intravoxel incoherent motion protocol evaluation and data quality in normal and malignant liver tissue and comparison to the literature. Investig Radiol 51:90–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Castera L, Forns X, Alberti A (2008) Non-invasive evaluation of liver fibrosis using transient elastography. J Hepatol 48:835–847CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Severance HospitalYonsei University College of MedicineSeodaemun-guKorea
  2. 2.BK21 PLUS Project for Medical ScienceYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Pathology, Severance HospitalYonsei University College of MedicineSeodaemun-guKorea
  4. 4.Philips Healthcare KoreaSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations