Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the effect of region-of-interest methods using gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging on staging hepatic fibrosis

  • ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the utility of T1 mapping on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and DWI for staging liver fibrosis and assess the influence of ROI positioning on interobserver variability, T1 relaxation time and ADC value.

Methods

This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and included 150 patients (mean age 58 years old; 91 men and 59 women). Liver fibrosis stages (S) were histopathologically determined. T1 relaxation time and ADC value of liver were measured by three distinct ROI protocols (the whole left lobe liver, the whole right lobe liver and the individual ROIs). T1 relaxation time measurements were compared with ADC values according to S scores. Interobserver variability for the T1 relaxation times and ADC values by the three distinct ROI protocols was analyzed by calculating the ICC.

Results

T1 relaxation time measurements by the three distinct ROI protocols on severe fibrosis stage were significantly higher than the relative values on mild fibrosis stage. The mean ADC values on severe fibrosis stage showed no significantly different when measured by means of the whole right lobe liver (p = 0.057) and the individual ROIs (p = 0.10), compared with the relative values on mild fibrosis stage. AUCs of T1 relaxation time and ADC value by the means of the three distinct ROI protocols were 0.614, 0.676, 0.677 and 0.656, 0.585, 0.575 for identification of severe fibrosis stage. The interobserver reproducibility was excellent for measuring the right lobe liver T1 relaxation time and the individual ROIs T1 relaxation time (ICC 0.814, 0.883, respectively).

Conclusions

T1 relaxation time measurements by means of the three distinct ROI protocols on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging were a potential biomarker in staging of hepatic fibrosis, which were more accuracy than DWI-ADC measurements. The more reproducible results were obtained when measuring T1 relaxation time of the whole right lobe liver and the individual ROIs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Castera L (2011) Invasive and non-invasive methods for the assessment of fibrosis and disease progression in chronic liver disease. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 25:291–303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hu Y, Gong HY, Lin HJ (2015) Real-time tissue elastography for assessment of liver stiffness in adults without known liver disease. J Ultrasound Med Sep 18. pii: 14.10001. (Epub ahead of print)

  3. Nakayama H, Takayama T (2015) Management before hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma with cirrhosis. World J Hepatol 7:2292–2302

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Robert S, Indra NG (2014) Non-invasive monitoring of liver fibrosis. Br Med Bull 112:97–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bedossa P, Carrat F (2009) Liver biopsy: the best, not the gold standard. J Hepatol 50:1–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Castera L (2008) Assessing liver fibrosis. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2:541–552

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD et al (2009) Liver biopsy. Hepatology 49:1017–1044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ichikawa S, Motosugi U, Morisaka H et al (2015) Comparison of the diagnostic accuracies of magnetic resonance elastography and transient elastography for hepatic fibrosis. Magn Reson Imaging 33:26–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Castera L, Negre I, Samii K, Buffet C (2001) Patient-administered nitrous oxide/oxygen inhalation provides safe and effective analgesia for percutaneous liver biopsy: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 96:1553–1557

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Aube C (2015) Imaging modalities for the diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 39:38–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lucidarme D, Foucher J, Le Bail B et al (2009) Factors of accuracy of transient elastography (fibroscan) for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 49:1083–1089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Castéra L, Vergniol J, Foucher J et al (2005) Prospective comparison of transient elastography, fibrotest, APRI, and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 128:343–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bohte AE, de Niet A, Jansen L et al (2014) Non-invasive evaluation of liver fibrosis: a comparison of ultrasound-based transient elastography and MR elastography in patients with viral hepatitis B and C. Eur Radiol 24:638–648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tokgoz O, Unal I, Turgut GG et al (2014) The value of liver and spleen ADC measurements in the diagnosis and follow up of hepatic fibrosis in chronic liver disease. Acta Clin Belg 69:426–432

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rihyeon K, Jeong ML, Cheong S et al (2015) Differentiation of intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcimona from hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MR imaging. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-4005-8

    Google Scholar 

  16. Haimerl M, Wachtler M, Platzek I et al (2013) Added value of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced Hepatobiliary phase MR imaging in evaluation of focal solid hepatic lesions. BMC Med Imaging 13:41

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Saito K, Ledsam J, Sourbron S et al (2014) Measuring hepatic functional reserve using low temporal resolution Gd-EOB-DTPA dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: a preliminary study comparing galactosyl human serum albumin scintigraphy with indocyanine green retention. Eur Radiol 24:112–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jang YJ, Cho SH, Bae JH et al (2013) Noninvasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis using gadoxetate-disodium-enhanced 3T MRI. Ann Hepatol 12:926–934

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ding Y, Rao SX, Chen CZ et al (2015) Liver fibrosis staging using T1 mapping on Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging compared with DW imaging. Clin Radiol 70:1096–1103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tsuda N, Okada M, Murakami T (2010) New proposal for the staging of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: evaluation of liver fibrosis on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. Eur J Radiol 73:137–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Watanabe H, Kanematsu M, Goshima S et al (2011) Staging hepatic fibrosis: comparison of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging—preliminary observations. Radiology 259:142–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lagadec M, Doblas S, Giraudeau C et al (2015) Advanced fibrosis: correlation between pharmacokinetic parameters at dynamic gadoxetate-enhanced MR imaging and hepatocyte organic anion transporter expression in rat liver. Radiology 274:379–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bae KE, Kim SY, Lee SS et al (2012) Assessment of hepatic function with Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced hepatic MRI. Dig Dis 30:617–622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yoshimura N, Saito K, Saguchi T et al (2013) Distinguishing hepatic hemangiomas from metastatic tumors using T1 mapping on gadoxetic-acid-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 31:23–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Marzi S, Stefanetti L, Seperati F et al (2015) Relationship between diffusion parameters derived from intravoxel incoherent motion MRI and perfusion measured by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of soft tissue tumors. NMR Biomed. doi:10.1002/nbm.3446

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Youth Program on Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning (Grant No. 20154Y0009).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai Medical Imaging Institute, No 138, Fenglin Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Ying Ding, Shengxiang Rao, Li Yang, Caizhong Chen & Mengsu Zeng

Authors
  1. Ying Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shengxiang Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Li Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caizhong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mengsu Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shengxiang Rao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no any conflict of interest information for all authors.

Ethical statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional. This retrospective study was approved by Institutional Review Board of our hospital and the requirement for informed consent was waived.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ding, Y., Rao, S., Yang, L. et al. Comparison of the effect of region-of-interest methods using gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging on staging hepatic fibrosis. Radiol med 121, 821–827 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-016-0669-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-016-0669-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation