Comparison between T1 relaxation time of Gd‐EOB‐DTPA‐enhanced MRI and liver stiffness measurement of ultrasound elastography in the evaluation of cirrhotic liver. Issue 2 (17th December 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Okada, Masahiro; Murakami, Takamichi; Yada, Norihisa; Numata, Kazushi; Onoda, Minori; Hyodo, Tomoko; Inoue, Tatsuo; Ishii, Kazunari; Kudo, Masatoshi
• Is Part Of: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging. Volume 41:Issue 2(2015)
• Page Start: 329
• Page End: 338
• Publication Date: 2013-12-17
• Subjects: Magnetic resonance imaging -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24529
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1053-1807

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="jmri24529-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Purpose</title> <p>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.</p> </sec> <sec id="jmri24529-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Materials and Methods</title> <p>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.</p> </sec> <sec id="jmri24529-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>RR was found to be inversely correlated with LSM (<italic>r</italic> = −0.65). RR decreased with degree of fibrosis (F0‐F1, 58.5 ± 6.2%, versus F2‐F3‐F4, 48.8 ± 11.7%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.010, F0‐F1‐F2, 58.2 ± 6.2% versus F3‐F4, 45.5 ± 12.3%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.010 and F0‐F1, 58.5 ± 6.2%, versus F2‐F3, 52.1 ± 12.0%, <italic>P</italic> = 0.0038). LSM increased with degree of fibrosis (F0‐F1, 5.4 ± 2.2 kPa versus F2‐F3‐F3, 19.3 ± 15.5 kPa, <italic>P</italic> = 0.0011 and F0‐F1‐F2, 6.8 ± 3.6 kPa versus F3‐F4, 23.8 ± 17.1 kPa, <italic>P</italic> = 0.0029 and F0‐F1, 5.4 ± 2.2 kPa, versus F2‐F3, 11.4 ± 7.2 kPa, <italic>P</italic> = 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.</p> </sec> <sec id="jmri24529-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusion</title> <p>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. <bold>J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015;41:329–338.</bold>© <bold>2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc</bold>.</p> </sec> </abstract>