1. Assessment of hepatic fibrosis and inflammation with look-locker T1 mapping and magnetic resonance elastography with histopathology as reference standard
- Author
-
von Ulmenstein, Sophie, Bogdanovic, Sanja, Honcharova-Biletska, Hanna, Blümel, Sena, Deibel, Ansgar R, Segna, Daniel, Jüngst, Christoph, Weber, Achim, Kuntzen, Thomas, Gubler, Christoph, Reiner, Cäcilia S, University of Zurich, and Reiner, Cäcilia S
- Subjects
Inflammation ,Liver Cirrhosis ,2748 Urology ,Radiological and Ultrasound Technology ,10042 Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology ,Urology ,Gastroenterology ,610 Medicine & health ,Reference Standards ,Fibrosis ,Magnetic Resonance Imaging ,10219 Clinic for Gastroenterology and Hepatology ,Liver ,10049 Institute of Pathology and Molecular Pathology ,Elasticity Imaging Techniques ,Humans ,2741 Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging ,2715 Gastroenterology ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,3614 Radiological and Ultrasound Technology - Abstract
Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of T1 mapping and MR elastography (MRE) for staging of hepatic fibrosis and grading inflammation with histopathology as standard of reference. Methods 68 patients with various liver diseases undergoing liver biopsy for suspected fibrosis or with an established diagnosis of cirrhosis prospectively underwent look-locker inversion recovery T1 mapping and MRE. T1 relaxation time and liver stiffness (LS) were measured by two readers. Hepatic fibrosis and inflammation were histopathologically staged according to a standardized fibrosis (F0–F4) and inflammation (A0–A2) score. For statistical analysis, independent t test, and Mann–Whitney U test and ROC analysis were performed, the latter to determine the performance of T1 mapping and MRE for fibrosis staging and inflammation grading, as compared to histopathology. Results Histopathological analysis diagnosed 9 patients with F0 (13.2%), 21 with F1 (30.9%), 11 with F2 (16.2%), 10 with F3 (14.7%), and 17 with F4 (25.0%). Both T1 mapping and MRE showed significantly higher values for patients with significant fibrosis (F0-1 vs. F2-4; T1 mapping p p p p p = 0.01). T1 mapping showed a tendency toward lower diagnostic performance without statistical significance for significant fibrosis (F2-4) (AUC 0.79 vs. 0.91, p = 0.06) and with a significant difference compared to MRE for severe fibrosis (F3-4) (AUC 0.79 vs. 0.94, p = 0.03). For both T1 mapping and MRE, diagnostic performance for diagnosing hepatic inflammation (A1-2) was low (AUC 0.72 vs. 0.71, respectively). Conclusion T1 mapping is able to diagnose hepatic fibrosis, however, with a tendency toward lower diagnostic performance compared to MRE and thus may be used as an alternative to MRE for diagnosing hepatic fibrosis, whenever MRE is not available or likely to fail due to intrinsic factors of the patient. Both T1 mapping and MRE are probably not sufficient as standalone methods to diagnose hepatic inflammation with relatively low diagnostic accuracy.
- Published
- 2022