Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 337–345 | Cite as

Native T1 mapping compared to ultrasound elastography for staging and monitoring liver fibrosis: an animal study of repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy

  • Jinning Li
  • Huanhuan Liu
  • Caiyuan Zhang
  • Shuyan Yang
  • Yanshu Wang
  • Weibo Chen
  • Xin Li
  • Dengbin WangEmail author
Magnetic Resonance
  • 149 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the repeatability, reproducibility, and staging and monitoring of the performance of native T1 mapping for noninvasively assessing liver fibrosis in comparison with acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography.

Methods

The repeatability and reproducibility were explored in 8 male Sprague-Dawley rats with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Different degrees of fibrosis were induced in 52 rats by carbon-tetrachloride (CCl4) insult. Another 16 rats were used to build fibrosis progression and regression models. The native T1 values and shear wave velocity (SWV) were quantified by using native T1 mapping and ARFI elastography, respectively. The METAVIR system (F0–F4) was used for the staging of fibrosis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was determined to assess the performance of quantitative parameters for staging and monitoring fibrosis.

Results

Native T1 values shared similar good repeatability (ICC = 0.93) and reproducibility (ICC = 0.87) with SWV (ICC = 0.84–0.93). The AUC of native T1 values were 0.84, 0.84, and 0.75 for diagnosing significant fibrosis (≥ F2) and liver cirrhosis (F4) and detecting fibrosis progression, and those of SWV were 0.81, 0.86, and 0.7, respectively. No significant difference in performance was found between the two quantitative parameters (p ≥ 0.496). For detecting fibrosis regression, native T1 values had a better accuracy (AUC = 0.99) than SWV (AUC = 0.56; p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Native T1 mapping may be a reliable and accurate method for noninvasively assessing liver fibrosis. Compared with ARFI elastography, it provides similar good repeatability and reproducibility, a similar high accuracy for staging fibrosis, and a better accuracy for detecting fibrosis regression.

Key Points

• Native T1 mapping is a valuable tool for noninvasively assessing liver fibrosis and can be measured on virtually all clinical MRI machines without additional hardware or gadolinium chelate injection.

• Compared with acoustic radiation force impulse elastography, native T1 mapping yields similar good repeatability and reproducibility and a similar high accuracy for staging fibrosis.

• Native T1 mapping provides a significantly better performance for detecting fibrosis regression than acoustic radiation force impulse elastography.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Elastography Liver fibrosis Liver cirrhosis 

Abbreviations

ARFI

Acoustic radiation force impulse

AUC

Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve

CCl4

Carbon tetrachloride

ICC

Intraclass correlation coefficient

MRE

Magnetic resonance elastography

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

ROI

Region of interest

SWV

Shear wave velocity

WsCV

Within-subject coefficient of variation

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Shengli Gu, Department of Ultrasound, for performing the ARFI elastography on livers of rats and Dr. Xiaoying Wang, Department of Pathology (Xinhua Hospital), for pathological analysis of liver specimens. We are also grateful to Xi Zhang, PhD (Clinical Research Unite, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China), for her statistical support of this study.

Funding

This work was supported by the fund of National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC No. 81371621), Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Center (No. SHDC 22015022), and Shanghai Municipal Planning Commission of Science and Research Fund (201640143). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dengbin Wang, MD, PhD, the chief of the Department of Radiology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine.

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

We have consulted an expert in statistics (Xi Zhang, PhD, Clinical Research Unite, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China).

Informed consent

All experimental procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine.

Methodology

• prospective

• experimental study

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2019_6335_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.6 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 2611 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Petitclerc L, Sebastiani G, Gilbert G, Cloutier G, Tang A (2017) Liver fibrosis: review of current imaging and MRI quantification techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 45:1276–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhuang Y, Ding H, Zhang Y, Sun H, Xu C, Wang W (2017) Two-dimensional shear-wave elastography performance in the noninvasive evaluation of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B: comparison with serum fibrosis indexes. Radiology 283:873–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Friedrich-Rust M, Wunder K, Kriener S et al (2009) Liver fibrosis in viral hepatitis: noninvasive assessment with acoustic radiation force impulse imaging versus transient elastography. Radiology 252:595–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsochatzis EA, Gurusamy KS, Ntaoula S, Cholongitas E, Davidson BR, Burroughs AK (2011) Elastography for the diagnosis of severity of fibrosis in chronic liver disease: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. J Hepatol 54:650–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Talwalkar JA, Yin M, Fidler JL, Sanderson SO, Kamath PS, Ehman RL (2008) Magnetic resonance imaging of hepatic fibrosis: emerging clinical applications. Hepatology 47:332–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor AJ, Salerno M, Dharmakumar R, Jerosch-Herold M (2016) T1 mapping: basic techniques and clinical applications. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 9:67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Germain P, El Ghannudi S, Jeung MY et al (2014) Native T1 mapping of the heart - a pictorial review. Clin Med Insights Cardiol 8:1–11PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sheng RF, Wang HQ, Yang L et al (2017) Assessment of liver fibrosis using T1 mapping on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance. Dig Liver Dis 49:789–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feier D, Balassy C, Bastati N, Stift J, Badea R, Ba-Ssalamah A (2013) Liver fibrosis: histopathologic and biochemical influences on diagnostic efficacy of hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced MR imaging in staging. Radiology 269:460–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nehra AK, McDonald RJ, Bluhm AM et al (2018) Accumulation of gadolinium in human cerebrospinal fluid after gadobutrol-enhanced MR imaging: a prospective observational cohort study. Radiology 288:416–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ramachandran P, Serai SD, Veldtman GR et al (2019) Assessment of liver T1 mapping in fontan patients and its correlation with magnetic resonance elastography-derived liver stiffness. Abdom Radiol (NY) 44(7):2403–2408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ostovaneh MR, Ambale-Venkatesh B, Fuji T et al (2018) Association of Liver Fibrosis With Cardiovascular Diseases in the General Population: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 11 (3)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Banerjee R, Pavlides M, Tunnicliffe EM et al (2014) Multiparametric magnetic resonance for the non-invasive diagnosis of liver disease. J Hepatol 60:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pavlides M, Banerjee R, Sellwood J et al (2016) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predicts clinical outcomes in patients with chronic liver disease. J Hepatol 64:308–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhao F, Wang YX, Yuan J et al (2012) MR T1rho as an imaging biomarker for monitoring liver injury progression and regression: an experimental study in rats with carbon tetrachloride intoxication. Eur Radiol 22:1709–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deugnier Y, Turlin B (2011) Pathology of hepatic iron overload. Semin Liver Dis 31:260–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balakrishnan M, Souza F, Muñoz C et al (2016) Liver and spleen stiffness measurements by point shear wave elastography via acoustic radiation force impulse: intraobserver and interobserver variability and predictors of variability in a US population. J Ultrasound Med 35:2373–2380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guo Y, Parthasarathy S, Goyal P, McCarthy RJ, Larson AC, Miller FH (2015) Magnetic resonance elastography and acoustic radiation force impulse for staging hepatic fibrosis: a meta-analysis. Abdom Imaging 40:818–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hu X, Qiu L, Liu D, Qian L (2017) Acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography for noninvasive evaluation of hepatic fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B and C patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Ultrason 19:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li Z, Sun J, Hu X et al (2016) Assessment of liver fibrosis by variable flip angle T1 mapping at 3.0T. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:698–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Toshima T, Shirabe K, Takeishi K et al (2011) New method for assessing liver fibrosis based on acoustic radiation force impulse: a special reference to the difference between right and left liver. J Gastroenterol 46:705–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Diaz S, Mostafavi B, Tanash HA, Piitulainen E (2018) Acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography in a cohort of alpha-1 antitrypsin-deficient individuals and healthy volunteers. Acta Radiol Open 7:2058460118768363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dekkers IA, Lamb HJ (2018) Clinical application and technical considerations of T1 & T2(*) mapping in cardiac, liver, and renal imaging. Br J Radiol 91:20170825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Unal E, Idilman IS, Karçaaltıncaba M (2017) Multiparametric or practical quantitative liver MRI: towards millisecond, fat fraction, kilopascal and function era. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 11:167–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Henninger B, Kremser C, Rauch S et al (2012) Evaluation of MR imaging with T1 and T2* mapping for the determination of hepatic iron overload. Eur Radiol 22:2478–2486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoad CL, Palaniyappan N, Kaye P et al (2015) A study of T(1) relaxation time as a measure of liver fibrosis and the influence of confounding histological factors. NMR Biomed 28:706–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cui J, Heba E, Hernandez C et al (2016) Magnetic resonance elastography is superior to acoustic radiation force impulse for the diagnosis of fibrosis in patients with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a prospective study. Hepatology 63:453–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Park CC, Nguyen P, Hernandez C et al (2017) Magnetic resonance elastography vs transient elastography in detection of fibrosis and noninvasive measurement of steatosis in patients with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 152:598–607 e592CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Xinhua HospitalShanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Philips HealthcareShanghaiChina
  3. 3.GE HealthcareShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations