Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Diagnostic Radiology, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2022 Nov;47(11):3746-3757. doi: 10.1007/s00261-022-03647-6. Epub 2022 Aug 29.
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.
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.
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 < 0.0001, MRE p < 0.0001) as well as for patients with severe fibrosis or cirrhosis (F0-2 vs. F3-4; T1 mapping p < 0.0001, MRE p < 0.0001). T1 values and MRE LS were significantly higher in patients with inflammation (A0 vs. A1-2, both 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).
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.
比较 T1 映射和磁共振弹性成像(MRE)在分期肝纤维化和分级炎症方面的诊断性能,以组织病理学为标准。
68 例不同肝脏疾病患者前瞻性地接受肝活检以怀疑纤维化或已确诊肝硬化,接受 Look-Locker 反转恢复 T1 映射和 MRE。两位读者测量 T1 弛豫时间和肝脏硬度(LS)。根据标准化纤维化(F0-F4)和炎症(A0-A2)评分,对肝纤维化和炎症进行组织病理学分期。进行独立 t 检验、Mann-Whitney U 检验和 ROC 分析进行统计分析,后者用于确定 T1 映射和 MRE 在纤维化分期和炎症分级方面的性能,与组织病理学相比。
组织病理学分析诊断 9 例 F0(13.2%)、21 例 F1(30.9%)、11 例 F2(16.2%)、10 例 F3(14.7%)和 17 例 F4(25.0%)。T1 映射和 MRE 均显示显著纤维化(F0-1 与 F2-4;T1 映射 p < 0.0001,MRE p < 0.0001)以及严重纤维化或肝硬化患者的显着更高值(F0-2 与 F3-4;T1 映射 p < 0.0001,MRE p < 0.0001)。炎症患者的 T1 值和 MRE LS 显着更高(A0 与 A1-2,均 p = 0.01)。T1 映射对显著纤维化(F2-4)的诊断性能呈下降趋势,但无统计学意义(AUC 0.79 与 0.91,p = 0.06),与 MRE 相比,严重纤维化(F3-4)的诊断性能有显着差异(AUC 0.79 与 0.94,p = 0.03)。对于 T1 映射和 MRE,诊断肝炎症(A1-2)的诊断性能均较低(AUC 分别为 0.72 和 0.71)。
T1 映射能够诊断肝纤维化,但与 MRE 相比,诊断性能呈下降趋势,因此,在 MRE 由于患者内在因素而无法获得或可能失败的情况下,可作为 MRE 诊断肝纤维化的替代方法。T1 映射和 MRE 都可能不足以作为单独的方法来诊断肝炎症,因为诊断准确性相对较低。