Diagnosis of Liver Fibrosis and Cirrhosis With Diffusion-Weighted Imaging: Value of Normalized Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Using the Spleen as Reference Organ

被引:105
|
作者
Do, Richard K. G. [1 ]
Chandanara, Hersh [1 ]
Felker, Ely [2 ]
Hajdu, Cristina H. [3 ]
Babb, James S. [1 ]
Kim, Danny [1 ]
Taouli, Bachir [1 ]
机构
[1] NYU, Dept Radiol, Langone Med Ctr, New York, NY 10016 USA
[2] NYU, Sch Med, Langone Med Ctr, New York, NY USA
[3] NYU, Dept Pathol, Langone Med Ctr, New York, NY 10016 USA
关键词
apparent diffusion coefficient; cirrhosis; diffusion-weighted MRI; liver fibrosis; MRI; CHRONIC HEPATITIS; PRELIMINARY EXPERIENCE; ABDOMINAL ORGANS; MRI; REPRODUCIBILITY; QUANTIFICATION; BREATHHOLD; SEQUENCES; PERFUSION; ABDOMEN;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.09.3448
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of liver apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) versus normalized liver ADC using the spleen as a reference organ for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fifty-six patients, 34 with liver disease and 22 control subjects, were assessed with breath-hold single-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging using b values of 0, 50, and 500 s/mm(2). Liver ADC and normalized liver ADC (defined as the ratio of liver ADC to spleen ADC) were compared between patients stratified by fibrosis stage. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine the performance of ADC and normalized liver ADC for prediction of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. Reproducibility was assessed by measuring coefficient of variation (n = 7). RESULTS. Liver ADC failed to distinguish individual stages of fibrosis, except between stages 0 and 4. There were significant differences in normalized liver ADC between control livers and intermediate stages of fibrosis (stages 2-3) and cirrhosis (stage 4) and between stages 1 and 4, and there was a trend toward significance between stages 0 and 1 (p = 0.051) and stages 1 and 3 (p = 0.06). ROC analysis showed that normalized liver ADC was superior to liver ADC for detection of stage >= 2 (area under the ROC curve, 0.864 vs 0.655; p = 0.013) and stage >= 3 (0.805 vs 0.689; p = 0.015), without a difference for diagnosing cirrhosis (0.935 vs 0.720; p = 0.185). Normalized liver ADC had higher reproducibility than ADC (mean coefficient of variation, 3.5% vs 12.6%). CONCLUSION. Our results suggest that normalizing liver ADC with spleen ADC improves diagnostic accuracy for detection of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis when using breath-hold diffusion-weighted imaging, with better reproducibility.
引用
收藏
页码:671 / 676
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Clinical feasibility of deep learning reconstruction in liver diffusion-weighted imaging: Improvement of image quality and impact on apparent diffusion coefficient value
    Chen, Qian
    Fang, Shu
    Yang, Yuchen
    Li, Ruokun
    Deng, Rong
    Chen, Yongjun
    Ma, Di
    Lin, Huimin
    Yan, Fuhua
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2023, 168
  • [42] The diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted imaging and the apparent diffusion coefficient values in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions
    Cabuk, Gonca
    Duce, Meltem Nass
    Ozgur, Anil
    Apaydin, Feramuz Demir
    Polat, Ayse
    Orekici, Gulhan
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2015, 59 (02) : 141 - 148
  • [43] Preoperative apparent diffusion coefficient value of gastric cancer by diffusion-weighted imaging: Correlations with postoperative TNM staging
    Liu, Song
    Wang, Hao
    Guan, Wenxian
    Pan, Liang
    Zhou, Zhuping
    Yu, Haiping
    Liu, Tian
    Yang, Xiaofeng
    He, Jian
    Zhou, Zhengyang
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2015, 42 (03) : 837 - 843
  • [44] Additional Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging to Evaluate Prognostic Factors of Breast Cancer: Correlation with the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient
    Park, Eun Kyung
    Cho, Kyu Ran
    Seo, Bo Kyoung
    Woo, Ok Hee
    Cho, Sung Bum
    Bae, Jeoung Won
    IRANIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 13 (01)
  • [45] Apparent diffusion coefficient value of gastric cancer by diffusion-weighted imaging: Correlations with the histological differentiation and Lauren classification
    Liu, Song
    Guan, Wenxian
    Wang, Hao
    Pan, Liang
    Zhou, Zhuping
    Yu, Haiping
    Liu, Tian
    Yang, Xiaofeng
    He, Jian
    Zhou, Zhengyang
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2014, 83 (12) : 2122 - 2128
  • [46] The diagnostic value of normalized ADC using spleen as reference organ in assessment liver fibrosis
    Mostafa, Mai A.
    Kamal, Omnia
    Yassin, Aya
    Nagi, Mona A.
    Ahmed, Osama A.
    Ahmed, Hagar A.
    EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2020, 51 (01):
  • [47] The diagnostic value of normalized ADC using spleen as reference organ in assessment liver fibrosis
    Mai A. Mostafa
    Omnia Kamal
    Aya Yassin
    Mona A. Nagi
    Osama A. Ahmed
    Hagar A. Ahmed
    Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 51
  • [48] Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of Upper Abdominal Organs Acquired with Multiple B-Value Combinations: Value of Normalization Using Spleen as the Reference Organ
    Kim, Bo Ram
    Song, Ji Soo
    Choi, Eun Jung
    Hwang, Seung Bae
    Hwang, Hong Pil
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2018, 19 (03) : 389 - 396
  • [49] Differential diagnosis of uterine smooth muscle tumors using diffusion-weighted imaging: correlations with the apparent diffusion coefficient and cell density
    Tasaki, Akiko
    Asatani, Mina O.
    Umezu, Hajime
    Kashima, Katsunori
    Enomoto, Takayuki
    Yoshimura, Norihiko
    Aoyama, Hidefumi
    ABDOMINAL IMAGING, 2015, 40 (06): : 1742 - 1752
  • [50] Prognostic prediction of resectable colorectal liver metastasis using the apparent diffusion coefficient from diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging
    Yoshikawa, Masato
    Morine, Yuji
    Yamada, Shinichiro
    Miyazaki, Katsuki
    Tokuda, Kazunori
    Saito, Yu
    Arakawa, Yusuke
    Ikemoto, Tetsuya
    Imura, Satoru
    Shimada, Mitsuo
    ANNALS OF GASTROENTEROLOGICAL SURGERY, 2021, 5 (02): : 252 - 258