Staging liver fibrosis with DWI: is there an added value for diffusion kurtosis imaging?
prospective_cohort · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 29383522.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1007/s00330-017-5245-6.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To assess liver fibrosis in patients with chronic liver disease using diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) in comparison with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging, with histology as reference standard. This prospective study included 81 patients and DKI with b-values of 0, 200, 500, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000 s/mm<sup>2</sup> were performed. Mean diffusivity (MD), mean kurtosis (MK) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps were calculated. The diagnostic efficacy of MD, MK and ADC for predicting stage 2 fibrosis or greater, and stage 3 fibrosis or greater were compared. The MD (rho=-0.491, p<0.001), MK (rho=0.537, p<0.001) and ADC (rho=-0.496, p<0.001) correlated significantly with fibrosis stages, and ADC exhibited a strong negative correlation with MK (rho=-0.968; p<0.001) and a moderate association with MD (rho=0.601, p<0.001). Areas under the curves (AUCs) for predicting stage 2 fibrosis or greater were not significantly different (p>0.05) between MK (0.809) and ADC (0.797) as well as between MD (0.715) and ADC. AUCs were also similar for MD (0.710), MK (0.768) and ADC (0.747) for predicting stage 3 fibrosis or greater. Although DKI is feasible for predicting liver fibrosis in patients with chronic liver disease, MD and MK offer similar diagnostic performance to ADC values. • Diffusion kurtosis imaging is feasible for staging liver fibrosis. • Diffusion kurtosis and monoexponential model are highly correlated. • The kurtosis model offers no added value to the conventional, monoexponential model.
Medical subject headings
- Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- Liver Cirrhosis