4.7 Article

Timing Bolus Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced (DCE) MRI Assessment of Hepatic Perfusion: Initial Experience

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 29, Issue 6, Pages 1317-1322

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21795

Keywords

MR perfusion; liver; timing bolus; cirrhosis; dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI

Funding

  1. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) [1 T32 EB001631]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purose: To assess whether dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI timing bolus data from routine clinical examinations can be postprocessed to obtain hepatic perfusion parameters for diagnosing cirrhosis. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively identified 57 patients (22 with cirrhosis and 35 without cirrhosis) who underwent abdominal MRI, which included a low-dose (2mL gadodiamide) timing bolus using a volumetric spoiled gradient echo Tl-weighted sequence through the abdomen. Using a dual-input single-compartment model, the following perfusion parameters were measured: arterial, portal, and total blood flow: arterial fraction: mean transit time; and distribution volume. Those parameters were compared between patients with and without cirrhosis using t-tests. Receiver operation characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to identify the perfusion parameters that can best predict the presence of cirrhosis. Results: The hepatic arterial fraction, arterial flow, and distribution volume in patients with cirrhosis (27.7 +/- 8.3%, 44.8 +/- 14.1 mL/minute/100 g. and 16.3 +/- 4.5%, respectively) were significantly higher than those without cirrhosis (18.7 +/- 4.4%, 28.5% +/- 11.7 mL/minute/100 g, and 14.0 +/- 4.2%, respectively: P < 0.05 for all). ROC analysis showed arterial fraction as the best predictor of cirrhosis, with sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 86%. Conclusion: Timing bolus DCE MR images from routine examinations can be postprocessed ot yield potentially useful hepatic perfusion parameters.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available