4.7 Article

New Magnetic Resonance Imaging Index for Renal Fibrosis Assessment: A Comparison between Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and T1 Mapping with Histological Validation

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep30088

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Clinical Research Center of the Medicine Faculty of Geneva University
  2. Geneva University Hospital
  3. Leenaards foundation
  4. Louis-Jeantet foundation
  5. Centre for Biomedical Imaging (CIBM)
  6. Swiss National Foundation [32003B_159714]
  7. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [32003B_159714] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A need exists to noninvasively assess renal interstitial fibrosis, a common process to all kidney diseases and predictive of renal prognosis. In this translational study, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) T1 mapping and a new segmented Diffusion-Weighted Imaging (DWI) technique, for Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC), were first compared to renal fibrosis in two well-controlled animal models to assess detection limits. Validation against biopsy was then performed in 33 kidney allograft recipients (KARs). Predictive MRI indices, Delta T1 and Delta ADC (defined as the cortico-medullary differences), were compared to histology. In rats, both T1 and ADC correlated well with fibrosis and inflammation showing a difference between normal and diseased kidneys. In KARs, MRI indices were not sensitive to interstitial inflammation. By contrast, Delta ADC outperformed Delta T1 with a stronger negative correlation to fibrosis (R-2 = 0.64 against R-2 = 0.29 p < 0.001). Delta ADC tends to negative values in KARs harboring cortical fibrosis of more than 40%. Using a discriminant analysis method, the Delta ADC, as a marker to detect such level of fibrosis or higher, led to a specificity and sensitivity of 100% and 71%, respectively. This new index has potential for noninvasive assessment of fibrosis in the clinical setting.

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