4.7 Article

Histological Scores Validate the Accuracy of Hepatic Iron Load Measured by Signal Intensity Ratio and R2*Relaxometry MRI in Dialysis Patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9010017

Keywords

MRI; signal intensity ratio; R2*relaxometry; Perls' stain; Scheuer's classification; Deugnier's and Turlin's histological scoring; dialysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Almost all haemodialysis patients are treated with parenteral iron to compensate for blood loss and to allow the full therapeutic effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. Iron overload is an increasingly recognised clinical situation diagnosed by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MRI methods have not been fully validated in dialysis patients. We compared Deugnier's and Turlin's histological scoring of iron overload and Scheuer's classification (with Perls' stain) with three quantitative MRI methods for measuring liver iron concentration (LIC)-signal intensity ratio (SIR), R2* relaxometry, and R2* multi-peak spectral modelling (Iterative Decomposition of water and fat with Echo Asymmetry and Least-squares estimation (IDEAL-IQ((R)))) relaxometry-in 16 haemodialysis patients in whom a liver biopsy was formally indicated for medical follow-up. LIC MRI with these three different methods was highly correlated with Deugnier's and Turlin's histological scoring (SIR: r = 0.8329, p = 0.0002; R2* relaxometry: r = -0.9099, p < 0.0001; R2* relaxometry (IDEAL-IQ((R))): r = -0.872, p = 0.0018). Scheuer's classification was also significantly correlated with these three MRI techniques. The positive likelihood ratio for the diagnosis of abnormal LIC by Deugnier's histological scoring was > 62 for the three MRI methods. This study supports the accuracy of quantitative MRI methods for the non-invasive diagnosis and follow-up of iron overload in haemodialysis patients.

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