4.5 Article

Quantitative assessment of hepatic fibrosis in an animal model with magnetic resonance elastography

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 58, Issue 2, Pages 346-353

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.21286

Keywords

MR elastography; hepatic fibrosis; ARPKD mouse model; shear stiffness; fat infiltration

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA91959, CA95683, R01 CA091959, R01 CA095683] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIBIB NIH HHS [R01 EB001981, EB001981] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK65056, DK59597, R01 DK065056, R01 DK059597] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chronic liver disease is a world-wide problem that causes progressive hepatic fibrosis as a hallmark of progressive injury. At present, the gold standard for diagnosing hepatic fibrosis is liver biopsy, which is an invasive method with many limitations, including questionable accuracy and risks of complications. MR elastography (MRE), a phase-contrast MRI technique for quantitatively assessing the mechanical properties of soft tissues, is a potential noninvasive diagnostic method to assess hepatic fibrosis. In this work, MRE was evaluated as a quantitative method to assess the in vivo mechanical properties of the liver tissues in a knockout animal model of liver fibrosis. This work demonstrates that the shear stiffness of liver tissue increases systematically with the extent of hepatic fibrosis, as measured by histology. A linear correlation between liver stiffness and fibrosis extent was well-defined in this animal model. An additional finding of the study was that fat infiltration, commonly present in chronic liver disease, does not significantly correlate with liver stiffness at each fibrosis stage and thus does not appear to interfere with the ability of MRE to assess fibrosis extent. In conclusion, MRE has the potential not only for assessing liver stiffness, but also for monitoring potential therapies for hepatic fibrosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available