4.4 Article

Towards the identification of multi-parametric quantitative MRI biomarkers in lupus nephritis

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 33, 期 9, 页码 1066-1074

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2015.06.019

关键词

Renal function; Multi-parametric quantitative MRI (qMRI); Arterial spin labeling (ASL); Blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD); T1rho MRI; Lupus nephritis (LN)

资金

  1. Biogen Idec

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To identify potential biomarkers of the renal impairment in lupus nephritis using a multi-parametric renal quantitative MRI (qMRI) protocol including diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD), arterial spin labeling (ASL) and T1rho MRI between a cohort of healthy volunteers and lupus nephritis (LN) patients. Materials and methods: The renal qMRI protocol was performed twice with repositioning in between on 10 LN patients and 10 matched controls at 1.5 T. Navigator-gated and breath-hold acquisitions followed by non-rigid image registration were used to control respiratory motion. The repeatability of the 4 MRI modalities was evaluated with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and within-subject coefficient of variation (wsCV). Unpaired t-test and stepwise logistic regression were carried out to evaluate qMRI parameters between the LN and control groups. Results: The reproducibility of the 4 qMRI modalities ranged from moderate to good (ICC = 0.4-0.91, wsCV <= 12%) with a few exceptions. T1rho MRI and ASL renal blood flow (RBF) demonstrated significant differences between the LN and control groups. Stepwise logistic regression yielded only one significant parameter (medullar T1rho) in differentiating LN from control groups with 95% accuracy. Conclusion: A reasonable degree of test-retest repeatability and accuracy of a multi-parametric renal qMRI protocol has been demonstrated in healthy volunteers and LN subjects. Tlrho and ASL RBF are promising imaging biomarkers of LN. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据