4.6 Review

Evidence of Tri-Exponential Decay for Liver Intravoxel Incoherent Motion MRI: A Review of Published Results and Limitations

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11020379

关键词

diffusion weighted imaging; intravoxel incoherent motion; liver; tri-exponential; b-value

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) are used to assess liver tumors and diffused liver diseases. IVIM can assess molecular diffusion of water and microcirculation of blood, but high variance in D-fast estimates restricts its application in clinical practice for liver IVIM. Further research on a tri-exponential model may be more suitable to describe the DWI signal for liver IVIM.
Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) have been explored to assess liver tumors and diffused liver diseases. IVIM reflects the microscopic translational motions that occur in voxels in magnetic resonance (MR) DWI. In biologic tissues, molecular diffusion of water and microcirculation of blood in the capillary network can be assessed using IVIM DWI. The most commonly applied model to describe the DWI signal is a bi-exponential model, with a slow compartment of diffusion linked to pure molecular diffusion (represented by the coefficient D-slow), and a fast compartment of diffusion, related to microperfusion (represented by the coefficient D-fast). However, high variance in D-fast estimates has been consistently shown in literature for liver IVIM, restricting its application in clinical practice. This variation could be explained by the presence of another very fast compartment of diffusion in the liver. Therefore, a tri-exponential model would be more suitable to describe the DWI signal. This article reviews the published evidence of the existence of this additional very fast diffusion compartment and discusses the performance and limitations of the tri-exponential model for liver IVIM in current clinical settings.

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

4.6
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