Evaluation of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis on the basis of quantitative T1 mapping: Are acute inflammation, age and liver volume confounding factors?

PURPOSE: To evaluate potential confounding factors in the quantitative assessment of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis using T1 relaxation times. METHODS: The study population is based on a radiology-information-system database search for abdominal MRI performed from July 2018 to April 2019 at our institution. After applying exclusion criteria 200 (59 ±â€¯16 yrs) remaining patients were retrospectively included. 93 patients were defined as liver-healthy, 40 patients without known fibrosis or cirrhosis, and 67 subjects had a clinically or biopsy-proven liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. T1 mapping was performed using a slice based look-locker approach. A ROI based analysis of the left and the right liver was performed. Fat fraction, R2*, liver volume, laboratory parameters, sex, and age were evaluated as potential confounding factors. RESULTS: T1 values were significantly lower in healthy subjects without known fibrotic changes (1.5 T MRI: 575 ±â€¯56 ms; 3 T MRI: 857 ±â€¯128 ms) compared to patients with acute liver disease (1.5 T MRI: 657 ±â€¯73 ms, p < 0.0001; 3 T MRI: 952 ±â€¯37 ms, p = 0.028) or known fibrosis or cirrhosis (1.5 T MRI: 644 ±â€¯83 ms, p < 0.0001; 3 T MRI: 995 ±â€¯150 ms, p = 0.018). T1 values correlated moderately with the Child-Pugh stage at 1.5 T (p = 0.01, ρ = 0.35). CONCLUSION: T1 mapping is a capable predictor for detection of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. Especially age is not a confounding factor and, hence, age-independent thresholds can be defined. Acute liver diseases are confounding factors and should be ruled out before employing T1-relaxometry based thresholds to screen for patients with liver fibrosis or cirrhosis.

Revisiting DCE-MRI: Classification of Prostate Tissue Using Descriptive Signal Enhancement Features Derived From DCE-MRI Acquisition With High Spatiotemporal Resolution.

METHODS: A retrospective study (from January 2016 to July 2019) including 75 subjects (mean, 65 years; 46-80 years) with 2.5-second temporal resolution DCE-MRI and PIRADS 4 or 5 lesions was performed. Fifty-four subjects had biopsy-proven prostate cancer (Gleason 6, 15; Gleason 7, 20; Gleason 8, 13; Gleason 9, 6), whereas 21 subjects had negative MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsies. Voxel-wise analysis of contrast signal enhancement was performed for all time points using custom-developed software, including automatic arterial input function detection. Seven descriptive parameter maps were calculated: normalized maximum signal intensity, time to start, time to maximum, time-to-maximum slope, and maximum slope with normalization on maximum signal and the arterial input function (SMN1, SMN2). The parameters were compared with ADC using multiparametric machine-learning models to determine classification accuracy. A Wilcoxon test was used for the hypothesis test and the Spearman coefficient for correlation. RESULTS: There were significant differences (P < 0.05) for all 7 DCE-derived parameters between the normal peripheral zone versus PIRADS 4 or 5 lesions and the biopsy-positive versus biopsy-negative lesions. Multiparametric analysis showed better performance when combining ADC + DCE as input (accuracy/sensitivity/specificity, 97%/93%/100%) relative to ADC alone (accuracy/sensitivity/specificity, 94%/95%/95%) and to DCE alone (accuracy/sensitivity/specificity, 78%/79%/77%) in differentiating the normal peripheral zone from PIRADS lesions, biopsy-positive versus biopsy-negative lesions (accuracy/sensitivity/specificity, 68%/33%/81%), and Gleason 6 versus ≥7 prostate cancer (accuracy/sensitivity/specificity, 69%/60%/72%). CONCLUSIONS: Descriptive perfusion characteristics derived from high-resolution DCE-MRI using model-free computations show significant differences between normal and cancerous tissue but do not reach the accuracy achieved with solely ADC-based classification. Combining ADC with DCE-based input features improved classification accuracy for PIRADS lesions, discrimination of biopsy-positive versus biopsy-negative lesions, and differentiation between Gleason 6 versus Gleason ≥7 lesions.