The staging of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis: A comparative study of MR elastography and the quantitative DCE-MRI exchange model

• Published in: Heliyon Vol. 10; no. 2; p. e24558
• Main Authors: Ren, Hao, Yang, Dawei, Xu, Hui, Tong, Xiaofei, Zhao, Xinyan, Wang, Qianyi, Sun, Yameng, Ou, Xiaojuan, Jia, Jidong, You, Hong, Wang, Zhenchang, Yang, Zhenghan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 30.01.2024; Elsevier
• Subjects: biopsy; blood flow; comparative study; DCE-MRI; elasticity imaging techniques; fatty liver; fibrosis; hospitals; liver; liver cirrhosis; Liver fibrosis; magnetism; MRE; NAFLD; regression analysis; MRE; NAFLD; DCE-MRI; Liver fibrosis
• ISSN: 2405-8440; 2405-8440
• DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24558

To evaluate the efficacy and image processing time of the dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) exchange model in liver fibrosis staging and compare it to the efficacy of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE). The subjects were 45 patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) who underwent MRE and DCE-MRI in our hospital. Liver biopsy results were available for all patients. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to compare the correlations among MRE, DCE-MRI and liver fibrosis parameters. Quantitative DCE-MRI parameters, MRE-derived liver stiffness measurement (LSM), and the results of a combined DCE-MRI + MRE logistic regression model were compared in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). We also compared the scanning and postprocessing times of the MRE and DCE-MRI techniques. The correlation coefficients between the following parameters of interest and liver fibrosis were as follows: capillary permeability–surface area product (PS; DCE-MRI parameter), −0.761; portal blood flow (Fp; DCE-MRI parameter), −0.754; MRE-LSM, 0.835. Some DCE-MRI parameters (PS, Fp) had slightly greater AUC values than MRE-LSM for diagnosing the presence or absence of liver fibrosis, and the combined model had the highest AUC value for all stages except F4, but there was no significant difference in the diagnostic efficacy of the DCE-MRI, MRE, and combined models for any stage of fibrosis. The average scanning times for MRE and DCE-MRI were 17 s and 330 s, respectively, and the average postprocessing times were 45.5 s and 342.7 s, respectively. In the absence of MRE equipment, DCE-MRI represents an alternative technique. However, MRE is a quicker and simpler method for assessing fibrosis than DCE-MRI in the clinic.