J Magn Reson Imaging. 2021 Apr 5. doi: 10.1002/jmri.27626. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Early detection and grading of pancreatic fibrosis (PF) are important and challenging clinical goals.
PURPOSE: To determine main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter, pancreatic thickness, and grades of PF via magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), T1 mapping, and intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging (IVIM-DWI), assessing respective diagnostic performances.
STUDY TYPE: Prospective.
SUBJECTS: Histopathologic and imaging records (MRE, T1 mapping, and IVIM-DWI) generated by 144 patients between December 2018 and May 2020 were collected for analysis. Grades of PF were distributed as follows: F0, 82; F1, 22; F2, 22; and F3, 18.
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3 T pancreatic MRI, encompassing MRE, T1 mapping, and IVIM-DWI.
ASSESSMENT: In all patients, T1 relaxation times, pancreatic stiffness values, IVIM-DWI parameters, MPD diameter, and pancreatic thickness were measured.
STATISTICAL TESTS: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis served to assess imaging parameters useful in diagnosing PF. To identify relations between specific parameters and grades of PF, logistic regression analysis was invoked.
RESULTS: Both pancreatic stiffness (r = 0.754; P < 0.001) and T1 relaxation time (r = 0.433; P < 0.001) correlated significantly with PF (%). To determine PF grades ≥F1, a combined model (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.906) performed significantly better than pancreatic stiffness (AUC = 0.855; P < 0.001) or T1 relaxation time (AUC = 0.754; P < 0.001) alone. For PF grades ≥F2 or grade F3, both the combined model (≥F2: AUC = 0.910; F3: AUC = 0.939) and pancreatic stiffness (≥F2: AUC = 0.906; F3: AUC = 0.929) outperformed T1 relaxation time (≥F2: AUC = 0.768 [P = 0.005 and P = 0.004, respectively]; F3: AUC = 0.816 [both P < 0.005]). All IVIM-DWI parameters generated AUC values <0.700.
DATA CONCLUSION: A combination of MRE and T1 mapping seems promising in diagnosing various grades of PF, particularly at an early stage.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
PMID:33819364 | DOI:10.1002/jmri.27626
