Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Intravoxel incoherent motion parameters in the evaluation of chronic hepatitis B virus-induced hepatic injury: fibrosis and capillarity changes

  • Hepatobiliary
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-induced hepatic fibrosis using different calculation methods and to investigate histopathologic origins.

Materials and methods

Liver biopsies from 37 prospectively recruited chronic hepatitis B patients were obtained. Twelve b-value (0–1000 s/mm2) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was performed with a 1.5 T scanner and was followed by blinded percutaneous liver biopsy. All biopsy specimens were evaluated with Ishak staging, and the microvascular density (MVD) was calculated. Patients were classified as having no/mild (F0–1), moderate (F2–3), or marked (F4–5) fibrosis. Pseudodiffusion (D*), the perfusion fraction (f), and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were calculated using all b-values, while true diffusion (D) was calculated using all b-values [D0–1000] and b-values greater than 200 s/mm2 [D200–1000]. Three concentric regions of interest (ROIs) (5, 10, and 20 mm) centered on the biopsy site were used.

Results

D* was correlated with the MVD (p = 0.015, Pearson’s r = 0.415), but f was not (p = 0.119). D0–1000 was inversely correlated with Ishak stage (p = 0.000, Spearman’s rs =  − 0.685) and was significantly decreased in all the fibrosis groups; however, only the no/mild and marked fibrosis groups had significantly different D200–1000 values. A pairwise comparison of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of D0–1000 and D200-1000 showed significant differences (p = 0.039). D* was the best at discriminating early fibrosis (AUC = 0.861), while the ADC best discriminated advanced fibrosis (AUC = 0.964).

Conclusion

D* was correlated with the MVD and is a powerful parameter to discriminate early hepatic fibrosis. D significantly decreased with advanced fibrosis stage when using b-values less than 200 s/mm2 in calculations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization, Global Hepatitis Report, 2017. 2017; Geneva. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/hepatitis/publications/global-hepatitis-report2017/en/

  2. Terrault NA, Lok ASF, McMahon BJ, et al. Update on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic hepatitis B: AASLD 2018 hepatitis B guidance. Hepatology 2018; 67(4):1560–1599. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29800https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29800

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Pietro L, Agarwal K, Berg T, et al. EASL 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatitis B virus infection. J Hepatol. 2017; 67(2):370–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2017.03.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Quezada N, León F, Martínez J, et al. International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. 2015;(8):42–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2015.01.020

  5. Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S. Liver biopsy. N Eng J Med 2001; 344(7): 495-500 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200102153440706

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Seeff LB, Everson GT, Morgan TR et al. Complication Rate of Percutaneous Liver Biopsies among Persons with Advanced Chronic Liver Disease in the HALT-C Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010; 8(10): 877–883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2010.03.025

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Huber A, Ebner L, Heverhagen JT, et al. State-of-the-art imaging of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis: A comprehensive review of current applications and future perspectives. European Journal of Radiology Open 2015; (2): 90-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2015.05.002

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. R Masuzaki, R Tateishi, H Yoshida, et al. Comparison of liver biopsy and transient elastography based on clinical relevance. Can J Gastroenterol 2008;22(9):753-757. https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/306726

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Seo YS, Kim MY, Kim SU, et al. Accuracy of transient elastography in assessing liver fibrosis in chronic viral hepatitis: A multicentre, retrospective study. Liver International 2015; 35(10): 2246-2255. https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.12808

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shi Y, Guo Q, Xia F, et al. MR Elastography for the Assessment of Hepatic Fibrosis in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B Infection: Does Histologic Necroinflammation Influence the Measurement of Hepatic Stiffness? Radiology 2014; 273(1): 88-98. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14132592

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Yin M, Talwalkar JA, Glaser KJ, et al. A Preliminary Assessment of Hepatic Fibrosis with Magnetic Resonance Elastography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5(10): 1207–1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2007.06.012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Wagner M, Corcuera-Solano I, Lo G, et al. Technical Failure of MR Elastography of the Liver: Experience from a Large Single-Center Study. Radiology 2017. 284(2): 401-412. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016160863

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Taouli B, Koh DM. Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging of the Liver. Radiology 2010; 254(1):47-66. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.09090021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Taouli B, Tolia AJ, Losada M, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI for quantification of liver fibrosis: preliminary experience. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189(4):799–806. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kocakoc E. Assessment of Liver Fibrosis with Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using Different b-values in Chronic Viral Hepatitis. Med Princ Pract 2015; 24(6):522–526. https://doi.org/10.1159/000434682h

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Faria SC, Ganesan K, Mwangi I, et al. MR Imaging of Liver Fibrosis: Current State of the Art. RadioGraphics 2009; 29(6):1615-1635. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.296095512

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sandrasegaran K, Akisik FM, Lin C, et al. Value of Diffusion-Weighted MRI for Assessing Liver Fibrosis and Cirrhosis. Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193(6): 1556–1560. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, et al. Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 1988; 168(2):497-505. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.168.2.3393671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang B, Liang L, Dong Y, et al. Intravoxel Incoherent Motion MR Imaging for Staging of Hepatic Fibrosis. PLoS ONE 2016; 11(1): e0147789. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147789

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Eberhardt C, Wurnig MC, Wirsching A, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion analysis of abdominal organs: computation of reference parameters in a large cohort of C57Bl/6 mice and correlation to microvessel density. MAGMA 2016; 29(5):751-763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-016-0540-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Elpek GO. Angiogenesis and liver fibrosis. World J Hepatol 2015; 7(3): 377-391. https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v7.i3.377

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Fernandez M, Semela D, Bruix J, et al. Angiogenesis in liver disease. Journal of Hepatology 2009; 50(3):604-620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2008.12.011

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yoon JH, Lee JM, Baek JH, et al. Evaluation of hepatic fibrosis using intravoxel incoherent motion in diffusion-weighted liver MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2014; 38(1):110-116. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e3182a589be

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. França M, Martí-Bonmatí L, Alberich-Bayarri A, et al. Evaluation of fibrosis and inflammation in diffuse liver diseases using intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Abdom Radiol 2017; 42(2): 468-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0899-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Luciani A, Vignaud A, Cavet M, et al. Liver cirrhosis: Intravoxel Incoherent Motion MR Imaging – Plot Study. Radiology 2008; 249(3):891-899. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2493080080

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ichikawa S, Motosugi U, Morisaka H, et al. MRI-based staging of hepatic fibrosis: Comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging with magnetic resonance elastography. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2014: 42(1):204-210. https://doi.org/10.1097/RMR.0000000000000149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wu CH, Ho MC, Jeng YM, et al. Assessing hepatic fibrosis: comparing the intravoxel incoherent motion in MRI with acoustic radiation force impulse imaging in US. Eur Radiol 2015;25(12):3552-3559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3774-4https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3774-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Le Bihan D, Turner R. The capillary network: a link between IVIM and classical perfusion. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 1992; 27(1):171-178. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.1910270116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lu P-X, Huang H, Yuan J, et al. Decreases in Molecular Diffusion,Perfusion Fraction and Perfusion-Related Diffusion in Fibrotic Livers: A Prospective Clinical Intravoxel Incoherent Motion MR Imaging Study. PLoSONE 2014; 9(12):e113846. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113846

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Maksam SM, Ryschich E, Ulger Z, et al. Disturbance of hepatic and intestinal microcirculation in experimental liver cirrhosis. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11(6): 846-849. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v11.i6.846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Onori P, Morini S, Franchitto A, et al. Hepatic microvascular features in experimental cirrhosis: a structural and morphometrical study in CCl4-treated rats. J Hepatol 2000; 33(4): 555-563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8278(00)80007-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Yamada I, Aung W, Himeno Y, et al. Diffusion coefficients in abdominal organs and hepatic lesions: evaluation of intravoxel incoherent motion echo-planar imaging. Radiology 1999; 210(3):617-623. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.210.3.r99fe17617

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Shim WH, Kim HS, Choi C-G, et al. Comparison of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient and Intravoxel Incoherent Motion for Differentiating among Glioblastoma, Metastasis, and Lymphoma Focusing on Diffusion-Related Parameter. PLoS ONE 2015; 10(7): e0134761. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134761

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Le Bihan, D. What can we see with IVIM MRI? NeuroImage 2019; (187):56-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hu G, Chan Q, Quan X, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion MRI evaluation for the staging of liver fibrosis in a rat model. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2014; 42(2): 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24796

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Mutlu Gulbay, Deniz Sozmen Ciliz, Bige Sayin & Emre Alp

  2. Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Aysel Kocagul Celikbas & Bahadır Orkun Ozbay

  3. Department of Pathology, Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Devrim Tuba Ocalan

  4. Ankara Sehir Hastanesi Radyoloji Klinigi, 06800, Universiteler Mah Bilkent Blv No:1, Ankara, Turkey

    Mutlu Gulbay

Authors
  1. Mutlu Gulbay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deniz Sozmen Ciliz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aysel Kocagul Celikbas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Devrim Tuba Ocalan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bige Sayin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bahadır Orkun Ozbay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Emre Alp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mutlu Gulbay.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gulbay, M., Ciliz, D.S., Celikbas, A.K. et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion parameters in the evaluation of chronic hepatitis B virus-induced hepatic injury: fibrosis and capillarity changes. Abdom Radiol 45, 2345–2357 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02430-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02430-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation