Cargando…
Effects of microperfusion in hepatic diffusion weighted imaging
OBJECTIVE: Clinical hepatic diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) generally relies on mono-exponential diffusion. The aim was to demonstrate that mono-exponential diffusion in the liver is contaminated by microperfusion and that the bi-exponential model is required. METHODS: Nineteen fasting healthy volu...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer-Verlag
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297749/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22080250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2313-1 |
_version_ | 1782225912761155584 |
---|---|
author | Dijkstra, Hildebrand Baron, Paul Kappert, Peter Oudkerk, Matthijs Sijens, Paul E. |
author_facet | Dijkstra, Hildebrand Baron, Paul Kappert, Peter Oudkerk, Matthijs Sijens, Paul E. |
author_sort | Dijkstra, Hildebrand |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Clinical hepatic diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) generally relies on mono-exponential diffusion. The aim was to demonstrate that mono-exponential diffusion in the liver is contaminated by microperfusion and that the bi-exponential model is required. METHODS: Nineteen fasting healthy volunteers were examined with DWI (seven b-values) using fat suppression and respiratory triggering (1.5 T). Five different regions in the liver were analysed regarding the mono-exponentially fitted apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and the bi-exponential model: molecular diffusion (D (slow)), microperfusion (D (fast)) and the respective fractions (f (slow/fast)). Data were compared using ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis tests. Simulations were performed by repeating our data analyses, using just the DWI series acquired with b-values approximating those of previous studies. RESULTS: Median mono-exponentially fitted ADCs varied significantly (P < 0.001) between 1.107 and 1.423 × 10(−3) mm(2)/s for the five regions. Bi-exponential fitted D(slow) varied between 0.923 and 1.062 × 10(−3) mm(2)/s without significant differences (P = 0.140). D (fast) varied significantly, between 17.8 and 46.8 × 10(−3) mm(2)/s (P < 0.001). F-tests showed that the diffusion data fitted the bi-exponential model significantly better than the mono-exponential model (F > 21.4, P < 0.010). These results were confirmed by the simulations. CONCLUSION: ADCs of normal liver tissue are significantly dependent on the measurement location because of substantial microperfusion contamination; therefore the bi-exponential model should be used. KEY POINTS: Diffusion weighted MR imaging helps clinicians to differentiate tumours by diffusion properties. Fast moving water molecules experience microperfusion, slow molecules diffusion. Hepatic diffusion should be measured by bi-exponential models to avoid microperfusion contamination. Mono-exponential models are contaminated with microperfusion, resulting in apparent regional diffusion differences. Bi-exponential models are necessary to measure diffusion and microperfusion in the liver. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3297749 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | Springer-Verlag |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-32977492012-03-21 Effects of microperfusion in hepatic diffusion weighted imaging Dijkstra, Hildebrand Baron, Paul Kappert, Peter Oudkerk, Matthijs Sijens, Paul E. Eur Radiol Magnetic Resonance OBJECTIVE: Clinical hepatic diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) generally relies on mono-exponential diffusion. The aim was to demonstrate that mono-exponential diffusion in the liver is contaminated by microperfusion and that the bi-exponential model is required. METHODS: Nineteen fasting healthy volunteers were examined with DWI (seven b-values) using fat suppression and respiratory triggering (1.5 T). Five different regions in the liver were analysed regarding the mono-exponentially fitted apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and the bi-exponential model: molecular diffusion (D (slow)), microperfusion (D (fast)) and the respective fractions (f (slow/fast)). Data were compared using ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis tests. Simulations were performed by repeating our data analyses, using just the DWI series acquired with b-values approximating those of previous studies. RESULTS: Median mono-exponentially fitted ADCs varied significantly (P < 0.001) between 1.107 and 1.423 × 10(−3) mm(2)/s for the five regions. Bi-exponential fitted D(slow) varied between 0.923 and 1.062 × 10(−3) mm(2)/s without significant differences (P = 0.140). D (fast) varied significantly, between 17.8 and 46.8 × 10(−3) mm(2)/s (P < 0.001). F-tests showed that the diffusion data fitted the bi-exponential model significantly better than the mono-exponential model (F > 21.4, P < 0.010). These results were confirmed by the simulations. CONCLUSION: ADCs of normal liver tissue are significantly dependent on the measurement location because of substantial microperfusion contamination; therefore the bi-exponential model should be used. KEY POINTS: Diffusion weighted MR imaging helps clinicians to differentiate tumours by diffusion properties. Fast moving water molecules experience microperfusion, slow molecules diffusion. Hepatic diffusion should be measured by bi-exponential models to avoid microperfusion contamination. Mono-exponential models are contaminated with microperfusion, resulting in apparent regional diffusion differences. Bi-exponential models are necessary to measure diffusion and microperfusion in the liver. Springer-Verlag 2011-11-12 2012 /pmc/articles/PMC3297749/ /pubmed/22080250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2313-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2011 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Magnetic Resonance Dijkstra, Hildebrand Baron, Paul Kappert, Peter Oudkerk, Matthijs Sijens, Paul E. Effects of microperfusion in hepatic diffusion weighted imaging |
title | Effects of microperfusion in hepatic diffusion weighted imaging |
title_full | Effects of microperfusion in hepatic diffusion weighted imaging |
title_fullStr | Effects of microperfusion in hepatic diffusion weighted imaging |
title_full_unstemmed | Effects of microperfusion in hepatic diffusion weighted imaging |
title_short | Effects of microperfusion in hepatic diffusion weighted imaging |
title_sort | effects of microperfusion in hepatic diffusion weighted imaging |
topic | Magnetic Resonance |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297749/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22080250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2313-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dijkstrahildebrand effectsofmicroperfusioninhepaticdiffusionweightedimaging AT baronpaul effectsofmicroperfusioninhepaticdiffusionweightedimaging AT kappertpeter effectsofmicroperfusioninhepaticdiffusionweightedimaging AT oudkerkmatthijs effectsofmicroperfusioninhepaticdiffusionweightedimaging AT sijenspaule effectsofmicroperfusioninhepaticdiffusionweightedimaging |