Assessment of hepatic fibrosis and inflammation with look-locker T1 mapping and magnetic resonance elastography with histopathology as reference standard
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 30, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing Hepatic Fibrosis Diagnosis Using Magnetic Resonance Elastography and AI
Published on: July 21, 2023
Sophie von Ulmenstein1, Sanja Bogdanovic2, Hanna Honcharova-Biletska3
1Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Purpose:
To compare the diagnostic performance of T1 mapping and MR elastography (MRE) for staging of hepatic fibrosis and grading inflammation with histopathology as standard of reference.
Methods:
68 patients with various liver diseases undergoing liver biopsy for suspected fibrosis or with an established diagnosis of cirrhosis prospectively underwent look-locker inversion recovery T1 mapping and MRE. T1 relaxation time and liver stiffness (LS) were measured by two readers. Hepatic fibrosis and inflammation were histopathologically staged according to a standardized fibrosis (F0-F4) and inflammation (A0-A2) score. For statistical analysis, independent t test, and Mann-Whitney U test and ROC analysis were performed, the latter to determine the performance of T1 mapping and MRE for fibrosis staging and inflammation grading, as compared to histopathology.
Results:
Histopathological analysis diagnosed 9 patients with F0 (13.2%), 21 with F1 (30.9%), 11 with F2 (16.2%), 10 with F3 (14.7%), and 17 with F4 (25.0%). Both T1 mapping and MRE showed significantly higher values for patients with significant fibrosis (F0-1 vs. F2-4; T1 mapping p < 0.0001, MRE p < 0.0001) as well as for patients with severe fibrosis or cirrhosis (F0-2 vs. F3-4; T1 mapping p < 0.0001, MRE p < 0.0001). T1 values and MRE LS were significantly higher in patients with inflammation (A0 vs. A1-2, both p = 0.01). T1 mapping showed a tendency toward lower diagnostic performance without statistical significance for significant fibrosis (F2-4) (AUC 0.79 vs. 0.91, p = 0.06) and with a significant difference compared to MRE for severe fibrosis (F3-4) (AUC 0.79 vs. 0.94, p = 0.03). For both T1 mapping and MRE, diagnostic performance for diagnosing hepatic inflammation (A1-2) was low (AUC 0.72 vs. 0.71, respectively).
Conclusion:
T1 mapping is able to diagnose hepatic fibrosis, however, with a tendency toward lower diagnostic performance compared to MRE and thus may be used as an alternative to MRE for diagnosing hepatic fibrosis, whenever MRE is not available or likely to fail due to intrinsic factors of the patient. Both T1 mapping and MRE are probably not sufficient as standalone methods to diagnose hepatic inflammation with relatively low diagnostic accuracy.
