Digital Diagnostics (Sep 2024)
Liver function assessment based on hepatobiliary contrast agent-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liver function assessment is very important in clinical practice. The use of magnetic resonance imaging for the anatomical and functional evaluation of the liver is possible in actual clinical practice. AIM: To examine the possibility of using hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of liver function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Datasets of patients who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1 included patients with impaired liver function, and group 2 included those with normal liver function. Based on magnetic resonance imaging in the hepatobiliary phase, the liver parenchyma signal intensity and its ratio to spleen signal intensity and portal vein signal intensity were estimated. Differences among these parameters were compared between groups. The correlation between liver parenchyma signal intensity and laboratory blood tests reflecting liver function (total bilirubin, albumen, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, gamma glutamyl transpeptidase, and prothrombin time) were analyzed. RESULTS: Datasets of 53 patients (25 men and 28 women, aged 24–84 years) were analyzed. Group 1 included 19 patients, whereas group 2 included 34. The median liver parenchyma signal intensity was 919.05 [669.65; 1258.35] in group 1 and 1525.13 [1460.5; 1631.4] in group 2 (p=0.0000001). The median ratio of liver parenchyma signal intensity to spleen signal intensity was 1.2 [1.04;1.7] in group 1 and 1.7 [1.46; 1.96] in group 2 (p=0.00076). The median ratio of liver parenchyma signal intensity to portal vein signal intensity was 1.44 [1.29; 1.83] in group 1 and 1.6 [1.43; 1.83] in group 2 (p=0.1). The estimated correlation values between liver parenchyma signal intensity and blood tests parameters were as follows: total bilirubin (r=–0.61; p=0.000001), albumen (r=0.13; p=0.61), aspartate aminotransferase (r=–0.57; p=0.000009), alanine aminotransferase (r=–0.44; p=0.001), alkaline phosphatase (r=–0.45; p=0.0007), gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (r=–0.5; p=0.0003), prothrombin time (r=–0.34; p=0.04). CONCLUSION: The study reflects the ability to assess liver function using indices (liver parenchyma signal intensity and its ratio to spleen signal intensity) derived from gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. However, this study did not confirm the assumed effectiveness of using the liver parenchyma signal intensity to portal vein signal intensity ratio as an index of liver function. A significant inverse correlation was identified between liver parenchyma signal intensity and blood test parameters in reflecting liver function, except for albumin. The results indicate the possibility of using magnetic resonance imaging to assess liver function.
Keywords
