31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the liver: Correlation with standardized serum, clinical, and histological changes in diffuse liver disease
✍ Scribed by Hester N. van Wassenaer-Van Hall; Jeroen van der Grond; Jan van Hattum; Carole Kooijman; Tjaard U. Hoogenraad; Willem P. Th. M. Mali
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1995
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 714 KB
- Volume
- 21
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0270-9139
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
The goal of this study was to analyze the possibilities of 31P MR spectroscopy to detect abnormal hepatic histological changes in patients with diffuse liver disease. 31P MR spectroscopy was performed, on a 1.5 T whole-body spectrometer using an image guided localization technique (ISIS), on 38 patients with various diffuse liver diseases, who all underwent histological and serum analysis, and 22 healthy volunteers. Phosphornonoester expressed as a fraction of total phosphorus (PMEP) showed a correlation with abnormal serum aspartate transaminase (AST), histological intralobular degeneratiodfocal necrosis, portal inflammation, and piecemeal necrosis. We found a lower correlation for PME/P with fibrosis. It was not possible to differentiate between fibrosis and cirrhosis. In summary, 31P MR spectroscopy is a technique to detect intralobular degeneration, inflammation and necrosis and to a less extent fibrosis. No diagnostic value was found with respect to steatosis and cholangitis. Furthermore, 31P MR spectroscopy is a poor method for classifying patients into diagnostic categories. (HEPATOLOGY 1995;21:443-449.)
31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) has been shown to be a useful method for studying metabolism in normal liver and in the liver with diffuse liver abnormalities.'.' ' However, relatively little is known about the potential of MRS for diagnosing patients with diffuse liver disease into clinical and histological categories. Because experimental conditions (field strength, repetition time, acquisition technique, and quantification routine used) are often different between studies and patient inclusion criteria are not the same or are described poorly, it is difficult to compare individual studies with each other.