Lan, Gongyu

BackgroundEarly detection and grading of pancreatic fibrosis (PF) are important and challenging clinical goals.PurposeTo determine main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter, pancreatic thickness, and grades of PF via magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), T1 mapping, and intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion‐weighted imaging (IVIM‐DWI), assessing respective diagnostic performances.Study TypeProspective.SubjectsHistopathologic and imaging records (MRE, T1 mapping, and IVIM‐DWI) generated by 144 patients between December 2018 and May 2020 were collected for analysis. Grades of PF were distributed as follows: F0, 82; F1, 22; F2, 22; and F3, 18.Field Strength/Sequence3 T pancreatic MRI, encompassing MRE, T1 mapping, and IVIM‐DWI.AssessmentIn all patients, T1 relaxation times, pancreatic stiffness values, IVIM‐DWI parameters, MPD diameter, and pancreatic thickness were measured.Statistical TestsReceiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis served to assess imaging parameters useful in diagnosing PF. To identify relations between specific parameters and grades of PF, logistic regression analysis was invoked.ResultsBoth pancreatic stiffness (r = 0.754; P < 0.001) and T1 relaxation time (r = 0.433; P < 0.001) correlated significantly with PF (%). To determine PF grades ≥F1, a combined model (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.906) performed significantly better than pancreatic stiffness (AUC = 0.855; P < 0.001) or T1 relaxation time (AUC = 0.754; P < 0.001) alone. For PF grades ≥F2 or grade F3, both the combined model (≥F2: AUC = 0.910; F3: AUC = 0.939) and pancreatic stiffness (≥F2: AUC = 0.906; F3: AUC = 0.929) outperformed T1 relaxation time (≥F2: AUC = 0.768 [P = 0.005 and P = 0.004, respectively]; F3: AUC = 0.816 [both P < 0.005]). All IVIM‐DWI parameters generated AUC values <0.700.Data ConclusionA combination of MRE and T1 mapping seems promising in diagnosing various grades of PF, particularly at an early stage.Level of Evidence1Technical EfficacyStage 2

BackgroundLarge‐scale normative studies of pancreatic stiffness and potential influences have yet to be pursued via magnetic resonance elastography (MRE).PurposeTo determine normative MRE‐based pancreatic stiffness values and to examine related influential factors.Study TypeProspective.SubjectsIn all, 361 volunteers (men, 199; women, 162) with a median age of 54.0 years and a median body mass index (BMI) of 22.86 kg/m2 were prospectively recruited. Those with no histories of smoking, alcohol abuse, and diabetes mellitus (DM) were grouped as healthy volunteers, designating all others as positive controls.Field Strength/SequenceEach volunteer underwent 3.0T pancreatic MRI at a frequency of 40 Hz.AssessmentPancreatic stiffness values, pancreatic width and volume, waist circumference, and wave distance were measured in all subjects.Statistical TestsMultiple linear regression analyses were performed to determine variables that influence MRE‐determined stiffness.ResultsThe mean pancreatic stiffness in all volunteers was 1.20 ± 0.16 kPa. Stiffness levels in positive control volunteers proved significantly greater than levels in healthy volunteers (1.29 ± 0.17 kPa vs. 1.14 ± 0.13 kPa; P < 0.001). In multiple linear regression analysis, sex (P = 0.004), BMI (P < 0.001), pancreatic width (P = 0.005), smoking (P < 0.001), alcohol abuse (P < 0.001), and DM (P = 0.001) emerged as significant independent factors impacting pancreatic stiffness. Smoking, alcohol abuse, DM, and wide pancreas were associated with greater pancreatic stiffness (coefficients = 0.202, 0.183, 0.149, and 0.160, respectively), while reduced pancreatic stiffness corresponded with female sex and larger BMI (coefficient = −0.155 and −0.192, respectively).Data ConclusionMRE‐based pancreatic stiffness values are impacted by sex, BMI, pancreatic width, smoking, alcohol abuse, and DM. Reference values are essential for future clinical studies.Level of Evidence: 1Technical Efficacy: Stage 2J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:448–458.