Evaluation of liver function using liver parenchyma, spleen and portal vein signal intensities during the hepatobiliary phase in Gd-EOB-D TPA-enhanced MRI

• Main Authors: Ming Yang, Yue Zhang, Wenlu Zhao, Wen Cheng, Han Wang, Shengren Guo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2020-10-01
• Series: BMC Medical Imaging
• Subjects: Gd-EOB-DTPA; Magnetic resonance imaging; Liver function; Portal vein; Spleen
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12880-020-00519-7

Abstract Background Previous studies have used signal intensity (SI) to reflect liver function. However, few studies have evaluated liver function via the portal vein. Regarding the SI of the liver, spleen, and portal vein, no study has indicated which can best reflect liver function. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate whether these parameters can evaluate liver function in patients with cirrhosis and determine which is the best parameter. Methods 120 patients with normal livers (n = 41) or Child–Pugh class A (n = 50), B (n = 21) or C (n = 8) disease who had undergone Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI were retrospectively reviewed. Comparisons of the MRI data (liver parenchyma SI, portal vein SI, and spleen SI and liver-to-portal vein contrast ratio (LPC), liver-to-spleen contrast ratio (LSC), and portal vein-to-spleen contrast ratio (PSC)) in the 15-min hepatobiliary phase images were performed among the groups, and the correlations among the liver function parameters (total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, indirect bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, albumin, creatinine, platelet count, prothrombin time and international normalized ratio), liver function scores and MRI data were also quantitatively analysed. Results Significant differences were observed in the liver parenchyma SI, LPC and LSC among the groups. These values all decreased gradually from normal livers to Child–Pugh class C cirrhotic livers (P < 0.001). The portal vein SI constantly and slightly increased from normal livers to Child–Pugh class C cirrhotic livers, but no differences were found among the groups in the portal vein SI and PSC (P > 0.05). LPC showed a stronger correlation with the Child–Pugh score and MELD score than LSC and the liver parenchyma SI. The order of the AUCs of these parameters, from largest to smallest, was as follows: LPC, LSC, and liver parenchyma SI (P > 0.05). Conclusion The liver parenchyma SI, LSC and LPC may be used as alternative imaging biomarkers to assess liver function, while the portal vein SI and PSC do not reflect liver function. Furthermore, LPC values can more effectively distinguish severity among patients with cirrhosis than the liver parenchyma SI and LSC.