Comparative Study Between Variable Flip Angle and Modified Look-Locker Inversion Recovery for Evaluating Renal Interstitial Fibrosis

Chenchen Hua,Yi Zhuang,Miaoyan Wang,Ting Cai,Bin Xu,Shaowei Hao,Xiangming Fang,Liang Wang,Leting Zhou
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.29611
2024-09-16
Abstract:Background: Variable flip angle (VFA) and modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) are frequently used for noninvasive evaluation of renal interstitial fibrosis (IF) in chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, controversy remains over which method is preferred. Purpose: To compare the diagnostic efficacy of VFA and MOLLI for T1 mapping in evaluating renal IF. Study type: Prospective. Subjects: Fifty-one participants with CKD (CKD stage 1-5, 35 males) and 18 healthy volunteers (eight males). Field strength/sequence: 3.0 T, three-dimensional gradient echo sequence for B1+ VFA, and two-dimensional gradient echo sequence for MOLLI. Assessment: Image quality was assessed on a five-point scale. Cortex and medulla T1 values (cT1 and mT1), corticomedullary T1 value difference (ΔT1, medulla - cortex), and corticomedullary T1 value ratio (ratio T1, cortex:medulla) were compared between VFA and MOLLI as well as between IF grade (0-4) based on biopsy. Statistical tests: Intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman analysis, analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis test, correlation analysis, and receiver operating characteristics analysis with the area under the curve (AUC). P-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: MOLLI provided significantly better image quality compared to VFA. cT1 and mT1 values significantly differed between VFA and MOLLI (cT1-VFA: 1771.4 ± 139.4 msec vs. cT1-MOLLI: 1729.9 ± 132.1 msec; mT1-VFA: 2076.0 [interquartile range (IQR): 2045.9-2129.9] msec vs. mT1-MOLLI: 2039.2 [IQR: 1997.8-2071.6] msec). ΔT1 and ratio T1 values were not different between VFA and MOLLI (ΔT1: 300.8 ± 71.4 vs. 306.0 ± 78.4, respectively, P = 0.33 and ratio T1: 0.85 ± 0.038 vs. 0.85 ± 0.041, respectively, P = 0.064). No difference was observed between T1 variables and T1 mapping methods in diagnosing IF. Data conclusion: ΔT1 and ratio T1 were not different between VFA and MOLLI. Both VFA and MOLLI are effective for noninvasive assessment of renal IF. Level of evidence: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?