Volume 47, Issue 1 pp. 141-151
Original Research

Diffusion-weighted imaging of hyperpolarized [13C]urea in mouse liver

Irene Marco-Rius PhD

Corresponding Author

Irene Marco-Rius PhD

Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

Address reprint requests to: I.M.-R., Current address: Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, UK. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
Jeremy W. Gordon PhD

Jeremy W. Gordon PhD

Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Aras N. Mattis MD, PhD

Aras N. Mattis MD, PhD

Department of Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

UCSF Liver Center University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Robert Bok MD PhD

Robert Bok MD PhD

Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Romelyn Delos Santos CLS

Romelyn Delos Santos CLS

Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Subramanian Sukumar PhD

Subramanian Sukumar PhD

Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Peder E.Z. Larson PhD

Peder E.Z. Larson PhD

Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Daniel B. Vigneron PhD

Daniel B. Vigneron PhD

Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

UCSF Liver Center University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Michael A. Ohliger MD, PhD

Michael A. Ohliger MD, PhD

Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

UCSF Liver Center University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 17 April 2017
Citations: 4

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of hyperpolarized (HP) [13C,15N]urea to the ADC of endogenous water in healthy and fibrotic mouse liver.

Materials and Methods

ADC measurements for water and [13C]urea were made in agarose phantoms at 14.1T. Next, the ADC of water and injected HP [13C,15N]urea were measured in eight CD1 mouse livers before and after induction of liver fibrosis using CCl4. Liver fibrosis was quantified pathologically using the modified Brunt fibrosis score and compared to the measured ADC of water and urea.

Results

In cell-free phantoms with 12.5% agarose, water ADC was nearly twice the ADC of urea (1.93 × 10−3 mm2/s vs. 1.00 × 10−3 mm2/s). The mean ADC values of water and [13C,15N]urea in healthy mouse liver (±SD) were nearly identical [(0.75 ± 0.11) × 10−3 mm2/s and (0.75 ± 0.22) × 10−3 mm2/s, respectively]. Mean water and [13C,15N]urea ADC values in fibrotic liver (±SD) were (0.84 ± 0.22) × 10−3 mm2/s and (0.75 ± 0.15) × 10−3 mm2/s, respectively. Neither water nor urea ADCs were statistically different in the fibrotic livers compared to baseline (P = 0.14 and P = 0.99, respectively). Water and urea ADCs were positively correlated at baseline (R2 = 0.52 and P = 0.045) but not in fibrotic livers (R2 = 0.23 and P = 0.23).

Conclusion

ADC of injected hyperpolarized urea in healthy liver reflects a smaller change as compared to free solution than ADC of water. This may reflect differences in cellular compartmentalization of the two compounds. No significant change in ADC of either water or urea were observed in relatively mild stages of liver fibrosis.

Level of Evidence: 1

Technical Efficacy: Stage 1

J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:141–151.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.