Table 4 Radiological-pathological comparisons and expected outcomes
Analysis | Imaging investigated | Pathological reference | Expected outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
Qualitative analyses | |||
1. Image consistency | CUBE IDEAL T1w IDEAL T2w IDEAL Fat-water 2D MRCP 3D MRCP MP2RAGE MSE 3D MRF 2D MRF | Histological confirmation of the presence and type of lesion/tissue alteration identified by imaging | Diagnostic reliability using morphological sequences |
Quantitative analyses | |||
1. T1 relaxation time values of cirrhotic liver parenchyma 2. T1 relaxation time value of hepatic lesions 3. T1 relaxation time value of pancreatic lesion | MP2RAGE 3D MRF (T1-map) 2D MRF (T1-map) | 1. Fibrotic/regenerative characteristics of the liver tissue 2. Focal lesions affecting the cirrhotic liver 3. Pancreatic lesion characteristics | 1. Correlation between the fibrotic degree and the T1-value 2. Differential diagnosis of the focal hepatic lesions based on T1-value 3. Pancreatic lesion stroma related to T1-value |
1. T2 relaxation time values of hepatic lesions 2. T2 relaxation time value of pancreatic lesion | MSE 3D MRF (T2-map) | 1. Focal lesions affecting the cirrhotic liver 2. Pancreatic lesion characteristics | 1. Differential diagnosis of the focal hepatic lesions based on T2-value 2. Pancreatic lesion aggressiveness related to T2-value |
Fat-fraction values of steatotic liver parenchyma | IDEAL Fat-water 2D MRF (fat-fraction and water-fraction) 3D MRF (fat-fraction and water-fraction) | Well-established histological classification of the steatosis distribution | Good radiological-pathological correlation about the degree of steatosis |