4.4 Article

Assessment of renal fibrosis in a rat model of unilateral ureteral obstruction with diffusion kurtosis imaging: Comparison with α-SMA expression and 18F-FDG PET

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 66, 期 -, 页码 176-184

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2019.08.035

关键词

Diffusion kurtosis imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Renal fibrosis; Unilateral ureteral obstruction

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81771801, 81571642, 81701657, 81801695]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate the utility of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) MRI for evaluation of renal fibrosis in rats with unilateral ureteral obstruction (UUO). Methods: Twenty-five rats had UUO, and ten rats were subjected to sham operation as control. DKI was performed on a 3.0 T MRI scanner on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 after ligation. All rats then underwent F-18-FDG dynamic PET to evaluate unilateral renal function, followed by histological analysis to examine a-smooth muscle actin (alpha-SMA) expression. DKI metrics were assessed among the time points and between two sides, and compared with maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), serum levels of creatinine and urea, and fibrosis marker alpha-SMA. Results: Mean kurtosis (MK) on day 7, axial kurtosis (Ka) on days 3 and 7, mean diffusivity (MD) on days 1, 3, 5, and 7, and fractional anisotropy (FA) on days 3, 5, and 7 of cortex and medulla between the UUO and contralateral sides were significantly different (all p < 0.05). Over the course of UUO progression, there were significant changes in Ka, MD and FA of medulla (all p < 0.05). FA of medulla was positively correlated with SUVmax (r = 0.641, p < 0.001), and MD of cortex was negatively correlated with urea (r = - 0.534, p = 0.001). MD of cortex was negatively correlated with alpha-SMA on UUO sides (r = - 0.710, p < 0.001). Conclusions: DKI shows the potential for noninvasive assessment of renal fibrosis and unilateral renal function induced by UUO.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据