• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Two-point Dixon and six-point Dixon magnetic resonance techniques in the detection,quantification and grading of hepatic steatosis

    2023-12-11 13:04:58MohamedElfaalAlannaSupersadCraigFergusonStephanieLocasFlorinManoleaMitchellWilsonMedicaSamWendyTuGavinLow
    World Journal of Radiology 2023年10期

    Mohamed Elfaal,Alanna Supersad,Craig Ferguson,Stephanie Locas,Florin Manolea,Mitchell P Wilson,Medica Sam,Wendy Tu,Gavin Low

    Abstract BACKGROUND Hepatic steatosis is a very common problem worldwide.AIM To assess the performance of two-and six-point Dixon magnetic resonance (MR) techniques in the detection,quantification and grading of hepatic steatosis.METHODS A single-center retrospective study was performed in 62 patients with suspected parenchymal liver disease.MR sequences included two-point Dixon,six-point Dixon,MR spectroscopy (MRS) and MR elastography.Fat fraction (FF) estimates on the Dixon techniques were compared to the MRS-proton density FF (PDFF).Statistical tests used included Pearson’s correlation and receiver operating characteristic.RESULTS FF estimates on the Dixon techniques showed excellent correlation (≥ 0.95) with MRS-PDFF,and excellent accuracy [area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) ≥ 0.95] in: (1) Detecting steatosis;and (2) Grading severe steatosis,(P < 0.001).In iron overload,two-point Dixon was not evaluable due to confounding T2* effects.FF estimates on six-point Dixon vs MRS-PDFF showed a moderate correlation (0.82) in iron overload vs an excellent correlation (0.97) without iron overload,(P < 0.03).The accuracy of six-point Dixon in grading mild steatosis improved (AUROC: 0.59 to 0.99) when iron overload cases were excluded.The excellent correlation (> 0.9) between the Dixon techniques vs MRSPDFF did not change in the presence of liver fibrosis (P < 0.01).CONCLUSION Dixon techniques performed satisfactorily for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis but with exceptions.

    Key Words: Chemical shift encoded Dixon magnetic resonance techniques;Hepatic steatosis;Liver fat quantification;Magnetic resonance spectroscopy;Proton density fat fraction;Ultrasound

    INTRODUCTION

    Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common chronic liver disease worldwide with a global prevalence of 25% (estimated at 1 billion people)[1-5].Roughly 20% have non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH),characterized by hepatocyte injury and inflammation.These patients are at risk for progression to liver fibrosis and cirrhosis[6].Consequently,steatosis and fibrosis may frequently co-exist in the liver.NAFLD is also associated with metabolic syndrome,type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease[6].Accurate detection,quantification and grading of steatosis are necessary for risk stratification,to monitor disease progression and to assess the treatment response.

    Liver biopsy is the reference standard for liver fat evaluation but is invasive and can be associated with pain,bleeding and death (1 in 10000)[7].It has poor patient acceptability and is not suitable as a screening tool or for longitudinal patient monitoring.Biopsy is associated with high sampling variability as it only evaluates 1:50000thof the liver[8].As steatosis often affects the liver non-uniformly,biopsy may be poorly representative.Finally,the histopathology assessment is a qualitative process prone to intra-and inter-reader variability[7].

    B-mode ultrasound (US) is the first-line imaging test for investigating patients with suspected parenchymal liver disease.It is non-invasive,easy to perform,inexpensive and widely available.However,it has questionable utility as a screening tool due to poor sensitivity in mild steatosis[1,6,9].Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) is widely regarded as the non-invasive reference standard for liver fat quantification.It is strongly correlated with histopathology and has been touted as a replacement for biopsy[10-12].It can directly measure the chemical composition of liver fat and produces a proton density fat fraction (PDFF) according to the formula: PDFF=F/(F+W),where F and W are the unconfounded signals of protons within mobile fat and mobile water molecules,respectively.MRS has drawbacks including a limited spatial coverage and is technically demanding requiring specialized software and expertise so is generally only available in large academic centers.

    Chemical shift encoded fat and water separation MR techniques are based on the principle that fat and water protons oscillate at different resonant frequencies.The fat-water resonance frequency differences (225 Hz at 1.5 T and 450 Hz at 3 T) create phase shifts that can be used to separate fat and water signals.The first chemical shift fat and water separation method,termed ‘two-point Dixon’,was described in 1984[13].This technique involves the dual-echo acquisition of T1 weighted in-phase (IP) and opposed-phased (OP) images that can be used to generate separated fat-only and water-only images.This allows the hepatic FF to be calculated as follows[6]: FF%=(IP -OP)/(2 × IP).Two-point Dixon sequences are part of the routine toolkit of MR liver imaging worldwide,and have been performed in many clinical applications over the years.These are familiar sequences to practicing body MR radiologists,easy to perform,can sample large areas of the liver,and do not require sophisticated software.However,1stgeneration fat quantification on two-point Dixon is prone to underestimation due to confounders such as B0inhomogeneity,T1 bias,T2* effects,noise bias,spectral complexity of fat,eddy currents and J-coupling[6].Fat quantification is also adversely affected by liver iron overload due to T2* decay which has opposing effects to fat on liver signal leading to inaccuracies.Additionally,the two-point Dixon technique has a narrower dynamic range of 0%-50% liver FF although this approximates the normal biologic range in humans so is not generally a practical limitation[1,14].Recent advances have led to the development of modern Dixon sequences that are corrected for confounders leading to more accurate liver fat quantification[1,14,15].These complex multi-echo chemical shift encoded techniques utilize both the phase and magnitude of the MR signal and can provide fat quantification [MR imaging (MRI)-PDFF] over the entire physical range (0%-100%).The most common method involves the acquisition of 6 echos and is termed ‘six-point Dixon’.By performing automatic segmentectomy,multi-echo Dixon techniques can generate whole liver fat quantification.Confounder corrected R2* maps,acquired simultaneously,provide fat-corrected liver iron quantification.Unlike two-point Dixon which is performed ubiquitously in clinical liver imaging worldwide,six-point Dixon requires dedicated software that has to be purchased separately,so access to this technique is limited clinically.

    On this background,the primary aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of 1stgeneration two-point Dixon (widely available clinically) and modern six-point Dixon MR techniques (limited access clinically) in the detection,quantification and grading of hepatic steatosis,using MRS as the reference standard.The secondary aims were: (1) To assess the confounding effects of iron overload on the Dixon techniques,a subgroup analysis was performed in patients with and without iron overload;(2) As steatosis and fibrosis are often found together in NAFLD patients,a subgroup analysis was performed to determine if liver fibrosis had an influence on FF estimates;and (3) To assess the accuracy of US for detecting and grading hepatic steatosis,a subgroup analysis was performed in patients with an US examination within 6 mo of the MR.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    This was a retrospective single-center cross-sectional study.Institutional ethics and review board approval was granted and the requirement for informed patient consent was waived.From July 2021 to February 2022 (8 mo),all consecutive adult patients (≥ 18 years old) that underwent a per-protocol clinical MR examination for the combined assessment of liver fat,iron and fibrosis for suspected diffuse parenchymal liver disease and without known focal liver lesions,were entered into the study.Three patients were excluded from the study due to technically poor-quality MR examinations.

    MR protocol

    All examinations were performed on a 1.5-T MR system (Magnetom Aera,Siemens Healthcare,Erlangen,Germany) using an 18-channel body matrix array coil.The technical MR parameters are included in Table 1.Additionally,an MR elastography (MRE) examination was also performed using a commercially available clinical system (Resoundant,MN,United States).

    Data processing and analysis

    For the MR examination,the proprietary liver fat and iron quantification software (LiverLab,Siemen Healthcare) automatically generates the following information on picture archiving and communication system (PACS): (1) A report of the mean MRI-PDFF (%) and mean R2* (s-1) of the entire liver (segmentectomy) and of a selected region of interest (ROI);and (2) A spectroscopy report of the mean MRS-PDFF (%) of a 27 cm3voxel.The MRI-PDFF (segmentectomy) and MRS-PDFF data as well as liver stiffness data acquired on MRE were imported into an Excel spreadsheet.Only the primary investigative team (Mohamed Elfaal and Alanna Supersad) had access to this data.

    After removing patient identifying information,the following anonymized datasets were entered into 1 of 2 research folders on PACS.Cases were randomized within each folder and allocated unique research identification numbers.Folder 1 contained the T1 IP and OP MR images (two-point Dixon) of all patients.Folder 2 contained the static and cine US images of patients with an US within 6 mo of the MR.Three fellowship trained board-certified radiologists (with 2 years,2 years,and 5 years of clinical experience,respectively) independently analyzed cases in folder 1.The readers were blinded to the clinical data.Using a well-established and validated technique,each reader manually placed 4 circular ROIs over the liver (2 in each hepatic lobe) on both the T1 IP and OP MR images[16].The ROI size was set to a minimum threshold of 4 cm in diameter/12.6 cm2area and ROIs were placed taking care to avoid large vessels,bile ducts and the liver margin.The hepatic FF on two-point Dixon was calculated using the formula[6],FF=(IP -OP)/(2 × IP).

    Three other fellowship trained board-certified radiologists (with 3 years,4 years,and 2 years of clinical experience,respectively) independently analyzed cases in folders 2.The readers were blinded to the background clinical data.For folder 2,the readers were required to assess if hepatic steatosis was present or absent on the US images,and determine the grade of steatosis.The following US criteria were used[17,18]: (1) Mild steatosis: Liver echogenicity exceeds that of the renal cortex;(2) Moderate steatosis: Poor delineation of the echogenic walls of the intrahepatic portal vein branches;and (3) Severe steatosis: Loss of definition of the posterior hepatic margin or diaphragm outline.

    Reader data on folders 1 and 2 were submitted to the primary investigative team for export into the excel spreadsheet.For folder 1,a group averaged FF on two-point Dixon was calculated for each case.For folder 2,the group decision on whether steatosis was present or absent on each case was determined by the majority rule.Cases that did not meet agreement by at least 2 of the 3 readers were not included in the final analysis.

    Sample size calculation

    An a-prior power analysis was performed on G*Power.Assuming a mild effect size of 0.4,alpha of 0.05 and beta of 0.2,a minimum sample size of 52 was needed to achieve a power of 0.8.

    Statistical analysis

    The following statistical tests were used: (1) Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to calculate the inter-reader agreement for FF estimates on two-point Dixon;(2) Pearson’s correlation and Bland Altman to assess the inter-test correlation and variability,respectively,for FF estimates on two-point DixonvsMRS,and six-point DixonvsMRS;(3) Linear regression to model the relationship between two-point DixonvsMRS,and six-point DixonvsMRS for fat quantification;(4) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to determine the accuracy of two-point Dixon,six-point Dixon and USfor the detection and grading of steatosis;and (5) Fleiss kappa to calculate the inter-reader agreement for detecting steatosis on US.The kappa (k) value interpretation as suggested by Cohen was used:k< 0.20 (poor agreement),0.21-0.40 (fair agreement),0.41-0.60 (moderate agreement),0.61-0.80 (good agreement),and 0.81-1.00 (excellent agreement)[19].

    Statistical analysis was performed on IBM SPSS (version 26) and MedCalc (version 19.6.1).APvalue of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Statistical review was performed by a study author with training in medical statistics.

    RESULTS

    There were 62 patients including 33 males (53.2%) and 29 females (46.8%).The mean age was 54.4 ± 13.2 years and ranged from 18 to 80 years.Past medical history included obesity in 23 (37.1%),diabetes in 16 (25.8%),dyslipidemia in 15 (24.2%),hypertension in 14 (22.6%),NASH in 3 (4.8%),NAFLD in 2 (3.2%),hepatitis B in 1 (1.6%),hepatitis C in 1 (1.6%) and hypothyroidism in 1 (1.6%).The body mass index (BMI) was available in 33 patients (53.2%) with a mean BMI of 34.7 ± 7.8 kg/m2(range 19.8-60.4 kg/m2).Accordingly,25 (40.3%) were obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) and 6 (9.7%) were overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2).

    The mean MRS-PDFF was 13.6% ± 8.9% (range 2.6%-34.3%).As proposed by Starekovaet al[6],PDFF thresholds for mild,moderate and severe hepatic steatosis were set as 5%,15% and 25%,respectively.Using MRS-PDFF as the reference standard,mild steatosis was found in 23 (37.1%),moderate steatosis in 15 (24.2%),severe steatosis in 9 (14.5%),and a nonsteatotic liver in 15 (24.2%).

    Seven patients (11.3%) had hepatic iron overload -all were of mild grade.This was associated with a mean R2* of 88.2 ± 21.7 s-1(range 70.4-133.3 s-1) and a mean liver iron concentration of 2.8 ± 2.8 mg/g Fedw(range 2.2-4.4 mg/g Fedw).The FF was not evaluable on two-point Dixon in any of these patients as T2* effects from iron led to net signal loss on the IP images relative to the OP images resulting in erroneously negative calculations using the FF formula.The 7 cases were removed from the two-point Dixon dataset so the resulting dataset (n=55) consisted of only cases with a normal liver iron concentration (< 2 mg/g Fedw).In contrast,six-point Dixon was not failed by iron overload and this dataset (n=62) included a mixed cohort of cases with and without iron overload.

    The liver stiffness was acquired in 60 patients and not evaluable in two others due to technical failure of MRE.A liver stiffness cut-off of ≥ 2.9 Ka was used to indicate the presence of liver fibrosis (F1 or higher)[20].Accordingly,there were 24 patients (36.9%) with liver fibrosis and 36 patients (55.4%) without liver fibrosis.

    ICC showed an excellent inter-reader agreement of 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99-1,P< 0.001] for calculating the FF estimates on two-point Dixon.Pearson showed an excellent inter-test correlation of 0.95 and 0.96,respectively,for FF estimates on two-point DixonvsMRS-PDFF and six-point DixonvsMRS-PDFF,P< 0.001.On six-point DixonvsMRSPDFF,a moderate correlation (0.82) was noted in iron overloadvsan excellent correlation (0.97) without iron overload,P< 0.03.In comparison,liver fibrosis did not affect the correlation between FF estimates and the MRS-PDFF.Excellent correlations of 0.98 (fibrosis)vs0.98 (no fibrosis) on two-point Dixon and 0.92 (fibrosis)vs0.94 (no fibrosis) on six-point Dixon were noted,P< 0.01.

    Bland Altman was used to assess the inter-test variability of FF estimates on the Dixon techniquesvsMRS-PDFF (Figures 1 and 2).The mean difference between tests and 95% lower and upper limits of agreement (LOA) were: (1) 1.2% and -6.1%,8.5% on two-point Dixonvs0.8% and -4.3%,5.9% on six-point Dixon;(2) 1.5% and -9.5%,12.5% (iron overload)vs0.7% and -3.3%,4.7% (no iron overload),on six-point Dixon;(3) 1.5% and -3.9%,5.4% (liver fibrosis)vs1.1% and -7.4%,9.5% (no liver fibrosis),on two-point Dixon;and (4) 0.7% and -3%,4.5% (liver fibrosis)vs0.9% and -5%,6.8% (no liver fibrosis),on six-point Dixon.

    Figure 1 Bland Altman plots demonstrate the inter-test variability for fat fraction estimates. A: Two-point Dixon vs magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS);B: Six-point Dixon vs MRS;C and D: Patients with and without liver iron overload on six-point Dixon vs MRS.MRS: Magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

    Figure 2 Bland Altman plots demonstrate the inter-test variability for fat fraction estimates vs magnetic resonance spectroscopy for patients with and without liver fibrosis on two-point Dixon and six-point Dixon. A: Two-point Dixon vs magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) in patients with liver fibrosis;B: Six-point Dixon vs MRS in patients with liver fibrosis;C: Two-point Dixon vs MRS in patients without liver fibrosis;D: Six-point Dixon vs MRS in patients without liver fibrosis.MRS: Magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

    Linear regression showed a highly significant linear relationship between the Dixon techniques and MRS for liver fat quantification (P< 0.001) (Figure 3).For two-point Dixon,the regression equation was: MRS-PDFF (%)=4.67+0.76 (FFtwo-point Dixon).TheR2was 0.90 signifying that 90% of the variance in MRS-PDFF was predictable from the FF estimates on two-point Dixon.For six-point Dixon,the regression equation was: MRS-PDFF (%)=0.59+1.02 (FFsix-point Dixon).TheR2was 0.92 signifying that 92% of the variance in MRS-PDFF was predictable from the FF estimates on six-point Dixon.

    Figure 3 Scatterplots demonstrate a strong linear relationship. A: Scatterplots demonstrate a strong linear relationship between two-point Dixon vs magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS);B: Scatterplots demonstrate a strong linear relationship between six-point Dixon vs MRS for liver fat quantification.MRS:Magnetic resonance spectroscopy;PDFF: Proton density fat fraction.

    ROC analysis showed an excellent accuracy for detecting steatosis on both two-point Dixon [area under the ROC (AUROC)=0.96,95%CI: 0.86-0.99,P< 0.001] and six-point Dixon (AUROC=0.95,95%CI: 0.86-0.99,P< 0.001) (Figure 4).Similarly,an excellent accuracy was found for grading severe steatosis on both two-point Dixon (AUROC=0.96,95%CI: 0.87-1,P< 0.001) and six-point Dixon (AUROC=0.97,95%CI: 0.89-1,P< 0.001) (Figure 5).For grading moderate steatosis,there was fair accuracy on both two-point Dixon (AUROC=0.72,95%CI: 0.58-0.84,P=0.001) and six-point Dixon (AUROC=0.75,95%CI: 0.62-0.85,P< 0.001).For grading mild steatosis,the accuracy was fair on two-point Dixon (AUROC=0.75,95%CI: 0.61-0.86,P< 0.01) but poor on six-point Dixon (AUROC=0.59,95%CI: 0.46-0.71,P=0.21).When patients with iron overload were removed from the analysis,the accuracy for grading mild steatosis increased to excellent on six-point Dixon (AUROC=0.99,95%CI: 0.91-1.00,P< 0.001) (Figure 6A).

    Figure 4 Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrates excellent accuracy for detecting hepatic steatosis on two-point Dixon and six-point Dixon. A: Two-point Dixon;B: Six-point Dixon.AUC: Area under the curve.

    Figure 5 Receiver operating characteristic analysis. A: The accuracy for grading mild hepatic steatosis on two-point Dixon and six-point Dixon;B: The accuracy for grading moderate hepatic steatosis on two-point Dixon and six-point Dixon;C: The accuracy for grading severe hepatic steatosis on two-point Dixon and six-point Dixon.Two-point Dixon was performed in patients with no iron overload while six-point Dixon was performed in a mixed cohort of patients with and without iron overload.AUC: Area under the curve.

    Figure 6 Receiver operating characteristic analysis. A: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrates excellent accuracy for grading mild hepatic steatosis on six-point Dixon in patients with no iron overload;B: ROC analysis demonstrates good accuracy for detecting hepatic steatosis on ultrasound.AUC: Area under the curve.

    Figure 7 Receiver operating characteristic analysis shows the accuracy for grading mild,moderate and severe hepatic steatosis on ultrasound. A: The accuracy for grading mild hepatic steatosis on ultrasound;B: The accuracy for grading moderate hepatic steatosis on ultrasound;C: The accuracy for grading severe hepatic steatosis on ultrasound.AUC: Area under the curve.

    There were 29 patients that had an US examination within 6 mo of the MR.Fleiss kappa found a moderate inter-reader agreement (k=0.45,95%CI: 0.33-0.58,P< 0.001) for detecting steatosis on US.For grading steatosis,the inter-reader agreement was moderate for both mild steatosis (k=0.44,95%CI: 0.23-0.65,P< 0.001) and severe steatosis (k=0.42,95%CI: 0.21-0.63,P< 0.001),and fair for moderate steatosis (k=0.28,95%CI: 0.10-0.49,P=0.01).Conversely,the interreader agreement for detecting a non-steatotic liver on US was excellent (k=0.82,95%CI: 0.61-1,P< 0.001).ROC analysis demonstrated that US had a good accuracy for detecting steatosis (AUROC=0.86,95%CI: 0.67-0.96,P< 0.001) but was inferior in grading steatosis.US showed poor accuracy in grading mild steatosis (AUROC=0.62,95%CI: 0.41-0.80,P=0.27) and only fair accuracy in grading both moderate steatosis (AUROC=0.79,95%CI: 0.59-0.93,P< 0.001) and severe steatosis (AUROC=0.78,95%CI: 0.58-0.92,P< 0.01) (Figures 6B and 7).

    DISCUSSION

    MRS-PDFF is widely recognized as the most accurate non-invasive biomarker of hepatic steatosis[10-12,21-24].In our study,we found an excellent correlation (≥ 0.95) between FF estimates on two-and six-point DixonvsMRS-PDFF (P< 0.001).The findings are concordant with the correlations (0.8-0.99) reported in other studies[25-28].We also demonstrated a strong linear relationship between the Dixon techniques and MRS for liver fat quantification as defined by the equations MRS-PDFF (%)=4.67+0.76 (FFtwo-point Dixon) and MRS-PDFF (%)=0.59+1.02 (FFsix-point Dixon).Findings on ROC analysis demonstrate that the Dixon techniques have excellent accuracy for detecting hepatic steatosis (AUROC ≥ 0.95,P< 0.001) and in grading severe steatosis (AUROC ≥ 0.96,P< 0.001) as well as fair accuracy in grading moderate steatosis (AUROC ≥ 0.72,P=0.001).Two-point Dixon also showed fair accuracy for grading mild steatosis (AUROC=0.75,P< 0.01).However,the main limitation of two-point Dixon is that it cannot be used to estimate the FF in iron overload.Despite this,two-point Dixon,a ubiquitous abdominal MR sequence,has the notable practical advantage of being widely available clinically worldwide unlike six-point Dixon or MRS,where clinical access is limited to a number of large specialized centres.In many centers that do not have access to the latter,two-point Dixon may be used as a pragmatic option (‘’a poor man’s fat quantification’’) in the absence of iron overload.Moreover,FF estimates on two-point Dixon are technically simple to perform manually and have excellent inter-reader agreement (0.99,P< 0.001).In comparison,sixpoint Dixon can be used in iron overload although subgroup analysis suggests that this test performs better in patients without iron overload.Comparing FF estimatesvsMRS-PDFF,inter-test correlation was moderate (0.82) in patients with iron overloadvsexcellent (0.97) in patients without iron overload,P< 0.001.Bland Altman showed a slightly wider intertest disparity between FF estimatesvsMRS-PDFF in patients with iron overload (mean difference=1.5%,LOA of -9.5%,12.5%) compared to patients without iron overload (mean difference=0.7%,LOA of -3.3%,4.7%).Iron overload also negatively affected the accuracy of six-point Dixon in grading mild steatosis.When patients with iron overload were removed from the analysis,the AUROC increased from 0.59 to 0.99 (P< 0.001).Unlike iron overload,liver fibrosis did not affect the correlation between FF estimates on the Dixon techniques and MRS-PDFF.Correlation remained excellent (> 0.9) whether fibrosis was present or absent,P< 0.01.Inter-test variability on Bland Altman was similar in patients with or without fibrosis.

    US had a poorer diagnostic performance in evaluating hepatic steatosis compared to MRI.The inter-reader agreement was moderate on USvsexcellent on the Dixon techniques.The accuracy for detecting steatosis was also lower on US (AUROC=0.86,P< 0.001) compared to the Dixon techniques (AUROC ≥ 0.95,P< 0.001).Similarly,US had a lower accuracy (AUROC=0.78,P< 0.01) than the Dixon techniques (AUROC ≥ 0.96,P< 0.001) in grading severe steatosis.

    The study had several limitations.This was a single-center retrospective analysis performed on a relatively modest number of patients.Notwithstanding,the study was adequately powered to detect statistically significant differences.Future multi-institution studies are necessary to determine the generalizability of our findings.Our study cohort was drawn from patients with suspected diffuse parenchymal liver disease,of which 75.8% had hepatic steatosis on MRSPDFF.While the high prevalence of steatosis in the study provided a valuable source of data for analysis,we acknowledge that our study is skewed by selection bias and does not reflect the true prevalence of steatosis in the general population.Finally,our study was performed exclusively on a single vendor 1.5-T MR platform using clinically available proprietary software.We did not evaluate the confounding effects of higher magnet strengths (e.g.,3-T),different manufacturer platforms,software or protocols as it was not within the scope of our study.Anex-vivophantom study reported that multi-echo Dixon techniques were accurate and reliable across 1.5-T and 3-T,different clinical platforms and multiple institutions[29].However,a similar study in a large patient population with various grades of hepatic steatosis would be helpful to establish the clinical translatability of the findings.

    CONCLUSION

    In conclusion,our study findings suggest that in general the Dixon techniques perform satisfactorily for the detection,quantification and grading of hepatic steatosis but with exceptions.Two-point Dixon is a clinically widely available 1stgeneration technique while six-point Dixon is a modern technique that is not routinely available clinically in many centers.The main weakness of two-point Dixon is that it cannot be used in iron overload due to unmitigated signal decay from T2* effects[30].In comparison,six-point Dixon can be used in iron overload,although its ability to grade mild steatosis may be compromised suggesting imperfect confounder correction.Additionally,liver fibrosis did not appear to have an impact on FF estimates on the Dixon techniques -a finding that to our knowledge has not been previously reported.Lastly,both Dixon techniques showed superior inter-reader agreement and accuracy for detecting steatosis compared to US.Ability to grade severe steatosis was also better on MR.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research background

    Hepatic steatosis is a global healthcare concern.

    Research motivation

    There is a clinical need to determine how good existing magnetic resonance (MR) techniques are in evaluating hepatic steatosis.

    Research objectives

    The primary objective was to test the diagnostic performance of two-and six-point Dixon MR techniques in evaluating hepatic steatosis.

    Research methods

    A retrospective single center study was performed in patients with suspected diffuse parenchymal liver disease.All patients underwent MR imaging assessment with two-point Dixon,six-point Dixon and MR spectroscopy.Findings on two-point Dixon and six-point Dixon were compared against the reference standard,MR spectroscopy.

    Research results

    We found an excellent correlation (≥ 0.95) between fat fraction estimates on two-and six-point Dixon when compared against magnetic resonance spectroscopy (P< 0.001).

    Research conclusions

    Two-and six-point Dixon are useful MR techniques for evaluating patients with hepatic steatosis.

    Research perspectives

    MR techniques can provide accurate non-invasive assessment of hepatic steatosis.

    FOOTNOTES

    Author contributions:Elfaal M,Supersad A,Ferguson C,Locas S,Manolea F,Wilson MP,Sam M,Tu W,and Low G contributed to data collection,data analysis,editing the manuscript;and all authors approved the final manuscript.

    Institutional review board statement:The study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Alberta,Canada and the Institutional Review Board of Alberta Health Services and Northern Alberta Clinical Trials and Research Centre.

    Informed consent statement:The Ethics Committee of the University of Alberta,Canada,waived the requirement for signed informed consent for this retrospective study for which anonymous clinical data was used.

    Conflict-of-interest statement:All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.

    Data sharing statement:No additional data is available.

    Open-Access:This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers.It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license,which permits others to distribute,remix,adapt,build upon this work non-commercially,and license their derivative works on different terms,provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/

    Country/Territory of origin:Canada

    ORCID number:Mitchell P Wilson 0000-0002-1630-5138;Medica Sam 0000-0002-3962-633X;Gavin Low 0000-0002-4959-8934.

    S-Editor:Wang JJ

    L-Editor:A

    P-Editor:Zhao S

    久久九九热精品免费| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 久久伊人香网站| a级毛片在线看网站| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 久久久成人免费电影| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 88av欧美| 国产精品一及| 国产av在哪里看| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 久久久精品大字幕| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 日韩有码中文字幕| 午夜福利在线在线| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 日本成人三级电影网站| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 国产高清三级在线| 国产午夜精品论理片| av黄色大香蕉| 亚洲国产色片| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 久久人人精品亚洲av| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 久久亚洲真实| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人 | 国产高清三级在线| 不卡一级毛片| 最新中文字幕久久久久 | 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 日日夜夜操网爽| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 99热只有精品国产| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| av福利片在线观看| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 亚洲五月天丁香| av片东京热男人的天堂| 成人18禁在线播放| 成人欧美大片| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 成在线人永久免费视频| 少妇丰满av| 免费看a级黄色片| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 天堂影院成人在线观看| 18禁观看日本| 91av网站免费观看| 亚洲第一电影网av| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 久久伊人香网站| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 国产免费男女视频| 久久伊人香网站| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 看片在线看免费视频| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 亚洲中文av在线| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 国模一区二区三区四区视频 | 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 国产免费男女视频| 九九在线视频观看精品| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 99热这里只有精品一区 | 午夜日韩欧美国产| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 国产成人系列免费观看| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 国产精华一区二区三区| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 一级黄色大片毛片| 国产乱人视频| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 热99在线观看视频| 99热只有精品国产| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 美女大奶头视频| 精品电影一区二区在线| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 91av网一区二区| 搡老岳熟女国产| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 最好的美女福利视频网| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 精品福利观看| 美女免费视频网站| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 性欧美人与动物交配| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| av在线天堂中文字幕| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 久久这里只有精品19| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 全区人妻精品视频| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 亚洲无线在线观看| 国产精品 国内视频| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 制服人妻中文乱码| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 亚洲色图av天堂| 午夜福利高清视频| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 免费大片18禁| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看 | 一级毛片高清免费大全| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 久久久久九九精品影院| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 波多野结衣高清作品| 国产精品女同一区二区软件 | 俺也久久电影网| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 欧美日韩精品网址| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 亚洲片人在线观看| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 最好的美女福利视频网| 久久这里只有精品中国| 天堂√8在线中文| 极品教师在线免费播放| 精品久久久久久久末码| 国产成人aa在线观看| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 看免费av毛片| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 熟女电影av网| 99视频精品全部免费 在线 | 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 国产精华一区二区三区| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 免费看日本二区| 一本精品99久久精品77| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 久久精品91蜜桃| 熟女电影av网| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 美女免费视频网站| 国产精品,欧美在线| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 超碰成人久久| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 色吧在线观看| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 一本一本综合久久| 精品久久久久久成人av| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 9191精品国产免费久久| 日本成人三级电影网站| 亚洲成人久久性| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 九色成人免费人妻av| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| www日本在线高清视频| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 91av网站免费观看| 久99久视频精品免费| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 不卡一级毛片| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 黄频高清免费视频| 一本一本综合久久| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 九九在线视频观看精品| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 国产精品,欧美在线| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 国产真实乱freesex| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 国产三级在线视频| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 热99re8久久精品国产| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 熟女电影av网| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 久久香蕉精品热| 亚洲片人在线观看| 91av网站免费观看| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 日本成人三级电影网站| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 免费观看人在逋| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| a级毛片a级免费在线| 很黄的视频免费| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 国产精品,欧美在线| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| av福利片在线观看| avwww免费| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 99热这里只有精品一区 | 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 国产高潮美女av| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 校园春色视频在线观看| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 免费看a级黄色片| 免费观看人在逋| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 午夜福利高清视频| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 男女那种视频在线观看| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 精品一区二区三区视频在线 | 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 91在线观看av| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站 | 99热这里只有精品一区 | 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| av黄色大香蕉| 国产乱人视频| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| www.精华液| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 99热这里只有是精品50| 亚洲 国产 在线| 91av网站免费观看| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 精品久久久久久久末码| www.精华液| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 精品一区二区三区视频在线 | 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产 | 一个人看视频在线观看www免费 | 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 久久久久久大精品| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 在线看三级毛片| av福利片在线观看| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| av在线蜜桃| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 精品久久久久久久末码| 级片在线观看| 999精品在线视频| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 国产成人aa在线观看| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 91麻豆av在线| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费 | 免费av不卡在线播放| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 日韩高清综合在线| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 免费大片18禁| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 亚洲18禁久久av| 一本一本综合久久| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 一夜夜www| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片 | 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 国产不卡一卡二| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 午夜福利在线在线| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 88av欧美| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 日本成人三级电影网站| a级毛片a级免费在线| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 天堂√8在线中文| 国产日本99.免费观看| 黄色成人免费大全| 国产成人福利小说| 高清在线国产一区| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 精品久久久久久久久av| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 1024手机看黄色片| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 美女大奶头视频| 欧美激情在线99| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 精品国产三级普通话版| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久 | 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 一夜夜www| 国产淫语在线视频| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 国产真实乱freesex| 精品酒店卫生间| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 99热这里只有精品一区| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 搞女人的毛片| 变态另类丝袜制服| 直男gayav资源| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 色视频www国产| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 国产乱人视频| 亚洲av熟女| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 国产精品永久免费网站| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 一级黄色大片毛片| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 麻豆成人av视频| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区 | 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 三级毛片av免费| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 日本一二三区视频观看| 国产黄片美女视频| 我要搜黄色片| 国产在线男女| 九九热线精品视视频播放| av在线老鸭窝| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 99热全是精品| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 日韩大片免费观看网站 | 看黄色毛片网站| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| av在线老鸭窝| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 六月丁香七月| 黄色一级大片看看| 免费大片18禁| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 色综合色国产| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| kizo精华| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| av免费在线看不卡| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 老女人水多毛片| 亚洲av.av天堂| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 99热这里只有精品一区| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 观看美女的网站| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 黄色配什么色好看| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 日本色播在线视频| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 欧美激情在线99| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 亚洲最大成人av| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 99热精品在线国产| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 男女那种视频在线观看| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 精品久久久久久成人av| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 极品教师在线视频| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 99热6这里只有精品| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| av在线观看视频网站免费| 久久精品夜色国产| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 免费看日本二区| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 国产91av在线免费观看| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 亚洲av.av天堂| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久|