BACKGROUND & AIMS: Accurate detection of hepatic fibrosis is crucial for assessing prognosis and candidacy for treatment in patients with chronic liver disease. Magnetic resonance (MR) elastography, a technique for quantitatively assessing the mechanical properties of soft tissues, has been shown previously to have potential for noninvasively detecting liver fibrosis. The goal of this work was to obtain preliminary estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of the technique in diagnosing liver fibrosis, and to assess its potential for identifying patients who potentially can avoid a biopsy procedure. METHODS: MR elastography was performed in 35 normal volunteers and 50 patients with chronic liver disease. MR imaging measurements of hepatic fat to water ratios were obtained to assess the potential for fat infiltration to affect stiffness-based detection of fibrosis. RESULTS: Liver stiffness increased systematically with fibrosis stage. Receiver operating curve analysis showed that, with a shear stiffness cut-off value of 2.93 kilopascals, the predicted sensitivity and specificity for detecting all grades of liver fibrosis is 98% and 99%, respectively. Receiver operating curve analysis also provided evidence that MR elastography can discriminate between patients with moderate and severe fibrosis (grades 2-4) and those with mild fibrosis (sensitivity, 86%; specificity, 85%). Hepatic stiffness does not appear to be influenced by the degree of steatosis. CONCLUSIONS: MR elastography is a safe, noninvasive technique with excellent diagnostic accuracy for assessing hepatic fibrosis. Based on the high negative predictive value of MR elastography, an initial clinical application may be to triage patients who are under consideration for biopsy examination to assess possible hepatic fibrosis.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Accurate detection of hepatic fibrosis is crucial for assessing prognosis and candidacy for treatment in patients with chronic liver disease. Magnetic resonance (MR) elastography, a technique for quantitatively assessing the mechanical properties of soft tissues, has been shown previously to have potential for noninvasively detecting liver fibrosis. The goal of this work was to obtain preliminary estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of the technique in diagnosing liver fibrosis, and to assess its potential for identifying patients who potentially can avoid a biopsy procedure. METHODS: MR elastography was performed in 35 normal volunteers and 50 patients with chronic liver disease. MR imaging measurements of hepatic fat to water ratios were obtained to assess the potential for fat infiltration to affect stiffness-based detection of fibrosis. RESULTS: Liver stiffness increased systematically with fibrosis stage. Receiver operating curve analysis showed that, with a shear stiffness cut-off value of 2.93 kilopascals, the predicted sensitivity and specificity for detecting all grades of liver fibrosis is 98% and 99%, respectively. Receiver operating curve analysis also provided evidence that MR elastography can discriminate between patients with moderate and severe fibrosis (grades 2-4) and those with mild fibrosis (sensitivity, 86%; specificity, 85%). Hepatic stiffness does not appear to be influenced by the degree of steatosis. CONCLUSIONS: MR elastography is a safe, noninvasive technique with excellent diagnostic accuracy for assessing hepatic fibrosis. Based on the high negative predictive value of MR elastography, an initial clinical application may be to triage patients who are under consideration for biopsy examination to assess possible hepatic fibrosis.
Authors: Christophe Corpechot; Ahmed El Naggar; Armelle Poujol-Robert; Marianne Ziol; Dominique Wendum; Olivier Chazouillères; Victor de Lédinghen; Daniel Dhumeaux; Patrick Marcellin; Michel Beaugrand; Raoul Poupon Journal: Hepatology Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: J Foucher; E Chanteloup; J Vergniol; L Castéra; B Le Bail; X Adhoute; J Bertet; P Couzigou; V de Lédinghen Journal: Gut Date: 2005-07-14 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Olivier Rouvière; Meng Yin; M Alex Dresner; Phillip J Rossman; Lawrence J Burgart; Jeff L Fidler; Richard L Ehman Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nicholas J Shaheen; Richard A Hansen; Douglas R Morgan; Lisa M Gangarosa; Yehuda Ringel; Michelle T Thiny; Mark W Russo; Robert S Sandler Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-07-18 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Laurent Huwart; Frank Peeters; Ralph Sinkus; Laurence Annet; Najat Salameh; Leon C ter Beek; Yves Horsmans; Bernard E Van Beers Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Juan S Calle-Toro; Suraj D Serai; Erum A Hartung; David J Goldberg; Bradley D Bolster; Kassa Darge; Sudha A Anupindi Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-03
Authors: Chun Yang; Meng Yin; Kevin J Glaser; Xiangyang Zhu; Kai Xu; Richard L Ehman; Jun Chen Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Peter M Graffy; Adnan Said; Daniel Jones; Brandon Welsh; Ryan Zea; Meghan G Lubner Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Daniel C Mellema; Pengfei Song; Randall R Kinnick; Joshua D Trzasko; Matthew W Urban; James F Greenleaf; Armando Manduca; Shigao Chen Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 10.048