OBJECTIVES: To determine a highly specific liver attenuation threshold at unenhanced CT for biopsy-proven moderate to severe hepatic steatosis (≥30% at histology). METHODS: 315 asymptomatic adults (mean age ± SD, 31.5 ± 10.1 years; 207 men, 108 women) underwent same-day unenhanced liver CT and ultrasound-guided liver biopsy. Blinded to biopsy results, CT liver attenuation was measured using standard region-of-interest methodology. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to assess the relationship of CT liver attenuation with patient age, gender, BMI, CT system, and hepatic fat and iron content. RESULTS: Thirty-nine subjects had moderate to severe steatosis and 276 had mild or no steatosis. A liver attenuation threshold of 48 HU was 100% specific (276/276) for moderate to severe steatosis, with no false-positives. Sensitivity, PPV and NPV at this HU threshold was 53.8%, 100% and 93.9%. Hepatic fat content was the overwhelming determinant of liver attenuation values, but CT system (P < 0.001), and hepatic iron (P = 0.035) also had a statistically significant independent association. CONCLUSIONS: Unenhanced CT liver attenuation alone is highly specific for moderate to severe hepatic steatosis, allowing for confident non-invasive identification of large retrospective/prospective cohorts for natural history evaluation of incidental non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Low sensitivity, however, precludes effective population screening at this threshold. KEY POINTS: • Unenhanced CT liver attenuation is highly specific for diagnosing moderate/severe hepatic steatosis. • Unenhanced CT can identify large cohorts for epidemiological studies of incidental steatosis. • Unenhanced CT is not, however, effective for population screening for hepatic steatosis.
OBJECTIVES: To determine a highly specific liver attenuation threshold at unenhanced CT for biopsy-proven moderate to severe hepatic steatosis (≥30% at histology). METHODS: 315 asymptomatic adults (mean age ± SD, 31.5 ± 10.1 years; 207 men, 108 women) underwent same-day unenhanced liver CT and ultrasound-guided liver biopsy. Blinded to biopsy results, CT liver attenuation was measured using standard region-of-interest methodology. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to assess the relationship of CT liver attenuation with patient age, gender, BMI, CT system, and hepatic fat and iron content. RESULTS: Thirty-nine subjects had moderate to severe steatosis and 276 had mild or no steatosis. A liver attenuation threshold of 48 HU was 100% specific (276/276) for moderate to severe steatosis, with no false-positives. Sensitivity, PPV and NPV at this HU threshold was 53.8%, 100% and 93.9%. Hepatic fat content was the overwhelming determinant of liver attenuation values, but CT system (P < 0.001), and hepatic iron (P = 0.035) also had a statistically significant independent association. CONCLUSIONS: Unenhanced CT liver attenuation alone is highly specific for moderate to severe hepatic steatosis, allowing for confident non-invasive identification of large retrospective/prospective cohorts for natural history evaluation of incidental non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Low sensitivity, however, precludes effective population screening at this threshold. KEY POINTS: • Unenhanced CT liver attenuation is highly specific for diagnosing moderate/severe hepatic steatosis. • Unenhanced CT can identify large cohorts for epidemiological studies of incidental steatosis. • Unenhanced CT is not, however, effective for population screening for hepatic steatosis.
Authors: B F Kammen; P Pacharn; R F Thoeni; Y Lu; A Qayyum; F Coakly; C A Gooding; R C Brasch Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: M Raquel Oliva; Koenraad J Mortele; Enrika Segatto; Jonathan N Glickman; Sukru Mehmet Erturk; Pablo R Ros; Stuart G Silverman Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Seung H Park; Woo K Jeon; Sang H Kim; Hong J Kim; Dong I Park; Yong K Cho; In K Sung; Chong I Sohn; Dong K Keum; Byung I Kim Journal: J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.029
Authors: Sang Won Lee; Seong Ho Park; Kyoung Won Kim; Eugene K Choi; Yong Moon Shin; Pyo Nyun Kim; Kyoung Ho Lee; Eun Sil Yu; Shin Hwang; Sung-Gyu Lee Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Samar R El Khoudary; Saad Samargandy; Irfan Zeb; Temitope Foster; Ian H de Boer; Dong Li; Matthew J Budoff Journal: Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 4.222
Authors: Artit Jirapatnakul; Anthony P Reeves; Sara Lewis; Xiangmeng Chen; Teng Ma; Rowena Yip; Xing Chin; Shuang Liu; Ponni V Perumalswami; David F Yankelevitz; Michael Crane; Andrea D Branch; Claudia I Henschke Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Yingzhen N Zhang; Kathryn J Fowler; Gavin Hamilton; Jennifer Y Cui; Ethan Z Sy; Michelle Balanay; Jonathan C Hooker; Nikolaus Szeverenyi; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Ali F Jon; Ahmad R Cheema; Atif N Khan; Vassilios Raptopoulos; Thomas Hauser; Imad Nasser; Francine K Welty; Andrew Karellas; Melvin E Clouse Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 1.605