Literature DB >> 22246952

Accuracy of MR elastography and anatomic MR imaging features in the diagnosis of severe hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis.

Rahul Rustogi1, Jeanne Horowitz, Carla Harmath, Yi Wang, Hamid Chalian, Daniel R Ganger, Zongming E Chen, Bradley D Bolster, Saurabh Shah, Frank H Miller.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging elastography (MRE) and anatomic MRI features in the diagnosis of severe hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three readers independently assessed presence of morphological changes associated with hepatic fibrosis in 72 patients with liver biopsy including: caudate to right lobe ratios, nodularity, portal venous hypertension (PVH) stigmata, posterior hepatic notch, expanded gallbladder fossa, and right hepatic vein caliber. Three readers measured shear stiffness values using quantitative shear stiffness maps (elastograms). Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of stiffness values and each morphological feature were calculated. Interreader agreement was summarized using weighted kappa statistics. Intraclass correlation coefficient was used to assess interreader reproducibility of stiffness measurements. Binary logistic regression was used to assess interreader variability for dichotomized stiffness values and each morphological feature.
RESULTS: Using 5.9 kPa as a cutoff for differentiating F3-F4 from F0-2 stages, overall sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for MRE were 85.4%, 88.4%, and 87%, respectively. Overall interreader agreement for stiffness values was substantial, with an insignificant difference (P = 0.74) in the frequency of differentiating F3-4 from F0-2 fibrosis. Only hepatic nodularity and PVH stigmata showed moderately high overall accuracy of 69.4% and 72.2%. Interreader agreement was substantial only for PVH stigmata, moderate for C/R m, deep notch, and expanded gallbladder fossa. Only posterior hepatic notch (P = 0.82) showed no significant difference in reader rating.
CONCLUSION: MRE is a noninvasive, accurate, and reproducible technique compared with conventional features of detecting severe hepatic fibrosis.
Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22246952      PMCID: PMC3495186          DOI: 10.1002/jmri.23585

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  33 in total

1.  Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings.

Authors:  John A Carrino; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Eugene J Carragee; Jay Kaiser; Margaret R Grove; Emily Blood; Loretta H Pearson; James N Weinstein; Richard Herzog
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-10-27       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Magnetic resonance elastography for the noninvasive staging of liver fibrosis.

Authors:  Laurent Huwart; Christine Sempoux; Eric Vicaut; Najat Salameh; Laurence Annet; Etienne Danse; Frank Peeters; Leon C ter Beek; Jacques Rahier; Ralph Sinkus; Yves Horsmans; Bernard E Van Beers
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-04-04       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Liver fibrosis: noninvasive diagnosis with double contrast material-enhanced MR imaging.

Authors:  Diego A Aguirre; Cynthia A Behling; Elliot Alpert; Tarek I Hassanein; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Magnetic resonance imaging of hepatic fibrosis: emerging clinical applications.

Authors:  Jayant A Talwalkar; Meng Yin; Jeff L Fidler; Schuyler O Sanderson; Patrick S Kamath; Richard L Ehman
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 17.425

5.  Changes in hepatic venous morphology with cirrhosis on MRI.

Authors:  Yang Zhang; Xiao Ming Zhang; Joan C Prowda; Hong Lei Zhang; Carolina Sant'anna Henry; George Shih; Jean C Emond; Martin R Prince
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Assessment of hepatic fibrosis with magnetic resonance elastography.

Authors:  Meng Yin; Jayant A Talwalkar; Kevin J Glaser; Armando Manduca; Roger C Grimm; Phillip J Rossman; Jeff L Fidler; Richard L Ehman
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 11.382

7.  Liver fibrosis: noninvasive assessment with MR elastography versus aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index.

Authors:  Laurent Huwart; Christine Sempoux; Najat Salameh; Jacques Jamart; Laurence Annet; Ralph Sinkus; Frank Peeters; Leon C ter Beek; Yves Horsmans; Bernard E Van Beers
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  MR elastography of liver fibrosis: preliminary results comparing spin-echo and echo-planar imaging.

Authors:  Laurent Huwart; Najat Salameh; Leon ter Beek; Eric Vicaut; Frank Peeters; Ralph Sinkus; Bernard E Van Beers
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-05-27       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Liver fibrosis: non-invasive assessment with MR elastography.

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

Review 10.  Advanced MRI methods for assessment of chronic liver disease.

Authors:  Bachir Taouli; Richard L Ehman; Scott B Reeder
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  57 in total

1.  [Magnetic resonance elastography of the liver].

Authors:  I Sack; T Fischer; A Thomas; J Braun
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 2.  Prediction of liver cirrhosis, using diagnostic imaging tools.

Authors:  Suk Keu Yeom; Chang Hee Lee; Sang Hoon Cha; Cheol Min Park
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2015-08-18

Review 3.  General review of magnetic resonance elastography.

Authors:  Gavin Low; Scott A Kruse; David J Lomas
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-28

Review 4.  Magnetic resonance elastography for staging liver fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a diagnostic accuracy systematic review and individual participant data pooled analysis.

Authors:  Siddharth Singh; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Rohit Loomba; Zhen Wang; Claude Sirlin; Jun Chen; Meng Yin; Frank H Miller; Russell N Low; Tarek Hassanein; Edmund M Godfrey; Patrick Asbach; Mohammad Hassan Murad; David J Lomas; Jayant A Talwalkar; Richard L Ehman
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  PET/CT with 18F Fluorocholine as an Imaging Biomarker for Chronic Liver Disease: A Preliminary Radiopathologic Correspondence Study in Patients with Liver Cancer.

Authors:  Sandi A Kwee; Linda Wong; Owen T M Chan; Sumodh Kalathil; Naoky Tsai
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Pro: Noninvasive Imaging Has Replaced Biopsy as the Gold Standard in the Evaluation of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

Authors:  Shaham Mumtaz; Nathan Schomaker; Natasha Von Roenn
Journal:  Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken)       Date:  2019-04-30

7.  Comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and MR elastography in staging liver fibrosis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Weon Jang; Seongil Jo; Ji Soo Song; Hong Pil Hwang; Seong-Hun Kim
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-03-26

Review 8.  Evaluation of hepatic fibrosis: a review from the society of abdominal radiology disease focus panel.

Authors:  Jeanne M Horowitz; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Richard L Ehman; Kartik Jhaveri; Patrick Kamath; Michael A Ohliger; Anthony E Samir; Alvin C Silva; Bachir Taouli; Michael S Torbenson; Michael L Wells; Benjamin Yeh; Frank H Miller
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-08

Review 9.  Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Liver: Current Update.

Authors:  Safa Hoodeshenas; Meng Yin; Sudhakar Kundapur Venkatesh
Journal:  Top Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-10

Review 10.  Is liver biopsy still needed in children with chronic viral hepatitis?

Authors:  Maria Pokorska-Śpiewak; Barbara Kowalik-Mikołajewska; Małgorzata Aniszewska; Magdalena Pluta; Magdalena Marczyńska
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-11-14       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.