BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is an important and common condition affecting approximately 20% of the general population. Given the limitation of radiological investigations, diagnosis often requires a liver biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To compare Xenon-133 (Xe-133) liver scanning with ultrasonography in the diagnosis of NAFLD. METHODS: From January 2003 to February 2007, 258 consecutive patients with suspected NAFLD underwent Xe-133 liver scanning at Royal Victoria Hospital (Montreal, Quebec). Of these, 43 patients underwent ultrasonography and liver biopsy for the evaluation of NAFLD. Patients with other liver diseases and significant alcohol consumption were excluded. Two nuclear medicine physicians assessed liver Xe-133 uptake and measured the grade of steatosis using a standardized protocol. The degree of steatosis was determined from biopsy specimens assessed by two hepatopathologists. RESULTS: NAFLD was identified by liver biopsy in 35 of 43 patients (81.4%). Xe-133 scan demonstrated 94.3% sensitivity (95% CI 81.4% to 98.4%) and 87.5% specificity (95% CI 52.9% to 99.4%) for the presence of NAFLD. The positive and negative predictive values for detection of steatosis by Xe-133 scan were 97.1% (95% CI 85.1% to 99.8%) and 77.8% (95% CI 45.3% to 93.7%), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 7.54 (95% CI 1.20 to 47.26) and 0.07 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.26), respectively. Two patients with NAFLD (5.7%) who had a negative Xe-133 scan result had histologically mild steatosis (<10%). The grade of steatosis on liver biopsy was highly correlated with the results of the Xe-133 scan (r=0.87; P<0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in diagnosing steatosis were 62.9% and 75%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Xe-133 liver scan proved to be a safe, reliable, noninvasive method for diagnosing and quantifying hepatic steatosis, and was superior to ultrasound.
BACKGROUND:Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is an important and common condition affecting approximately 20% of the general population. Given the limitation of radiological investigations, diagnosis often requires a liver biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To compare Xenon-133 (Xe-133) liver scanning with ultrasonography in the diagnosis of NAFLD. METHODS: From January 2003 to February 2007, 258 consecutive patients with suspected NAFLD underwent Xe-133 liver scanning at Royal Victoria Hospital (Montreal, Quebec). Of these, 43 patients underwent ultrasonography and liver biopsy for the evaluation of NAFLD. Patients with other liver diseases and significant alcohol consumption were excluded. Two nuclear medicine physicians assessed liver Xe-133 uptake and measured the grade of steatosis using a standardized protocol. The degree of steatosis was determined from biopsy specimens assessed by two hepatopathologists. RESULTS: NAFLD was identified by liver biopsy in 35 of 43 patients (81.4%). Xe-133 scan demonstrated 94.3% sensitivity (95% CI 81.4% to 98.4%) and 87.5% specificity (95% CI 52.9% to 99.4%) for the presence of NAFLD. The positive and negative predictive values for detection of steatosis by Xe-133 scan were 97.1% (95% CI 85.1% to 99.8%) and 77.8% (95% CI 45.3% to 93.7%), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 7.54 (95% CI 1.20 to 47.26) and 0.07 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.26), respectively. Two patients with NAFLD (5.7%) who had a negative Xe-133 scan result had histologically mild steatosis (<10%). The grade of steatosis on liver biopsy was highly correlated with the results of the Xe-133 scan (r=0.87; P<0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in diagnosing steatosis were 62.9% and 75%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Xe-133 liver scan proved to be a safe, reliable, noninvasive method for diagnosing and quantifying hepatic steatosis, and was superior to ultrasound.
Authors: Yoshihisa Kodama; Chaan S Ng; Tsung T Wu; Gregory D Ayers; Steven A Curley; Eddie K Abdalla; Jean Nicolas Vauthey; Chusilp Charnsangavej Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-05 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: S Bellentani; G Saccoccio; F Masutti; L S Crocè; G Brandi; F Sasso; G Cristanini; C Tiribelli Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2000-01-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Clifford S Cho; Sean Curran; Lawrence H Schwartz; David A Kooby; David S Klimstra; Jinru Shia; Alejandro Munoz; Yuman Fong; William R Jarnagin; Ronald P DeMatteo; Leslie H Blumgart; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2007-11-26 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Sherif Saadeh; Zobair M Younossi; Erick M Remer; Terry Gramlich; Janus P Ong; Maja Hurley; Kevin D Mullen; James N Cooper; Michael J Sheridan Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Giada Sebastiani; Rasha Alshaalan; Philip Wong; Maria Rubino; Ayat Salman; Peter Metrakos; Marc Deschenes; Peter Ghali Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 3.240