OBJECTIVE: To assess the heterogeneity of liver fat deposition with MR of the liver in type-2 diabetic (T2D) patients. METHODS: We enrolled 121 consecutive T2D patients. The reference standard was 3.0-T (1)H-MR spectroscopy. Hepatic steatosis was defined as liver fat content (LFC) ≥5.56 %. A triple-echo gradient-echo sequence corrected for T1 recovery and T2* decay was used to calculate LFC in left and right livers and hepatic segments. Analyses were performed using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Fifty-nine (48.8 %) patients had liver steatosis, whereas 62 (51.2 %) did not. Steatosis was greater in the right than in the left liver (P < 0.0001) [mean difference: 1.32 % (range: 0.01-8.75 %)]. In seven patients (5.8 %), LFC was <5.56 % in one side of the liver, whereas it was ≥5.56 % in the other. Steatosis of the left and right liver was heterogeneous at the segmental level in both non-steatotic (P < 0.001 and P < 0.0001 respectively) and steatotic (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0002 respectively) patients [mean maximum difference: 3.98 % (range: 0.74-19.32 %)]. In 23 patients (19 %), LFC was <5.56 % in one segment, whereas it was ≥5.56 % in at least one other. CONCLUSION: Overall, the mean segmental/lobar variability of steatosis is low. However, segmental variability can sometimes lead to a misdiagnosis. KEY POINTS: There is a need for methods quantifying steatosis over a large region. Steatosis is usually greater in the right than left lobe of the liver. Steatosis within both left and right hepatic lobes is segmentally heterogeneous. Segmental variability of steatosis can result in misdiagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the heterogeneity of liver fat deposition with MR of the liver in type-2 diabetic (T2D) patients. METHODS: We enrolled 121 consecutive T2D patients. The reference standard was 3.0-T (1)H-MR spectroscopy. Hepatic steatosis was defined as liver fat content (LFC) ≥5.56 %. A triple-echo gradient-echo sequence corrected for T1 recovery and T2* decay was used to calculate LFC in left and right livers and hepatic segments. Analyses were performed using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Fifty-nine (48.8 %) patients had liver steatosis, whereas 62 (51.2 %) did not. Steatosis was greater in the right than in the left liver (P < 0.0001) [mean difference: 1.32 % (range: 0.01-8.75 %)]. In seven patients (5.8 %), LFC was <5.56 % in one side of the liver, whereas it was ≥5.56 % in the other. Steatosis of the left and right liver was heterogeneous at the segmental level in both non-steatotic (P < 0.001 and P < 0.0001 respectively) and steatotic (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0002 respectively) patients [mean maximum difference: 3.98 % (range: 0.74-19.32 %)]. In 23 patients (19 %), LFC was <5.56 % in one segment, whereas it was ≥5.56 % in at least one other. CONCLUSION: Overall, the mean segmental/lobar variability of steatosis is low. However, segmental variability can sometimes lead to a misdiagnosis. KEY POINTS: There is a need for methods quantifying steatosis over a large region. Steatosis is usually greater in the right than left lobe of the liver. Steatosis within both left and right hepatic lobes is segmentally heterogeneous. Segmental variability of steatosis can result in misdiagnosis.
Authors: Raphael B Merriman; Linda D Ferrell; Marco G Patti; Shiobhan R Weston; Mark S Pabst; Bradley E Aouizerat; Nathan M Bass Journal: Hepatology Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Dimitri Aristotle Raptis; Michael Alexander Fischer; Rolf Graf; Daniel Nanz; Achim Weber; Wolfgang Moritz; Yinghua Tian; Christian Eugen Oberkofler; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Gut Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Hendrik Marsman; Takakazu Matsushita; Ross Dierkhising; Walter Kremers; Charles Rosen; Lawrence Burgart; Scott L Nyberg Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Byung Wan Lee; Yong Ho Lee; Cheol Young Park; Eun Jung Rhee; Won Young Lee; Nan Hee Kim; Kyung Mook Choi; Keun Gyu Park; Yeon Kyung Choi; Bong Soo Cha; Dae Ho Lee Journal: Diabetes Metab J Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 5.376
Authors: Francesca Del Chicca; Henning Richter; Gian-Luca Steger; Elena Salesov; Claudia E Reusch; Patrick R Kircher Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daniel Budelmann; Hendrik Laue; Nick Weiss; Uta Dahmen; Lorenza A D'Alessandro; Ina Biermayer; Ursula Klingmüller; Ahmed Ghallab; Reham Hassan; Brigitte Begher-Tibbe; Jan G Hengstler; Lars Ole Schwen Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2022-01-20
Authors: Lars Ole Schwen; Arne Schenk; Clemens Kreutz; Jens Timmer; María Matilde Bartolomé Rodríguez; Lars Kuepfer; Tobias Preusser Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Bruno Christ; Uta Dahmen; Karl-Heinz Herrmann; Matthias König; Jürgen R Reichenbach; Tim Ricken; Jana Schleicher; Lars Ole Schwen; Sebastian Vlaic; Navina Waschinsky Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 4.566