Literature DB >> 23281116

MR elastography of healthy liver parenchyma: Normal value and reliability of the liver stiffness value measurement.

Dong Ho Lee1, Jeong Min Lee, Joon Koo Han, Byung Ihn Choi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the normal liver stiffness value using MR elastography (MRE) and to compare the repeatability and reproducibility of three measurement methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-nine subjects who underwent liver MR imaging including elastography using a 1.5 Tesla scanner, who had normal laboratory test results, and who underwent liver donation, were included in this study. Two, independent readers measured the liver stiffness value of the hepatic parenchyma using three methods, including evaluating various liver parenchyma portions using different-sized, regions-of-interest (ROIs): 2cm-ROI-per-slice in the right lobe (2cm-per-slice); 1cm-ROI-per-segment (1cm-S); and 70%-of-the-surface area (70% S). The mean liver stiffness values were compared between gender using the t-test and among the age groups using one-way analysis of variance. The reproducibility and repeatability of the three liver stiffness value measurement methods were determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the 95% Bland-Altman limits of agreement.
RESULTS: The liver stiffness values in living liver donors ranged from 1.54 to 2.87 kPa. The mean stiffness value was 2.05 kilopascal using the 2cm-per-slice method, 2.01 kilopascal with the 1cm-S method and 2.12 kilopascal using the 70% S method. There was no significant difference in the liver stiffness value according to the gender or age factors. For reproducibility, the ICCs were 0.416 with the 2cm-per-slice method, 0.800 using the 1cm-S method, and 0.845 with the 70% S method. In terms of repeatability, the ICCs were 0.238 using the 2cm-per-slice method, 0.914 with the 1cm-S method, and 0.852 using the 70% S method. The ICCs determined using the 2cm-per-slice method were significantly lower than those of the 1cm-S or 70% S method for assessing both reproducibility and repeatability. The 95% limit of agreement was 54.0% with the 2cm-per-slice method, 24.0% using the 1cm-S method, and 18.8% with the 70% S method, in terms of reproducibility. To assess the repeatability, the 95% limit of agreement was 63.3% using the 2cm-per-slice method, 20.6% with the 1cm-S method, and 17.4% using the 70% S method.
CONCLUSION: The mean liver stiffness values in living donors ranged from 2.05 to 2.12 kilopascals and did not differ significantly for either gender or age. The 1cm-S and 70% S methods were significantly more reliable compared with the 2cm-per-slice method.
Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  liver stiffness value measurement; magnetic resonance elastography (MRE); reliability; repeatability; reproducibility

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23281116     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.23958

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


  37 in total

1.  Repeatability and reproducibility of 2D and 3D hepatic MR elastography with rigid and flexible drivers at end-expiration and end-inspiration in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Kang Wang; Paul Manning; Nikolaus Szeverenyi; Tanya Wolfson; Gavin Hamilton; Michael S Middleton; Florin Vaida; Meng Yin; Kevin Glaser; Richard L Ehman; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-12

2.  Ultrasound Elastography and MR Elastography for Assessing Liver Fibrosis: Part 2, Diagnostic Performance, Confounders, and Future Directions.

Authors:  An Tang; Guy Cloutier; Nikolaus M Szeverenyi; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Normal values of liver elasticity measured by real-time tissue elastography (RTE) in healthy infants and children.

Authors:  Buket Selmi; Guido Engelmann; Ulrike Teufel; Saroa El Sakka; Monika Dadrich; Jens-Peter Schenk
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 1.314

4.  MR elastography of the liver at 3.0 T in diagnosing liver fibrosis grades; preliminary clinical experience.

Authors:  Kengo Yoshimitsu; Toshimichi Mitsufuji; Yoshinobu Shinagawa; Ritsuko Fujimitsu; Ayako Morita; Hiroshi Urakawa; Hiroyuki Hayashi; Koichi Takano
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Magnetic resonance elastography: basic principles, technique, and clinical applications in the liver.

Authors:  Habip Eser Akkaya; Ayşe Erden; Diğdem Kuru Öz; Sena Ünal; İlhan Erden
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.630

6.  Measurement consistency of MR elastography at 3.0 T: comparison among three different region-of-interest placement methods.

Authors:  Toshimichi Mitsufuji; Yoshinobu Shinagawa; Ritsuko Fujimitsu; Hiroshi Urakawa; Kimiyo Inoue; Koichi Takano; Kengo Yoshimitsu
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 2.374

7.  Optimization of scanning parameters for MR elastography at 3.0 T clinical unit: volunteer study.

Authors:  Yoshinobu Shinagawa; Toshimichi Mitsufuji; Shoichi Morimoto; Ryuji Nakamuta; Hiroshi Urakawa; Ayako Morita; Ritsuko Fujimitsu; Koichi Takano; Kengo Yoshimitsu
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 2.374

Review 8.  Magnetic resonance elastography of abdomen.

Authors:  Sudhakar Kundapur Venkatesh; Richard L Ehman
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2015-04

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

10.  Hepatic stiffness measurement by using MR elastography: prognostic values after hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Dong Ho Lee; Jeong Min Lee; Nam-Joon Yi; Kwang-Woong Lee; Kyung-Suk Suh; Jeong-Hoon Lee; Kyung Bun Lee; Joon Koo Han
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.