OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of TE and MRE and establish cutoff levels and diagnostic strategies for both techniques, enabling selection of patients for liver biopsy. METHODS: One hundred three patients with chronic hepatitis B or C and liver biopsy were prospectively included. Areas under curves (AUROC) were compared for TE and MRE for METAVIR fibrosis grade ≥ F2 and ≥F3. We defined cutoff values for selection of patients with F0-F1 (sensitivity >95%) and for significant fibrosis F2-F4 (specificity >95%). RESULTS: Following exclusions, 85 patients were analysed (65 CHB, 19 CHC, 1 co-infected). Fibrosis stages were F0 (n = 3), F1 (n = 53), F2 (n = 15), F3 (n = 8) and F4 (n = 6). TE and MRE accuracy were comparable [AUROCTE ≥ F2: 0.914 (95% CI: 0.857-0.972) vs. AUROCMRE ≥ F2: 0.909 (0.840-0.977), P = 0.89; AUROCTE ≥ F3: 0.895 (0.816-0.974) vs. AUROCMRE ≥ F3: 0.928 (0.874-0.982), P = 0.42]. Cutoff values of <5.2 and ≥8.9 kPa (TE) and <1.66 and ≥2.18 kPa (MRE) diagnosed 64% and 66% of patients correctly as F0-F1 or F2-F4. A conditional strategy in inconclusive test results increased diagnostic yield to 80%. CONCLUSION: TE and MRE have comparable accuracy for detecting significant fibrosis, which was reliably detected or excluded in two-thirds of patients. A conditional strategy further increased diagnostic yield to 80%. KEY POINTS: • Both ultrasound-based transient elastography and magnetic resonance elastography can assess hepatic fibrosis. • Both have comparable accuracy for detecting liver fibrosis in viral hepatitis. • The individual techniques reliably detect or exclude significant liver fibrosis in 66 %. • A conditional strategy for inconclusive findings increases the number of correct diagnoses.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of TE and MRE and establish cutoff levels and diagnostic strategies for both techniques, enabling selection of patients for liver biopsy. METHODS: One hundred three patients with chronic hepatitis B or C and liver biopsy were prospectively included. Areas under curves (AUROC) were compared for TE and MRE for METAVIR fibrosis grade ≥ F2 and ≥F3. We defined cutoff values for selection of patients with F0-F1 (sensitivity >95%) and for significant fibrosis F2-F4 (specificity >95%). RESULTS: Following exclusions, 85 patients were analysed (65 CHB, 19 CHC, 1 co-infected). Fibrosis stages were F0 (n = 3), F1 (n = 53), F2 (n = 15), F3 (n = 8) and F4 (n = 6). TE and MRE accuracy were comparable [AUROCTE ≥ F2: 0.914 (95% CI: 0.857-0.972) vs. AUROCMRE ≥ F2: 0.909 (0.840-0.977), P = 0.89; AUROCTE ≥ F3: 0.895 (0.816-0.974) vs. AUROCMRE ≥ F3: 0.928 (0.874-0.982), P = 0.42]. Cutoff values of <5.2 and ≥8.9 kPa (TE) and <1.66 and ≥2.18 kPa (MRE) diagnosed 64% and 66% of patients correctly as F0-F1 or F2-F4. A conditional strategy in inconclusive test results increased diagnostic yield to 80%. CONCLUSION: TE and MRE have comparable accuracy for detecting significant fibrosis, which was reliably detected or excluded in two-thirds of patients. A conditional strategy further increased diagnostic yield to 80%. KEY POINTS: • Both ultrasound-based transient elastography and magnetic resonance elastography can assess hepatic fibrosis. • Both have comparable accuracy for detecting liver fibrosis in viral hepatitis. • The individual techniques reliably detect or exclude significant liver fibrosis in 66 %. • A conditional strategy for inconclusive findings increases the number of correct diagnoses.
Authors: Elliot B Tapper; Eric B Cohen; Keyur Patel; Bruce Bacon; Stuart Gordon; Eric Lawitz; David Nelson; Imad A Nasser; Tracy Challies; Nezam Afdhal Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2012-01-28 Impact factor: 11.382
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
Authors: K Ishak; A Baptista; L Bianchi; F Callea; J De Groote; F Gudat; H Denk; V Desmet; G Korb; R N MacSween Journal: J Hepatol Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Justin Stebbing; Lavanta Farouk; George Panos; Mike Anderson; Long R Jiao; Sundhiya Mandalia; Mark Bower; Brian Gazzard; Mark Nelson Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.062
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
Authors: Mathilde Wagner; Idoia Corcuera-Solano; Grace Lo; Steven Esses; Joseph Liao; Cecilia Besa; Nelson Chen; Ginu Abraham; Maggie Fung; James S Babb; Richard L Ehman; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 11.105