Siddharth Singh1, Sudhakar K Venkatesh2, Zhen Wang3, Frank H Miller4, Utaroh Motosugi5, Russell N Low6, Tarek Hassanein7, Patrick Asbach8, Edmund M Godfrey9, Meng Yin10, Jun Chen10, Andrew P Keaveny11, Mellena Bridges12, Anneloes Bohte13, Mohammad Hassan Murad3, David J Lomas9, Jayant A Talwalkar1, Richard L Ehman10. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 2. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Electronic address: venkatesh.sudhakar@mayo.edu. 3. Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, Chuo-shi, Yamanashi, Japan. 6. Sharp and Children's Magnetic Resonance Imaging Center, San Diego, California. 7. Liver Centers of Southern California, Coronado, California. 8. Department of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité Campus Mitte, Berlin, Germany. 9. Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 10. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 11. Department of Transplant, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. 12. Department of Radiology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. 13. Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is a noninvasive tool for staging liver fibrosis. We conducted a meta-analysis of individual participant data collected from published studies to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRE for staging liver fibrosis in patients with chronic liver diseases (CLD). METHODS: Through a systematic literature search of multiple databases (2003-2013), we identified studies on diagnostic performance of MRE for staging liver fibrosis in patients with CLD with native anatomy, using liver biopsy as the standard. We contacted study authors to collect data on each participant's age, sex, body mass index (BMI), liver stiffness (measured by MRE), fibrosis stage, staging system used, degree of inflammation, etiology of CLD, and interval between MRE and biopsy. Through a pooled analysis, we calculated cluster-adjusted area under the receiver-operating curve, sensitivity, and specificity of MRE for any fibrosis (≥stage 1), significant fibrosis (≥stage 2), advanced fibrosis (≥stage 3), and cirrhosis (stage 4). RESULTS: We analyzed data from 12 retrospective studies, comprising 697 patients (mean age, 55 ± 13 y; 59.4% male; mean BMI, 26.9 ± 6.7 kg/m(2); 92.1% with <1 year interval between MRE and biopsy; and 47.1% with hepatitis C). Overall, 19.5%, 19.4%, 15.5%, 15.9%, and 29.7% patients had stage 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 fibrosis, respectively. The mean area under the receiver-operating curve values (and 95% confidence intervals) for the diagnosis of any (≥stage 1), significant (≥stage 2), advanced fibrosis (≥stage 3), and cirrhosis, were as follows: 0.84 (0.76-0.92), 0.88 (0.84-0.91), 0.93 (0.90-0.95), and 0.92 (0.90-0.94), respectively. A similar diagnostic performance was observed in stratified analysis based on sex, obesity, and etiology of CLD. The overall rate of failure of MRE was 4.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a pooled analysis of data from individual participants, MRE has a high accuracy for the diagnosis of significant or advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, independent of BMI and etiology of CLD. Prospective studies are warranted to better understand the diagnostic performance of MRE.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is a noninvasive tool for staging liver fibrosis. We conducted a meta-analysis of individual participant data collected from published studies to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRE for staging liver fibrosis in patients with chronic liver diseases (CLD). METHODS: Through a systematic literature search of multiple databases (2003-2013), we identified studies on diagnostic performance of MRE for staging liver fibrosis in patients with CLD with native anatomy, using liver biopsy as the standard. We contacted study authors to collect data on each participant's age, sex, body mass index (BMI), liver stiffness (measured by MRE), fibrosis stage, staging system used, degree of inflammation, etiology of CLD, and interval between MRE and biopsy. Through a pooled analysis, we calculated cluster-adjusted area under the receiver-operating curve, sensitivity, and specificity of MRE for any fibrosis (≥stage 1), significant fibrosis (≥stage 2), advanced fibrosis (≥stage 3), and cirrhosis (stage 4). RESULTS: We analyzed data from 12 retrospective studies, comprising 697 patients (mean age, 55 ± 13 y; 59.4% male; mean BMI, 26.9 ± 6.7 kg/m(2); 92.1% with <1 year interval between MRE and biopsy; and 47.1% with hepatitis C). Overall, 19.5%, 19.4%, 15.5%, 15.9%, and 29.7% patients had stage 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 fibrosis, respectively. The mean area under the receiver-operating curve values (and 95% confidence intervals) for the diagnosis of any (≥stage 1), significant (≥stage 2), advanced fibrosis (≥stage 3), and cirrhosis, were as follows: 0.84 (0.76-0.92), 0.88 (0.84-0.91), 0.93 (0.90-0.95), and 0.92 (0.90-0.94), respectively. A similar diagnostic performance was observed in stratified analysis based on sex, obesity, and etiology of CLD. The overall rate of failure of MRE was 4.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a pooled analysis of data from individual participants, MRE has a high accuracy for the diagnosis of significant or advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, independent of BMI and etiology of CLD. Prospective studies are warranted to better understand the diagnostic performance of MRE.
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: Rahul Rustogi; Jeanne Horowitz; Carla Harmath; Yi Wang; Hamid Chalian; Daniel R Ganger; Zongming E Chen; Bradley D Bolster; Saurabh Shah; Frank H Miller Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Edmund M Godfrey; Andrew J Patterson; Andrew N Priest; Susan E Davies; Ilse Joubert; Anant S Krishnan; Nyree Griffin; Ashley S Shaw; Graeme J Alexander; Michael E Allison; William J H Griffiths; Alexander E S Gimson; David J Lomas Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-01 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: John E Eaton; Bogdan Dzyubak; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Thomas C Smyrk; Gregory J Gores; Richard L Ehman; Nicholas F LaRusso; Andrea A Gossard; Konstantinos N Lazaridis Journal: J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 4.029
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: Perry J Pickhardt; Peter M Graffy; Adnan Said; Daniel Jones; Brandon Welsh; Ryan Zea; Meghan G Lubner Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 3.959