Shintaro Ichikawa1, Utaroh Motosugi2, Hiroyuki Morisaka3, Katsuhiro Sano4, Tomoaki Ichikawa5, Akihisa Tatsumi6, Nobuyuki Enomoto7, Masanori Matsuda8, Hideki Fujii9, Hiroshi Onishi10. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan. Electronic address: si99006@yahoo.co.jp. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan; Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. Electronic address: umotosugi@uwhealth.org. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan. Electronic address: morisakahiroyuki@hotmail.co.jp. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan. Electronic address: snkthr@yahoo.co.jp. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan. Electronic address: ichikawa@yamanashi.ac.jp. 6. First Department of Internal Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan. Electronic address: tatsumi@yamanashi.ac.jp. 7. First Department of Internal Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan. Electronic address: enomoto@yamanashi.ac.jp. 8. First Department of Surgery, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan. Electronic address: masam@yamanashi.ac.jp. 9. First Department of Surgery, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan. Electronic address: hfujii@yamanashi.ac.jp. 10. Department of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan. Electronic address: honishi1829@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracies of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and transient elastography (TE) for hepatic fibrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and included 113 patients (mean age, 63.1±12.2years; 84 men and 29 women) with chronic liver disease who underwent liver biopsy or resection, histopathologic assessment (METAVIR scoring system), and TE within 6months of MRE. Diagnostic accuracies of MRE and TE were compared using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Appropriate cutoff values of the two methods determined by maximum positive and minimum negative likelihood ratios were used to calculate the positive and negative predictive values for discriminating significant fibrosis (≥F2) from F0-F1 or cirrhosis (F4) from F0-F3. RESULTS: Mean (95% confidence interval) area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of MRE for cirrhosis (F4) (0.97 [0.93-0.99] vs. 0.93 [0.87-0.96]; P=0.0308), clinically significant fibrosis (≥F2) (0.98 [0.94-0.99] vs. 0.87 [0.79-0.92]; P=0.0003), and any fibrosis (≥F1) (0.97 [0.92-0.99] vs. 0.87 [0.76-0.93]; P=0.0126) were significantly higher than those of TE. By using the cutoff values derived from the maximum positive likelihood ratio, the positive and negative predictive values for≥F2 were 98.8% and 83.9%, respectively, by MRE and 98.2% and 44.8%, respectively, by TE; and for F4, 97.0% and 86.3%, respectively, by MRE and 95.8% and 77.5%, respectively, by TE. CONCLUSION: MRE has better diagnostic accuracy than TE for staging hepatic fibrosis.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracies of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and transient elastography (TE) for hepatic fibrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and included 113 patients (mean age, 63.1±12.2years; 84 men and 29 women) with chronic liver disease who underwent liver biopsy or resection, histopathologic assessment (METAVIR scoring system), and TE within 6months of MRE. Diagnostic accuracies of MRE and TE were compared using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Appropriate cutoff values of the two methods determined by maximum positive and minimum negative likelihood ratios were used to calculate the positive and negative predictive values for discriminating significant fibrosis (≥F2) from F0-F1 or cirrhosis (F4) from F0-F3. RESULTS: Mean (95% confidence interval) area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of MRE for cirrhosis (F4) (0.97 [0.93-0.99] vs. 0.93 [0.87-0.96]; P=0.0308), clinically significant fibrosis (≥F2) (0.98 [0.94-0.99] vs. 0.87 [0.79-0.92]; P=0.0003), and any fibrosis (≥F1) (0.97 [0.92-0.99] vs. 0.87 [0.76-0.93]; P=0.0126) were significantly higher than those of TE. By using the cutoff values derived from the maximum positive likelihood ratio, the positive and negative predictive values for≥F2 were 98.8% and 83.9%, respectively, by MRE and 98.2% and 44.8%, respectively, by TE; and for F4, 97.0% and 86.3%, respectively, by MRE and 95.8% and 77.5%, respectively, by TE. CONCLUSION: MRE has better diagnostic accuracy than TE for staging hepatic fibrosis.
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: Adam Wanner; Stephen C Groft; J Russell Teagarden; Jeffrey Krischer; Barry R Davis; Christopher S Coffey; David H Hickam; Jeffrey Teckman; David R Nelson; Michael L McCaleb; Rohit Loomba; Charlie Strange; Robert A Sandhaus; Mark Brantly; Jonathan M Edelman; Albert Farrugia Journal: Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis Date: 2015-04-28
Authors: Temel Kaya Yasar; Mathilde Wagner; Octavia Bane; Cecilia Besa; James S Babb; Stephan Kannengiesser; Maggie Fung; Richard L Ehman; Bachir Taouli Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 4.813