Fernando Bril1,2, Carolina Ortiz-Lopez3, Romina Lomonaco1,2, Beverly Orsak3, Michael Freckleton4, Kedar Chintapalli4, Jean Hardies4, Song Lai5, Felipe Solano6, Fermin Tio6, Kenneth Cusi1,2,3,7. 1. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 2. Malcom Randall Veterans Administration Medical Center, Gainesville, FL, USA. 3. Division of Diabetes, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA), San Antonio, TX, USA. 4. Radiology Department, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA), San Antonio, TX, USA. 5. Clinical Translational Science Institute Human Imaging Core, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 6. Pathology Department, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA), San Antonio, TX, USA. 7. Audie L. Murphy Veterans Administration Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver ultrasound (US) is usually used in the clinical setting for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, no large study has carefully assessed its performance using a semiquantitative ultrasonographic scoring system in overweight/obese patients, in comparison to magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((1) H-MRS) and histology. METHODS: We recruited 146 patients and performed: a liver US using a 5-parameter scoring system, a liver (1) H-MRS to quantify liver fat content, and a liver biopsy to assess histology. All measurements were repeated in a subgroup of patients (n = 62) after 18 months of follow-up. RESULTS: The performance of liver US (parenchymal echo alone) was rather modest, and significantly worse than (1) H-MRS (AUROC: 0.82 [0.69-0.94] vs. 0.96 [0.90-1.00]; P = 0.04). However, the AUROC improved when different echographic parameters were taken into account (AUROC: 0.89 [0.83-0.96], P = 0.15 against (1) H-MRS). Optimum sensitivity for liver US was achieved at a liver fat content ≥12.5%, suggesting that below this threshold, liver US is less sensitive. Liver (1) H-MRS showed a high accuracy for the diagnosis of NAFLD, and correlated strongly with histological steatosis (r = 0.73, P < 0.0001). None of the imaging tests was adequate enough to predict changes over time in histology. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its widespread use, liver US has several important limitations that healthcare providers should recognize, particularly because of its low sensitivity. Using a combination of echographic parameters, liver US showed a significant improvement in its diagnostic performance, but still was of limited value for monitoring treatment over time.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver ultrasound (US) is usually used in the clinical setting for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, no large study has carefully assessed its performance using a semiquantitative ultrasonographic scoring system in overweight/obesepatients, in comparison to magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((1) H-MRS) and histology. METHODS: We recruited 146 patients and performed: a liver US using a 5-parameter scoring system, a liver (1) H-MRS to quantify liver fat content, and a liver biopsy to assess histology. All measurements were repeated in a subgroup of patients (n = 62) after 18 months of follow-up. RESULTS: The performance of liver US (parenchymal echo alone) was rather modest, and significantly worse than (1) H-MRS (AUROC: 0.82 [0.69-0.94] vs. 0.96 [0.90-1.00]; P = 0.04). However, the AUROC improved when different echographic parameters were taken into account (AUROC: 0.89 [0.83-0.96], P = 0.15 against (1) H-MRS). Optimum sensitivity for liver US was achieved at a liver fat content ≥12.5%, suggesting that below this threshold, liver US is less sensitive. Liver (1) H-MRS showed a high accuracy for the diagnosis of NAFLD, and correlated strongly with histological steatosis (r = 0.73, P < 0.0001). None of the imaging tests was adequate enough to predict changes over time in histology. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its widespread use, liver US has several important limitations that healthcare providers should recognize, particularly because of its low sensitivity. Using a combination of echographic parameters, liver US showed a significant improvement in its diagnostic performance, but still was of limited value for monitoring treatment over time.
Authors: Seung Mi Lee; Soo Heon Kwak; Ja Nam Koo; Ig Hwan Oh; Jeong Eun Kwon; Byoung Jae Kim; Sun Min Kim; Sang Youn Kim; Gyoung Min Kim; Sae Kyung Joo; Bo Kyung Koo; Sue Shin; Chanthalakeo Vixay; Errol R Norwitz; Chan-Wook Park; Jong Kwan Jun; Won Kim; Joong Shin Park Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Yingzhen N Zhang; Kathryn J Fowler; Gavin Hamilton; Jennifer Y Cui; Ethan Z Sy; Michelle Balanay; Jonathan C Hooker; Nikolaus Szeverenyi; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Joshua S Winder; Brandon S Dudeck; Sarayna Schock; Jerome R Lyn-Sue; Randy S Haluck; Ann M Rogers Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Richard K Sterling; Wendy C King; Mandana Khalili; David E Kleiner; Amanda S Hinerman; Mark Sulkowski; Raymond T Chung; Mamta K Jain; M Auricio Lisker-Melman; David K Wong; Marc G Ghany Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 3.487