Hadrien A Dyvorne1, Guido H Jajamovich1, Octavia Bane1, M Isabel Fiel2, Hsin Chou3, Thomas D Schiano3, Douglas Dieterich3, James S Babb4, Scott L Friedman3, Bachir Taouli1,5. 1. Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Liver Diseases, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Establishing accurate non-invasive methods of liver fibrosis quantification remains a major unmet need. Here, we assessed the diagnostic value of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in comparison with transient elastography (TE) and blood tests [including ELF (Enhanced Liver Fibrosis) and APRI] for liver fibrosis detection. METHODS: In this single centre cross-sectional study, we prospectively enrolled 60 subjects with liver disease who underwent multiparametric MRI (DWI, DCE-MRI and MRE), TE and blood tests. Correlation was assessed between non-invasive modalities and histopathologic findings including stage, grade and collagen content, while accounting for covariates such as age, sex, BMI, HCV status and MRI-derived fat and iron content. ROC curve analysis evaluated the performance of each technique for detection of moderate-to-advanced liver fibrosis (F2-F4) and advanced fibrosis (F3-F4). RESULTS: Magnetic resonance elastography provided the strongest correlation with fibrosis stage (r = 0.66, P < 0.001), inflammation grade (r = 0.52, P < 0.001) and collagen content (r = 0.53, P = 0.036). For detection of moderate-to-advanced fibrosis (F2-F4), AUCs were 0.78, 0.82, 0.72, 0.79, 0.71 for MRE, TE, DCE-MRI, DWI and APRI, respectively. For detection of advanced fibrosis (F3-F4), AUCs were 0.94, 0.77, 0.79, 0.79 and 0.70, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance elastography provides the highest correlation with histopathologic markers and yields high diagnostic performance for detection of advanced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, compared to DWI, DCE-MRI, TE and serum markers.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Establishing accurate non-invasive methods of liver fibrosis quantification remains a major unmet need. Here, we assessed the diagnostic value of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in comparison with transient elastography (TE) and blood tests [including ELF (Enhanced Liver Fibrosis) and APRI] for liver fibrosis detection. METHODS: In this single centre cross-sectional study, we prospectively enrolled 60 subjects with liver disease who underwent multiparametric MRI (DWI, DCE-MRI and MRE), TE and blood tests. Correlation was assessed between non-invasive modalities and histopathologic findings including stage, grade and collagen content, while accounting for covariates such as age, sex, BMI, HCV status and MRI-derived fat and iron content. ROC curve analysis evaluated the performance of each technique for detection of moderate-to-advanced liver fibrosis (F2-F4) and advanced fibrosis (F3-F4). RESULTS: Magnetic resonance elastography provided the strongest correlation with fibrosis stage (r = 0.66, P < 0.001), inflammation grade (r = 0.52, P < 0.001) and collagen content (r = 0.53, P = 0.036). For detection of moderate-to-advanced fibrosis (F2-F4), AUCs were 0.78, 0.82, 0.72, 0.79, 0.71 for MRE, TE, DCE-MRI, DWI and APRI, respectively. For detection of advanced fibrosis (F3-F4), AUCs were 0.94, 0.77, 0.79, 0.79 and 0.70, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance elastography provides the highest correlation with histopathologic markers and yields high diagnostic performance for detection of advanced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, compared to DWI, DCE-MRI, TE and serum markers.
Authors: Heng Zhao; Jun Chen; Duane D Meixner; Hua Xie; Vijay Shamdasani; Shiwei Zhou; Jean-Luc Robert; Matthew W Urban; William Sanchez; Matthew R Callstrom; Richard L Ehman; James F Greenleaf; Shigao Chen Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.153
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: J Foucher; E Chanteloup; J Vergniol; L Castéra; B Le Bail; X Adhoute; J Bertet; P Couzigou; V de Lédinghen Journal: Gut Date: 2005-07-14 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Hadrien A Dyvorne; Nicola Galea; Thomas Nevers; M Isabel Fiel; David Carpenter; Edmund Wong; Matthew Orton; Andre de Oliveira; Thorsten Feiweier; Marie-Louise Vachon; James S Babb; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mireen Friedrich-Rust; Katrin Wunder; Susanne Kriener; Fariba Sotoudeh; Swantje Richter; Joerg Bojunga; Eva Herrmann; Thierry Poynard; Christoph F Dietrich; Johannes Vermehren; Stefan Zeuzem; Christoph Sarrazin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Jeanne M Horowitz; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Richard L Ehman; Kartik Jhaveri; Patrick Kamath; Michael A Ohliger; Anthony E Samir; Alvin C Silva; Bachir Taouli; Michael S Torbenson; Michael L Wells; Benjamin Yeh; Frank H Miller Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-08
Authors: Paul Kennedy; Mathilde Wagner; Laurent Castéra; Cheng William Hong; Curtis L Johnson; Claude B Sirlin; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 11.105