OBJECTIVES: To investigate the correlation between 2-dimensional (2D) ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in liver stiffness measurement and the diagnostic performance of 2D SWE for liver fibrosis when imaging from different intercostal spaces and using MRE as the reference standard. METHODS: Two-dimensional SWE was performed on 47 patients. One patient was excluded from the study. Each of the remaining 46 patients underwent same-day MRE for clinical purposes. The study was compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and approved by the Institutional Review Board. Informed consent was obtained from each patient. Two-dimensional SWE measurements were acquired from the ninth, eighth, and seventh intercostal spaces. The correlation with MRE was calculated at each intercostal space and multiple intercostal spaces combined. The performance of 2D SWE in diagnosing liver fibrosis was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis using MRE as the standard. RESULTS: The 47 patients who initially underwent 2D SWE included 22 female and 25 male patients (age range, 19-77 years). The highest correlation between 2D SWE and MRE was from the eighth and seventh intercostal spaces (r = 0.68-0.76). The ranges of the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for separating normal or inflamed livers from fibrotic livers using MRE as the clinical reference were 0.84 to 0.92 when using the eighth and seventh intercostal spaces individually and 0.89 to 0.90 when combined. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that 2D SWE and MRE are well correlated when SWE is performed at the eighth and seventh intercostal spaces. The ninth intercostal space is less reliable for diagnosing fibrosis with 2D SWE. Combining measurements from multiple intercostal spaces does not significantly improve the performance of 2D SWE for detection of fibrosis.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the correlation between 2-dimensional (2D) ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in liver stiffness measurement and the diagnostic performance of 2D SWE for liver fibrosis when imaging from different intercostal spaces and using MRE as the reference standard. METHODS: Two-dimensional SWE was performed on 47 patients. One patient was excluded from the study. Each of the remaining 46 patients underwent same-day MRE for clinical purposes. The study was compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and approved by the Institutional Review Board. Informed consent was obtained from each patient. Two-dimensional SWE measurements were acquired from the ninth, eighth, and seventh intercostal spaces. The correlation with MRE was calculated at each intercostal space and multiple intercostal spaces combined. The performance of 2D SWE in diagnosing liver fibrosis was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis using MRE as the standard. RESULTS: The 47 patients who initially underwent 2D SWE included 22 female and 25 male patients (age range, 19-77 years). The highest correlation between 2D SWE and MRE was from the eighth and seventh intercostal spaces (r = 0.68-0.76). The ranges of the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for separating normal or inflamed livers from fibrotic livers using MRE as the clinical reference were 0.84 to 0.92 when using the eighth and seventh intercostal spaces individually and 0.89 to 0.90 when combined. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that 2D SWE and MRE are well correlated when SWE is performed at the eighth and seventh intercostal spaces. The ninth intercostal space is less reliable for diagnosing fibrosis with 2D SWE. Combining measurements from multiple intercostal spaces does not significantly improve the performance of 2D SWE for detection of fibrosis.
Authors: Anthony E Samir; Manish Dhyani; Abhinav Vij; Atul K Bhan; Elkan F Halpern; Jorge Méndez-Navarro; Kathleen E Corey; Raymond T Chung Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Armen Sarvazyan; Timothy J Hall; Matthew W Urban; Mostafa Fatemi; Salavat R Aglyamov; Brian S Garra Journal: Curr Med Imaging Rev Date: 2011-11
Authors: Heng Zhao; Pengfei Song; Duane D Meixner; Randall R Kinnick; Matthew R Callstrom; William Sanchez; Matthew W Urban; Armando Manduca; James F Greenleaf; Shigao Chen Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Simona Bota; Harald Herkner; Ioan Sporea; Petra Salzl; Roxana Sirli; Adriana M Neghina; Markus Peck-Radosavljevic Journal: Liver Int Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: Mark L Palmeri; Michael H Wang; Ned C Rouze; Manal F Abdelmalek; Cynthia D Guy; Barry Moser; Anna Mae Diehl; Kathryn R Nightingale Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Pengfei Song; Michael Macdonald; Russell Behler; Justin Lanning; Michael Wang; Matthew Urban; Armando Manduca; Heng Zhao; Matthew Callstrom; Azra Alizad; James Greenleaf; Shigao Chen Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: Nakul Gupta; John S Labis; Joshua Harris; Michael A Trakhtenbroit; Leif E Peterson; Robert A Jack; Patrick C McCulloch Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Ziying Yin; Matthew C Murphy; Jiahui Li; Kevin J Glaser; Amy S Mauer; Taofic Mounajjed; Terry M Therneau; Heshan Liu; Harmeet Malhi; Armando Manduca; Richard L Ehman; Meng Yin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: Sang Min Lee; Jeong Min Lee; Hyo-Jin Kang; Hyung Kung Yang; Jeong Hee Yoon; Won Chang; Su Joa An; Kyoung Bun Lee; Seung Yon Baek Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 3.240