OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the liver segmental volume ratio (LSVR), a novel volumetric computed tomography measurement, with established linear measurements for differentiating normal from cirrhotic livers. METHODS: Hepatic volumes were measured using semiautomated software (Liver Analysis Application, Philips IntelliSpace Portal) on contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography scans in 312 adults, including 108 patients with end-stage liver disease (mean age, 55 years; 63 men/45 women) and 204 healthy controls (potential renal donors; mean age, 46 years; 82 men/122 women). The LSVR was defined as the volume ratio of Couinaud segments I to III to segments IV to VIII. Linear measures included the caudate-to-right lobe ratio and maximal splenic dimension. RESULTS: Differences in LSVR between cirrhotics and controls were highly significant (P < 0.0001; mean, 0.55 ± 0.29 versus 0.27 ± 0.07; receiver operating characteristic [ROC] area under the curve [AUC], 0.916). Linear caudate-to-right lobe ratio differences were not statistically significant between the 2 cohorts (P = 0.051; ROC AUC, 0.567). Total liver volume was ineffective for discrimination (ROC AUC, 0.598). An LSVR threshold of 0.35 or greater had a sensitivity and specificity for cirrhosis of 81.5% and 88.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Regional hepatic volume changes, as reflected by the LSVR, are more effective than standard linear measures or total liver volume for differentiating cirrhotic from normal livers.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the liver segmental volume ratio (LSVR), a novel volumetric computed tomography measurement, with established linear measurements for differentiating normal from cirrhotic livers. METHODS: Hepatic volumes were measured using semiautomated software (Liver Analysis Application, Philips IntelliSpace Portal) on contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography scans in 312 adults, including 108 patients with end-stage liver disease (mean age, 55 years; 63 men/45 women) and 204 healthy controls (potential renal donors; mean age, 46 years; 82 men/122 women). The LSVR was defined as the volume ratio of Couinaud segments I to III to segments IV to VIII. Linear measures included the caudate-to-right lobe ratio and maximal splenic dimension. RESULTS: Differences in LSVR between cirrhotics and controls were highly significant (P < 0.0001; mean, 0.55 ± 0.29 versus 0.27 ± 0.07; receiver operating characteristic [ROC] area under the curve [AUC], 0.916). Linear caudate-to-right lobe ratio differences were not statistically significant between the 2 cohorts (P = 0.051; ROC AUC, 0.567). Total liver volume was ineffective for discrimination (ROC AUC, 0.598). An LSVR threshold of 0.35 or greater had a sensitivity and specificity for cirrhosis of 81.5% and 88.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Regional hepatic volume changes, as reflected by the LSVR, are more effective than standard linear measures or total liver volume for differentiating cirrhotic from normal livers.
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; David H Kim; B Dustin Pooler; J Louis Hinshaw; Duncan Barlow; Don Jensen; Mark Reichelderfer; Brooks D Cash Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 41.316
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: K Tarao; H Hoshino; I Motohashi; K Iimori; S Tamai; Y Ito; S Takagi; Y Oikawa; S Unayama; T Fujiwara Journal: Hepatology Date: 1989-04 Impact factor: 17.425
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
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Peter M Graffy; Alberto A Perez; Meghan G Lubner; Daniel C Elton; Ronald M Summers Journal: Radiographics Date: 2021 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Alberto A Perez; Victoria Noe-Kim; Meghan G Lubner; Peter M Graffy; John W Garrett; Daniel C Elton; Ronald M Summers; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 11.105