Michael L Wells1, Michael R Moynagh1, Rickey E Carter2, Robert A Childs1, Cameron E Leitch1, Joel G Fletcher1, Benjamin M Yeh3, Sudhakar K Venkatesh4. 1. Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 2. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. Venkatesh.Sudhakar@mayo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare MR hepatic fractional extracellular space (fECS) to liver stiffness (LS) with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) for evaluation of liver fibrosis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 71 consecutive patients with suspected chronic liver disease underwent standard liver MRI with MR elastography and additional delayed Gd-DTPA-enhanced sequences at 5 and 10 min in order to calculate hepatic fECS (%) and LS (kilopascals, kPa). Two radiologists blinded to clinical history examined MR images and calculated fECS and LS in identical locations for every patient. Interobserver agreement was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Pearson's correlation was calculated for LS and fECS measures, as was the area under the receiver operatic curve (AUROC), sensitivity and specificity of fECS to predict liver stiffness ≥2.93 and ≥5 kPa. The sensitivity of fECS for detecting fibrosis was separately analyzed in the subgroup of patients without anatomic findings of cirrhosis. RESULTS: Substantial to excellent interobserver agreement for both LS and fECS measurements was seen with intraclass correlation of 0.88 (95% CI 0.81-0.92) for LS, 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.85) for fECS5 and 0.76 (95% CI 0.64-0.84) for fECS10. A significant correlation was found between MRE and fECS5 (r = 0.47, p < 0.0001) and fECS10 (r = 0.44, p < 0.0001). The performance of fECS improved for detection of advanced fibrosis (≥5 kPa) with AUROC, sensitivity and specificity of 0.72, 38%, and 94% for fECS5 and 0.72, 67%, and 66% for fECS10. CONCLUSION: fECS correlates modestly with MRE-determined LS. fECS at MRI is a simple calculation to perform and may represent a practical way to suggest the presence of fibrosis during routine liver evaluation.
PURPOSE: To compare MR hepatic fractional extracellular space (fECS) to liver stiffness (LS) with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) for evaluation of liver fibrosis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 71 consecutive patients with suspected chronic liver disease underwent standard liver MRI with MR elastography and additional delayed Gd-DTPA-enhanced sequences at 5 and 10 min in order to calculate hepatic fECS (%) and LS (kilopascals, kPa). Two radiologists blinded to clinical history examined MR images and calculated fECS and LS in identical locations for every patient. Interobserver agreement was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Pearson's correlation was calculated for LS and fECS measures, as was the area under the receiver operatic curve (AUROC), sensitivity and specificity of fECS to predict liver stiffness ≥2.93 and ≥5 kPa. The sensitivity of fECS for detecting fibrosis was separately analyzed in the subgroup of patients without anatomic findings of cirrhosis. RESULTS: Substantial to excellent interobserver agreement for both LS and fECS measurements was seen with intraclass correlation of 0.88 (95% CI 0.81-0.92) for LS, 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.85) for fECS5 and 0.76 (95% CI 0.64-0.84) for fECS10. A significant correlation was found between MRE and fECS5 (r = 0.47, p < 0.0001) and fECS10 (r = 0.44, p < 0.0001). The performance of fECS improved for detection of advanced fibrosis (≥5 kPa) with AUROC, sensitivity and specificity of 0.72, 38%, and 94% for fECS5 and 0.72, 67%, and 66% for fECS10. CONCLUSION: fECS correlates modestly with MRE-determined LS. fECS at MRI is a simple calculation to perform and may represent a practical way to suggest the presence of fibrosis during routine liver evaluation.
Authors: Diego R Martin; Thomas Lauenstein; Bobby Kalb; Christina Lurie; Hiroumi Kitajima; Puneet Sharma; Khalil Salman; Roger Moreira; Alton B Farris; James Spivey; Enrique Martinez; Steve Hanish; Volkan Adsay Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-05-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Rahul Rustogi; Jeanne Horowitz; Carla Harmath; Yi Wang; Hamid Chalian; Daniel R Ganger; Zongming E Chen; Bradley D Bolster; Saurabh Shah; Frank H Miller Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Christoph Klein; Thaiz R Schmal; Stephan G Nekolla; Bernhard Schnackenburg; Eckart Fleck; Eike Nagel Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2007 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Maurice H Zissen; Zhen Jane Wang; Judy Yee; Rizwan Aslam; Alexander Monto; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Steve Bandula; Shonit Punwani; William M Rosenberg; Rajiv Jalan; Andrew R Hall; Amar Dhillon; James C Moon; Stuart A Taylor Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 11.105