PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of imaging sequence (spin-echo echo-planar imaging [EPI] and gradient-echo [GRE]) and postprocessing method (two-dimensional [2D] and 3D inversion algorithms) on liver MR elastography (MRE) and to validate the diagnostic performance of EPI-MRE3D versus conventional GRE-MRE2D for liver fibrosis staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three MRE methods (EPI-MRE3D , EPI-MRE2D , and GRE-MRE2D ) were performed on soft and mildly stiff phantoms and 58 patients with chronic liver disease using a 3 Tesla clinical MRI scanner, and stiffness values were compared among the three methods. A validation study comprised 73 patients with histological liver fibrosis (F0-4, METAVIR system). Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and accuracies for diagnosing significant fibrosis (F3-4) and cirrhosis (F4) were compared between EPI-MRE3D and GRE-MRE2D . RESULTS: Stiffness values of the soft and mildly stiff phantoms were 2.4 kPa and 4.0 kPa by EPI-MRE3D ; 2.6 kPa and 4.2 kPa by EPI-MRE2D ; and 2.7 kPa and 4.2 kPa by GRE-MRE2D . In patients, EPI-MRE3D provided significantly lower stiffness values than other methods (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between GRE-MRE2D and EPI-MRE2D (P = 0.12). The AUCs and accuracies of EPI-MRE3D and GRE-MRE2D were statistically equivalent in the diagnoses of significant fibrosis (F3-4) and cirrhosis (F4) (all P < 0.005). CONCLUSION: EPI-MRE3D showed modestly lower liver stiffness values than conventional GRE-MRE2D . The diagnostic performances of EPI-MRE3D and GRE-MRE2D were equivalent for liver fibrosis staging. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:1163-1170.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of imaging sequence (spin-echo echo-planar imaging [EPI] and gradient-echo [GRE]) and postprocessing method (two-dimensional [2D] and 3D inversion algorithms) on liver MR elastography (MRE) and to validate the diagnostic performance of EPI-MRE3D versus conventional GRE-MRE2D for liver fibrosis staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three MRE methods (EPI-MRE3D , EPI-MRE2D , and GRE-MRE2D ) were performed on soft and mildly stiff phantoms and 58 patients with chronic liver disease using a 3 Tesla clinical MRI scanner, and stiffness values were compared among the three methods. A validation study comprised 73 patients with histological liver fibrosis (F0-4, METAVIR system). Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and accuracies for diagnosing significant fibrosis (F3-4) and cirrhosis (F4) were compared between EPI-MRE3D and GRE-MRE2D . RESULTS: Stiffness values of the soft and mildly stiff phantoms were 2.4 kPa and 4.0 kPa by EPI-MRE3D ; 2.6 kPa and 4.2 kPa by EPI-MRE2D ; and 2.7 kPa and 4.2 kPa by GRE-MRE2D . In patients, EPI-MRE3D provided significantly lower stiffness values than other methods (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between GRE-MRE2D and EPI-MRE2D (P = 0.12). The AUCs and accuracies of EPI-MRE3D and GRE-MRE2D were statistically equivalent in the diagnoses of significant fibrosis (F3-4) and cirrhosis (F4) (all P < 0.005). CONCLUSION: EPI-MRE3D showed modestly lower liver stiffness values than conventional GRE-MRE2D . The diagnostic performances of EPI-MRE3D and GRE-MRE2D were equivalent for liver fibrosis staging. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:1163-1170.
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: Laurent Huwart; Najat Salameh; Leon ter Beek; Eric Vicaut; Frank Peeters; Ralph Sinkus; Bernard E Van Beers Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: April M Chow; Darwin S Gao; Shu Juan Fan; Zhongwei Qiao; Frank Y Lee; Jian Yang; Kwan Man; Ed X Wu Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Kang Wang; Paul Manning; Nikolaus Szeverenyi; Tanya Wolfson; Gavin Hamilton; Michael S Middleton; Florin Vaida; Meng Yin; Kevin Glaser; Richard L Ehman; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-12
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: Roberta Catania; Camila Lopes Vendrami; Bradley D Bolster; Richard Niemzcura; Amir A Borhani; Frank H Miller Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2022-01-04
Authors: Christopher L Welle; Michael C Olson; Scott B Reeder; Sudhakar K Venkatesh Journal: Radiol Clin North Am Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 1.947
Authors: Emily Rose Triolo; Oleksandr Khegai; Efe Ozkaya; Nicholas Rossi; Akbar Alipour; Lazar Fleysher; Priti Balchandani; Mehmet Kurt Journal: Curr Protoc Date: 2022-03
Authors: Yingzhen N Zhang; Kathryn J Fowler; Arinc Ozturk; Chetan K Potu; Ashley L Louie; Vivian Montes; Walter C Henderson; Kang Wang; Michael P Andre; Anthony E Samir; Claude B Sirlin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 4.813