Perry J Pickhardt1, Kyle Malecki2, Oliver F Hunt2, Claire Beaumont2, John Kloke2, Timothy J Ziemlewicz2, Meghan G Lubner2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI, 53792-3252, USA. ppickhardt2@uwhealth.org. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI, 53792-3252, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate hepatosplenic volumetry at MDCT for non-invasive prediction of hepatic fibrosis. METHODS: Hepatosplenic volume analysis in 624 patients (mean age, 48.8 years; 311 M/313 F) at MDCT was performed using dedicated software and compared against pathological fibrosis stage (F0 = 374; F1 = 48; F2 = 40; F3 = 65; F4 = 97). The liver segmental volume ratio (LSVR) was defined by Couinaud segments I-III over segments IV-VIII. All pre-cirrhotic fibrosis stages (METAVIR F1-F3) were based on liver biopsy within 1 year of MDCT. RESULTS: LSVR and total splenic volumes increased with stage of fibrosis, with mean(±SD) values of: F0: 0.26 ± 0.06 and 215.1 ± 88.5 mm3; F1: 0.25 ± 0.08 and 294.8 ± 153.4 mm3; F2: 0.331 ± 0.12 and 291.6 ± 197.1 mm3; F3: 0.39 ± 0.15 and 509.6 ± 402.6 mm3; F4: 0.56 ± 0.30 and 790.7 ± 450.3 mm3, respectively. Total hepatic volumes showed poor discrimination (F0: 1674 ± 320 mm3; F4: 1631 ± 691 mm3). For discriminating advanced fibrosis (≥F3), the ROC AUC values for LSVR, total liver volume, splenic volume and LSVR/spleen combined were 0.863, 0.506, 0.890 and 0.947, respectively. CONCLUSION: Relative changes in segmental liver volumes and total splenic volume allow for non-invasive staging of hepatic fibrosis, whereas total liver volume is a poor predictor. Unlike liver biopsy or elastography, these CT volumetric biomarkers can be obtained retrospectively on routine scans obtained for other indications. KEY POINTS: • Regional changes in hepatic volume (LSVR) correlate well with degree of fibrosis. • Total liver volume is a very poor predictor of underlying fibrosis. • Total splenic volume is associated with the degree of hepatic fibrosis. • Hepatosplenic volume assessment is comparable to elastography for staging fibrosis. • Unlike elastography, volumetric analysis can be performed retrospectively.
PURPOSE: To investigate hepatosplenic volumetry at MDCT for non-invasive prediction of hepatic fibrosis. METHODS: Hepatosplenic volume analysis in 624 patients (mean age, 48.8 years; 311 M/313 F) at MDCT was performed using dedicated software and compared against pathological fibrosis stage (F0 = 374; F1 = 48; F2 = 40; F3 = 65; F4 = 97). The liver segmental volume ratio (LSVR) was defined by Couinaud segments I-III over segments IV-VIII. All pre-cirrhotic fibrosis stages (METAVIR F1-F3) were based on liver biopsy within 1 year of MDCT. RESULTS: LSVR and total splenic volumes increased with stage of fibrosis, with mean(±SD) values of: F0: 0.26 ± 0.06 and 215.1 ± 88.5 mm3; F1: 0.25 ± 0.08 and 294.8 ± 153.4 mm3; F2: 0.331 ± 0.12 and 291.6 ± 197.1 mm3; F3: 0.39 ± 0.15 and 509.6 ± 402.6 mm3; F4: 0.56 ± 0.30 and 790.7 ± 450.3 mm3, respectively. Total hepatic volumes showed poor discrimination (F0: 1674 ± 320 mm3; F4: 1631 ± 691 mm3). For discriminating advanced fibrosis (≥F3), the ROC AUC values for LSVR, total liver volume, splenic volume and LSVR/spleen combined were 0.863, 0.506, 0.890 and 0.947, respectively. CONCLUSION: Relative changes in segmental liver volumes and total splenic volume allow for non-invasive staging of hepatic fibrosis, whereas total liver volume is a poor predictor. Unlike liver biopsy or elastography, these CT volumetric biomarkers can be obtained retrospectively on routine scans obtained for other indications. KEY POINTS: • Regional changes in hepatic volume (LSVR) correlate well with degree of fibrosis. • Total liver volume is a very poor predictor of underlying fibrosis. • Total splenic volume is associated with the degree of hepatic fibrosis. • Hepatosplenic volume assessment is comparable to elastography for staging fibrosis. • Unlike elastography, volumetric analysis can be performed retrospectively.
Authors: Meng Yin; Kevin J Glaser; Jayant A Talwalkar; Jun Chen; Armando Manduca; Richard L Ehman Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 11.105
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: 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
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: Hailong Li; Lili He; Jonathan A Dudley; Thomas C Maloney; Elanchezhian Somasundaram; Samuel L Brady; Nehal A Parikh; Jonathan R Dillman Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2020-10-13
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