Charlie C Park1, Phirum Nguyen1, Carolyn Hernandez1, Ricki Bettencourt1, Kimberly Ramirez1, Lynda Fortney1, Jonathan Hooker2, Ethan Sy2, Michael T Savides1, Mosab H Alquiraish1, Mark A Valasek3, Emily Rizo1, Lisa Richards1, David Brenner4, Claude B Sirlin2, Rohit Loomba5. 1. Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California. 2. Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California. 3. Department of Pathology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California. 4. Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California. 5. Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California; Division of Epidemiology, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: roloomba@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques and ultrasound-based transient elastography (TE) can be used in noninvasive diagnosis of fibrosis and steatosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We performed a prospective study to compare the performance of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) vs TE for diagnosis of fibrosis, and MRI-based proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) analysis vs TE-based controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) for diagnosis of steatosis in patients undergoing biopsy to assess NAFLD. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of 104 consecutive adults (56.7% female) who underwent MRE, TE, and liver biopsy analysis (using the histologic scoring system for NAFLD from the Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network Scoring System) from October 2011 through May 2016 at a tertiary medical center. All patients received a standard clinical evaluation, including collection of history, anthropometric examination, and biochemical tests. The primary outcomes were fibrosis and steatosis. Secondary outcomes included dichotomized stages of fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis vs no nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were used to compare performances of MRE vs TE in diagnosis of fibrosis (stages 1-4 vs 0) and MRI-PDFF vs CAP for diagnosis of steatosis (grades 1-3 vs 0) with respect to findings from biopsy analysis. RESULTS: MRE detected any fibrosis (stage 1 or more) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.91), which was significantly higher than that of TE (AUROC, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78). MRI-PDFF detected any steatosis with an AUROC of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00), which was significantly higher than that of CAP (AUROC, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96). MRE detected fibrosis of stages 2, 3, or 4 with AUROC values of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.78-0.96), and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71-1.00); TE detected fibrosis of stages 2, 3, or 4 with AUROC values of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.77-0.95), 0.80 (95% CI, 0.67-0.93), and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.45-0.94). MRI-PDFF identified steatosis of grades 2 or 3 with AUROC values of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.97) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.84-0.99); CAP identified steatosis of grades 2 or 3 with AUROC values of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.58-0.82) and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective, cross-sectional study of more than 100 patients, we found MRE to be more accurate than TE in identification of liver fibrosis (stage 1 or more), using biopsy analysis as the standard. MRI-PDFF is more accurate than CAP in detecting all grades of steatosis in patients with NAFLD.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques and ultrasound-based transient elastography (TE) can be used in noninvasive diagnosis of fibrosis and steatosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We performed a prospective study to compare the performance of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) vs TE for diagnosis of fibrosis, and MRI-based proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) analysis vs TE-based controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) for diagnosis of steatosis in patients undergoing biopsy to assess NAFLD. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of 104 consecutive adults (56.7% female) who underwent MRE, TE, and liver biopsy analysis (using the histologic scoring system for NAFLD from the Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network Scoring System) from October 2011 through May 2016 at a tertiary medical center. All patients received a standard clinical evaluation, including collection of history, anthropometric examination, and biochemical tests. The primary outcomes were fibrosis and steatosis. Secondary outcomes included dichotomized stages of fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis vs no nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were used to compare performances of MRE vs TE in diagnosis of fibrosis (stages 1-4 vs 0) and MRI-PDFF vs CAP for diagnosis of steatosis (grades 1-3 vs 0) with respect to findings from biopsy analysis. RESULTS: MRE detected any fibrosis (stage 1 or more) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.91), which was significantly higher than that of TE (AUROC, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78). MRI-PDFF detected any steatosis with an AUROC of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00), which was significantly higher than that of CAP (AUROC, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96). MRE detected fibrosis of stages 2, 3, or 4 with AUROC values of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.78-0.96), and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71-1.00); TE detected fibrosis of stages 2, 3, or 4 with AUROC values of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.77-0.95), 0.80 (95% CI, 0.67-0.93), and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.45-0.94). MRI-PDFF identified steatosis of grades 2 or 3 with AUROC values of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.97) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.84-0.99); CAP identified steatosis of grades 2 or 3 with AUROC values of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.58-0.82) and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective, cross-sectional study of more than 100 patients, we found MRE to be more accurate than TE in identification of liver fibrosis (stage 1 or more), using biopsy analysis as the standard. MRI-PDFF is more accurate than CAP in detecting all grades of steatosis in patients with NAFLD.
Authors: Rohit Loomba; Nicholas Schork; Chi-Hua Chen; Ricki Bettencourt; Ana Bhatt; Brandon Ang; Phirum Nguyen; Carolyn Hernandez; Lisa Richards; Joanie Salotti; Steven Lin; Ekihiro Seki; Karen E Nelson; Claude B Sirlin; David Brenner Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 22.682
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: Raphael B Merriman; Linda D Ferrell; Marco G Patti; Shiobhan R Weston; Mark S Pabst; Bradley E Aouizerat; Nathan M Bass Journal: Hepatology Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Mohammad S Siddiqui; Raj Vuppalanchi; Mark L Van Natta; Erin Hallinan; Kris V Kowdley; Manal Abdelmalek; Brent A Neuschwander-Tetri; Rohit Loomba; Srinivasan Dasarathy; Danielle Brandman; Edward Doo; James A Tonascia; David E Kleiner; Naga Chalasani; Arun J Sanyal Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Cyrielle Caussy; Veeral H Ajmera; Puneet Puri; Cynthia Li-Shin Hsu; Shirin Bassirian; Mania Mgdsyan; Seema Singh; Claire Faulkner; Mark A Valasek; Emily Rizo; Lisa Richards; David A Brenner; Claude B Sirlin; Arun J Sanyal; Rohit Loomba Journal: Gut Date: 2018-12-19 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Jennifer C Price; Jennifer L Dodge; Yifei Ma; Rebecca Scherzer; Natalie Korn; Kyle Tillinghast; Marion G Peters; Susan Noworolski; Phyllis C Tien Journal: AIDS Date: 2017-09-24 Impact factor: 4.177