Jeremy S Paige1, Gregory S Bernstein1, Elhamy Heba1, Eduardo A C Costa1, Marilia Fereirra1, Tanya Wolfson1,2, Anthony C Gamst1,2, Mark A Valasek3, Grace Y Lin3, Aiguo Han4, John W Erdman5, William D O'Brien4, Michael P Andre1,6, Rohit Loomba7,8, Claude B Sirlin1. 1. 1 Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, 408 Dickinson St, San Diego, CA 92103-8226. 2. 2 Computational and Applied Statistics Laboratory, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA. 3. 3 Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA. 4. 4 Bioacoustics Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL. 5. 5 Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL. 6. 6 San Diego VA Healthcare System, San Diego, CA. 7. 7 NAFLD Translational Research Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA. 8. 8 Division of Epidemiology, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to explore the diagnostic performance of two investigational quantitative ultrasound (QUS) parameters, attenuation coefficient and backscatter coefficient, in comparison with conventional ultrasound (CUS) and MRI-estimated proton density fat fraction (PDFF) for predicting histology-confirmed steatosis grade in adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In this prospectively designed pilot study, 61 adults with histology-confirmed NAFLD were enrolled from September 2012 to February 2014. Subjects underwent QUS, CUS, and MRI examinations within 100 days of clinical-care liver biopsy. QUS parameters (attenuation coefficient and backscatter coefficient) were estimated using a reference phantom technique by two analysts independently. Three-point ordinal CUS scores intended to predict steatosis grade (1, 2, or 3) were generated independently by two radiologists on the basis of QUS features. PDFF was estimated using an advanced chemical shift-based MRI technique. Using histologic examination as the reference standard, ROC analysis was performed. Optimal attenuation coefficient, backscatter coefficient, and PDFF cutoff thresholds were identified, and the accuracy of attenuation coefficient, backscatter coefficient, PDFF, and CUS to predict steatosis grade was determined. Interobserver agreement for attenuation coefficient, backscatter coefficient, and CUS was analyzed. RESULTS: CUS had 51.7% grading accuracy. The raw and cross-validated steatosis grading accuracies were 61.7% and 55.0%, respectively, for attenuation coefficient, 68.3% and 68.3% for backscatter coefficient, and 76.7% and 71.3% for MRI-estimated PDFF. Interobserver agreements were 53.3% for CUS (κ = 0.61), 90.0% for attenuation coefficient (κ = 0.87), and 71.7% for backscatter coefficient (κ = 0.82) (p < 0.0001 for all). CONCLUSION: Preliminary observations suggest that QUS parameters may be more accurate and provide higher interobserver agreement than CUS for predicting hepatic steatosis grade in patients with NAFLD.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to explore the diagnostic performance of two investigational quantitative ultrasound (QUS) parameters, attenuation coefficient and backscatter coefficient, in comparison with conventional ultrasound (CUS) and MRI-estimated proton density fat fraction (PDFF) for predicting histology-confirmed steatosis grade in adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In this prospectively designed pilot study, 61 adults with histology-confirmed NAFLD were enrolled from September 2012 to February 2014. Subjects underwent QUS, CUS, and MRI examinations within 100 days of clinical-care liver biopsy. QUS parameters (attenuation coefficient and backscatter coefficient) were estimated using a reference phantom technique by two analysts independently. Three-point ordinal CUS scores intended to predict steatosis grade (1, 2, or 3) were generated independently by two radiologists on the basis of QUS features. PDFF was estimated using an advanced chemical shift-based MRI technique. Using histologic examination as the reference standard, ROC analysis was performed. Optimal attenuation coefficient, backscatter coefficient, and PDFF cutoff thresholds were identified, and the accuracy of attenuation coefficient, backscatter coefficient, PDFF, and CUS to predict steatosis grade was determined. Interobserver agreement for attenuation coefficient, backscatter coefficient, and CUS was analyzed. RESULTS:CUS had 51.7% grading accuracy. The raw and cross-validated steatosis grading accuracies were 61.7% and 55.0%, respectively, for attenuation coefficient, 68.3% and 68.3% for backscatter coefficient, and 76.7% and 71.3% for MRI-estimated PDFF. Interobserver agreements were 53.3% for CUS (κ = 0.61), 90.0% for attenuation coefficient (κ = 0.87), and 71.7% for backscatter coefficient (κ = 0.82) (p < 0.0001 for all). CONCLUSION: Preliminary observations suggest that QUS parameters may be more accurate and provide higher interobserver agreement than CUS for predicting hepatic steatosis grade in patients with NAFLD.
Authors: Don C Rockey; Stephen H Caldwell; Zachary D Goodman; Rendon C Nelson; Alastair D Smith Journal: Hepatology Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: David E Kleiner; Elizabeth M Brunt; Mark Van Natta; Cynthia Behling; Melissa J Contos; Oscar W Cummings; Linda D Ferrell; Yao-Chang Liu; Michael S Torbenson; Aynur Unalp-Arida; Matthew Yeh; Arthur J McCullough; Arun J Sanyal Journal: Hepatology Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Steven C Lin; Elhamy Heba; Tanya Wolfson; Brandon Ang; Anthony Gamst; Aiguo Han; John W Erdman; William D O'Brien; Michael P Andre; Claude B Sirlin; Rohit Loomba Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: An Tang; Justin Tan; Mark Sun; Gavin Hamilton; Mark Bydder; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony C Gamst; Michael Middleton; Elizabeth M Brunt; Rohit Loomba; Joel E Lavine; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ziying Yin; Matthew C Murphy; Jiahui Li; Kevin J Glaser; Amy S Mauer; Taofic Mounajjed; Terry M Therneau; Heshan Liu; Harmeet Malhi; Armando Manduca; Richard L Ehman; Meng Yin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Aiguo Han; Yingzhen N Zhang; Andrew S Boehringer; Vivian Montes; Michael P Andre; John W Erdman; Rohit Loomba; Mark A Valasek; Claude B Sirlin; William D O'Brien Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Cheng William Hong; Tanya Wolfson; Ethan Z Sy; Alexandra N Schlein; Jonathan C Hooker; Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Gavin Hamilton; Scott B Reeder; Rohit Loomba; Claude B Sirlin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-08-26 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Trong N Nguyen; Anthony S Podkowa; Alex Y Tam; Eben C Arnold; Rita J Miller; Trevor H Park; Minh N Do; Michael L Oelze Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Joe L Rowles; Aiguo Han; Rita J Miller; Jamie R Kelly; Catherine C Applegate; Matthew A Wallig; William D O'Brien; John W Erdman Journal: Nutr Res Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Aiguo Han; Michael P Andre; Lisa Deiranieh; Elise Housman; John W Erdman; Rohit Loomba; Claude B Sirlin; William D O'Brien Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Yingzhen N Zhang; Kathryn J Fowler; Gavin Hamilton; Jennifer Y Cui; Ethan Z Sy; Michelle Balanay; Jonathan C Hooker; Nikolaus Szeverenyi; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 3.039