Chenyang Zhan1, Stephan Kannengiesser2, Hersh Chandarana1, Matthias Fenchel3, Justin Ream1, Krishna Prasad Shanbhogue4. 1. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, 660 First Ave, New York, NY, 10016, USA. 2. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Siemens Healthineers, New York, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, 660 First Ave, New York, NY, 10016, USA. Krishna.Shanbhogue@nyulangone.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare 2D gradient-recalled echo (GRE) and 2D spin-echo (SE) echo-planar imaging (EPI) MR elastography (MRE) for measurement of hepatic stiffness in adult patients with known or suspected liver disease at 3 Tesla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred and eighty-seven consecutive patients underwent MRE of the liver at 3 Tesla with 2D-GRE and 2D-SE-EPI sequences. 'Mean liver stiffness (LS)' calculated by averaging 3 ROIs in the right lobe, 'Maximum LS' calculated by an ROI in the right lobe; and 'Freehand LS' calculated by an ROI in the entire liver were measured by two independent readers. Inter-observer and inter-class variability in stiffness measurements were assessed. Stiffness values were correlated with degree of liver fibrosis (METAVIR scores) in 97 patients who underwent biopsy. The diagnostic performance was compared by a receiver-operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The technical failure rate was 2.8% for 2D-SE-EPI (11/387) and 4.1% for 2D-GRE (16/387, 9 had R2* > 80 s-1 indicating iron overload). There is high reproducibility for both GRE and SE-EPI variants (ICC = 0.84-0.94 for both GRE and SE-EPI MRE). The highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of differentiating mild fibrosis (F0-F2) from advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) are 0.84 (GRE Freehand measurement), 0.92 (GRE Maximum stiffness measurement), and 0.88 (GRE Freehand measurement), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: High intra-class correlation and intra-reader correlation are seen on measured hepatic stiffness for both 2D-GRE and 2D-SE-EPI MRE. 2D-SE-EPI has lower failure rate. Diagnostic performance of both sequences is equivalent, with highest sensitivity for 2D-GRE Freehand stiffness measurement, and highest specificity 2D-GRE Maximum stiffness measurement.
PURPOSE: To compare 2D gradient-recalled echo (GRE) and 2D spin-echo (SE) echo-planar imaging (EPI) MR elastography (MRE) for measurement of hepatic stiffness in adult patients with known or suspected liver disease at 3 Tesla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred and eighty-seven consecutive patients underwent MRE of the liver at 3 Tesla with 2D-GRE and 2D-SE-EPI sequences. 'Mean liver stiffness (LS)' calculated by averaging 3 ROIs in the right lobe, 'Maximum LS' calculated by an ROI in the right lobe; and 'Freehand LS' calculated by an ROI in the entire liver were measured by two independent readers. Inter-observer and inter-class variability in stiffness measurements were assessed. Stiffness values were correlated with degree of liver fibrosis (METAVIR scores) in 97 patients who underwent biopsy. The diagnostic performance was compared by a receiver-operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The technical failure rate was 2.8% for 2D-SE-EPI (11/387) and 4.1% for 2D-GRE (16/387, 9 had R2* > 80 s-1 indicating iron overload). There is high reproducibility for both GRE and SE-EPI variants (ICC = 0.84-0.94 for both GRE and SE-EPI MRE). The highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of differentiating mild fibrosis (F0-F2) from advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) are 0.84 (GRE Freehand measurement), 0.92 (GRE Maximum stiffness measurement), and 0.88 (GRE Freehand measurement), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: High intra-class correlation and intra-reader correlation are seen on measured hepatic stiffness for both 2D-GRE and 2D-SE-EPI MRE. 2D-SE-EPI has lower failure rate. Diagnostic performance of both sequences is equivalent, with highest sensitivity for 2D-GRE Freehand stiffness measurement, and highest specificity 2D-GRE Maximum stiffness measurement.
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: Meng Yin; Jayant A Talwalkar; Kevin J Glaser; Armando Manduca; Roger C Grimm; Phillip J Rossman; Jeff L Fidler; Richard L Ehman Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Andrew T Trout; Rachel M Sheridan; Suraj D Serai; Stavra A Xanthakos; Weizhe Su; Bin Zhang; Daniel B Wallihan Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: James E Everhart; Elizabeth C Wright; Zachary D Goodman; Jules L Dienstag; John C Hoefs; David E Kleiner; Marc G Ghany; A Scott Mills; S Russell Nash; Sugantha Govindarajan; Thomas E Rogers; Joel K Greenson; Elizabeth M Brunt; Herbert L Bonkovsky; Chihiro Morishima; Heather J Litman Journal: Hepatology Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Sang Lim Choi; Eun Sun Lee; Ara Ko; Hyun Jeong Park; Sung Bin Park; Byung Ihn Choi; Young Youn Cho; Stephan Kannengiesser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 5.315