| Literature DB >> 31609745 |
Giovanna Ferraioli1,2, Laura Maiocchi2, Maria Vittoria Raciti3, Carmine Tinelli4, Annalisa De Silvestri4, Mara Nichetti5, Pasquale De Cata6, Mariangela Rondanelli5,7,8, Luca Chiovato1,6, Fabrizio Calliada1,3, Carlo Filice1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to investigate the value of attenuation imaging (ATI), a novel ultrasound technique for detection of steatosis, by comparing the results to that obtained with controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) and by using MRI-derived proton density fat fraction (PDFF) as reference standard.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31609745 PMCID: PMC6884349 DOI: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000081
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol ISSN: 2155-384X Impact factor: 4.488
Figure 1.Flow chart of the study. CAP measurements: n = 125; ATI measurements: n = 124. ATI, attenuation imaging; CAP, controlled attenuation parameter; PDFF, proton density fat fraction.
Baseline characteristics, stratified by nonalcoholic fatty liver disease status, of the 123 subjects with MRI-PDFF results available
Figure 2.MRI-PDFF steatosis grade: <5%: S0 (n = 36), 5%: S1 (n = 65), 16.3%: S2 (n = 8), 21.6%: S3 (n = 14). Median values and interquartile range (in parenthesis) for each fibrosis stage and P values of differences between consecutive grades are given. The central box represents values from the lower to upper quartile (25–75 percentile). The middle line represents the median. A line extends from the minimum to the maximum value (range), excluding “outside” values, which are displayed as separate points. The difference among steatosis grade was evaluated with one-way analysis of variance by ranks (Kruskal–Wallis test) adjusted with post hoc Bonferroni test. ATI, attenuation imaging; CAP, controlled attenuation parameter; CI, confidence interval; PDFF, proton density fat fraction.
Figure 3.The scatter plots of the ATI and the CAP on the vertical axis vs MRI-PDFF values on the horizontal axis. ATI, attenuation imaging; CAP, controlled attenuation parameter; PDFF, proton density fat fraction.
Resulting clinical performance of ATI and CAP using optimal measurement cutoff values
Figure 4.Comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves for ATI and CAP for S0 vs S1-S3, as defined by MRI-PDFF ≥ 5%, and S0-S1 vs S2-S3, as defined by MRI-PDFF ≥ 16.3%. ATI, attenuation imaging; AUROC, area under the receiver operating characteristic (curve); CAP, controlled attenuation parameter; PDFF, proton density fat fraction.
Grading of liver steatosis with ATI vs the grading with MRI-PDFF