Literature DB >> 31714842

Comparison of 2D Shear Wave Elastography, Transient Elastography, and MR Elastography for the Diagnosis of Fibrosis in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

Alessandro Furlan1, Mitchell E Tublin1, Lan Yu2, Kapil B Chopra3, Anita Lippello3, Jaideep Behari3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) obtained using MR elastography (MRE), transient elastography (TE), and 2D shear wave elastography (SWE) in patients with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). SUBJECTS AND METHODS. We prospectively enrolled 62 adult subjects (mean age [± SD], 50 ± 13 years; 58% women; body mass index [weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters], 35 ± 7). Two-dimensional SWE, MRE, and TE were performed at a mean of 105 ± 86 days after liver biopsy. The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) values and 95% CIs for the corresponding LSMs (expressed in kilopascals) were calculated, with significant fibrosis (Metavir liver fibrosis score, F2-F4) and advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) used as outcome measures. Pairwise comparisons of AUROC values were conducted using the DeLong test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS. For the 62 subjects, valid LSMs were obtained for 57 subjects with the use of 2D SWE, for 59 subjects with TE, for 59 subjects with MRE, and for 54 subjects with all three modalities combined. The AUROC values (95% CIs) of 2D SWE, TE, and MRE for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis were 0.80 (0.67-0.92), 0.77 (0.64-0.89), and 0.85 (0.74-0.95), respectively. The AUROC values (95% CIs) of 2D SWE, TE, and MRE for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis were 0.89 (0.80-0.98), 0.86 (0.77-0.95), and 0.95 (0.89-1.00), respectively. Pairwise comparisons revealed similar diagnostic accuracy for significant fibrosis (2D SWE vs MRE, p = 0.431; 2D SWE vs TE, p = 0.317; and MRE vs TE, p = 0.052) and advanced fibrosis (2D SWE vs MRE, p = 0.348; 2D SWE vs TE, p = 0.293; and MRE vs TE, p = 0.059). CONCLUSION. For patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, 2D SWE, MRE and TE exhibited comparable and very good to excellent diagnostic accuracy for advanced fibrosis and comparable but lower accuracy for significant fibrosis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MR elastography; elastography; liver fibrosis; nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; sonoelastography

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31714842     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.19.21267

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  20 in total

Review 1.  Advances in Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Liver.

Authors:  Jiahui Li; Sudhakar Kundapur Venkatesh; Meng Yin
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2020-06-06       Impact factor: 2.266

2.  A novel radiomics signature based on T2-weighted imaging accurately predicts hepatic inflammation in individuals with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a derivation and independent validation study.

Authors:  Zhong-Wei Chen; Huan-Ming Xiao; Xinjian Ye; Kun Liu; Rafael S Rios; Kenneth I Zheng; Yi Jin; Giovanni Targher; Christopher D Byrne; Junping Shi; Zhihan Yan; Xiao-Ling Chi; Ming-Hua Zheng
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 7.293

3.  Ultrasonographic index for the diagnosis of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Authors:  Jeong Woo Kim; Chang Hee Lee; Baek-Hui Kim; Young-Sun Lee; Soon-Young Hwang; Bit Na Park; Yang Shin Park
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-03

4.  Noninvasive, Blood-Based Biomarkers as Screening Tools for Hepatic Fibrosis in People With Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  Angeliki Meritsi; Dimitra Latsou; Emanuel Manesis; Ilias Gatos; Ioannis Theotokas; Pavlos Zoumpoulis; Stamatia Rapti; Eustathios Tsitsopoulos; Hariklia Moshoyianni; Spilios Manolakopoulos; Dimitrios Pektasides; Anastasia Thanopoulou
Journal:  Clin Diabetes       Date:  2022

5.  Accuracy of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) for assessing steatosis and fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yu-Tian Cao; Liu-Lan Xiang; Fang Qi; Yu-Juan Zhang; Yi Chen; Xi-Qiao Zhou
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2022-07-10

6.  Diagnostic value of MRI-derived liver surface nodularity score for the non-invasive quantification of hepatic fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Authors:  Roberta Catania; Alessandro Furlan; Andrew D Smith; Jaideep Behari; Mitchell E Tublin; Amir A Borhani
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-08-05       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Deep Learning Prediction of Voxel-Level Liver Stiffness in Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

Authors:  Brian L Pollack; Kayhan Batmanghelich; Stephen S Cai; Emile Gordon; Stephen Wallace; Roberta Catania; Carlos Morillo-Hernandez; Alessandro Furlan; Amir A Borhani
Journal:  Radiol Artif Intell       Date:  2021-09-29

8.  Microbiota analysis and transient elastography reveal new extra-hepatic components of liver steatosis and fibrosis in obese patients.

Authors:  Julie Rodriguez; Maxime Nachit; Nicolas Lanthier; Sophie Hiel; Pierre Trefois; Audrey M Neyrinck; Patrice D Cani; Laure B Bindels; Jean-Paul Thissen; Nathalie M Delzenne
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Multiparametric ultrasound imaging for the assessment of normal versus steatotic livers.

Authors:  Lokesh Basavarajappa; Jihye Baek; Shreya Reddy; Jane Song; Haowei Tai; Girdhari Rijal; Kevin J Parker; Kenneth Hoyt
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 10.  Application of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Nutritional Status: A Literature Review with Focus on Dialysis Patients.

Authors:  Tsutomu Inoue; Eito Kozawa; Masahiro Ishikawa; Hirokazu Okada
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 5.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.