Sang Min Lee1, Min-Jeong Kim1, Jeong Hee Yoon2,3, Wonju Hong1, Hong Il Ha1, Kwanseop Lee1, Ji-Young Choe4, Jung Woo Lee5, Sam-Youl Yoon5, Junhee Han6. 1. Department of Radiology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Pathology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea. 5. Department of Surgery, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea. 6. Department of Statistics and Institute of Statistics, Hallym University, Chuncheon, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the technical performance of ElastQ Imaging compared with ElastPQ and to investigate the correlation between liver stiffness (LS) values obtained using these two techniques. METHODS: This retrospective study included 249 patients who underwent LS measurements using both ElastPQ and ElastQ Imaging equipped on the same machine. The applicability, repeatability (coefficient of variation [CV]), acquisition time, and LS values were compared using the chi-square or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. In the development group, the correlation between the LS values obtained by the two techniques was assessed with Spearman correlation coefficients and linear regression analysis. In the validation group, the agreement between the estimated and real LS values was evaluated using a Bland-Altman plot. RESULTS: ElastQ Imaging had higher applicability (94.0% vs. 78.3%, P<0.001) and higher repeatability, with a lower median CV (0.127 vs. 0.164, P<0.001) than did ElastPQ. The median acquisition time of ElastQ Imaging was significantly shorter than that of ElastPQ (45.5 seconds vs. 96.5 seconds, P<0.001). The median LS value obtained using ElastQ Imaging was significantly higher than that obtained using ElastPQ (5.60 kPa vs. 5.23 kPa, P<0.001). The LS values between the two techniques exhibited a strong positive correlation (r=0.851, P<0.001) in the development group. The mean difference and 95% limits of agreement were 0.0 kPa (-3.9 to 3.9 kPa) in the validation group. CONCLUSION: ElastQ Imaging may be more reliable and faster than ElastPQ, with strongly correlated LS measurements.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the technical performance of ElastQ Imaging compared with ElastPQ and to investigate the correlation between liver stiffness (LS) values obtained using these two techniques. METHODS: This retrospective study included 249 patients who underwent LS measurements using both ElastPQ and ElastQ Imaging equipped on the same machine. The applicability, repeatability (coefficient of variation [CV]), acquisition time, and LS values were compared using the chi-square or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. In the development group, the correlation between the LS values obtained by the two techniques was assessed with Spearman correlation coefficients and linear regression analysis. In the validation group, the agreement between the estimated and real LS values was evaluated using a Bland-Altman plot. RESULTS: ElastQ Imaging had higher applicability (94.0% vs. 78.3%, P<0.001) and higher repeatability, with a lower median CV (0.127 vs. 0.164, P<0.001) than did ElastPQ. The median acquisition time of ElastQ Imaging was significantly shorter than that of ElastPQ (45.5 seconds vs. 96.5 seconds, P<0.001). The median LS value obtained using ElastQ Imaging was significantly higher than that obtained using ElastPQ (5.60 kPa vs. 5.23 kPa, P<0.001). The LS values between the two techniques exhibited a strong positive correlation (r=0.851, P<0.001) in the development group. The mean difference and 95% limits of agreement were 0.0 kPa (-3.9 to 3.9 kPa) in the validation group. CONCLUSION: ElastQ Imaging may be more reliable and faster than ElastPQ, with strongly correlated LS measurements.