Mengsi Li1, Hao Yang1,2, Yong Liu3, Linqi Zhang1, Jingbiao Chen1, Ying Deng1, Yuanqiang Xiao1, Jie Zhu1, Zhuoya Yi1, Bing Hu1, Sichi Kuang1, Bingjun He1, Kevin J Glaser4, Meng Yin4, Sudhakar K Venkatesh4, Richard L Ehman4, Jin Wang5. 1. Department of Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University (SYSU), No. 600, Tianhe Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510630, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Radiology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University (SYSU), No. 107, Yanjiangxi Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Pathology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University (SYSU), No. 600, Tianhe Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510630, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University (SYSU), No. 600, Tianhe Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510630, People's Republic of China. wangjin3@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance and image quality of state-of-the-art 2D MR elastography (MRE) and 3D MRE in the basic application of liver fibrosis staging. METHODS: This retrospective study assessed data from 293 patients who underwent 2D and 3D MRE examinations. MRE image quality was assessed with a qualitative 2-point grading system by evaluating artifacts. Two experienced analysts independently measured mean liver stiffness values. The interobserver agreement of liver stiffness measurement was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the diagnostic performance of 2D and 3D MRE and blood-based markers for fibrosis staging using the pathology-proven liver fibrosis stage as the gold standard. RESULTS: The image quality provided by 3D MRE was graded as significantly higher than that obtained with the 2D MRE method (p < 0.01). Interobserver agreement in liver stiffness measurements was higher for 3D MRE (ICC: 3D 0.979 vs 2D 0.955). The AUC values for discriminating ≥ F1, ≥ F2, ≥ F3, and F4 fibrosis for 3D MRE (0.89, 0.92, 0.95, and 0.93) were similar to those for 2D MRE (0.89, 0.91, 0.94, and 0.92). Both the 2D and 3D MRE methods provided superior accuracy to the blood-based biomarkers, including APRI, FIB-4, and Forns index, especially for ≥ F2, ≥ F3, and F4 fibrosis stages (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While 3D MRE offers certain advantages and opportunities for new applications of MRE, current widely deployed 2D MRE technology has comparable performance in the basic application of detecting and staging liver fibrosis. KEY POINTS: • 2D MRE and 3D MRE have comparable diagnostic performance in detecting and staging liver fibrosis. • 3D MRE has superior image quality and interobserver agreement compared to 2D MRE.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance and image quality of state-of-the-art 2D MR elastography (MRE) and 3D MRE in the basic application of liver fibrosis staging. METHODS: This retrospective study assessed data from 293 patients who underwent 2D and 3D MRE examinations. MRE image quality was assessed with a qualitative 2-point grading system by evaluating artifacts. Two experienced analysts independently measured mean liver stiffness values. The interobserver agreement of liver stiffness measurement was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the diagnostic performance of 2D and 3D MRE and blood-based markers for fibrosis staging using the pathology-proven liver fibrosis stage as the gold standard. RESULTS: The image quality provided by 3D MRE was graded as significantly higher than that obtained with the 2D MRE method (p < 0.01). Interobserver agreement in liver stiffness measurements was higher for 3D MRE (ICC: 3D 0.979 vs 2D 0.955). The AUC values for discriminating ≥ F1, ≥ F2, ≥ F3, and F4 fibrosis for 3D MRE (0.89, 0.92, 0.95, and 0.93) were similar to those for 2D MRE (0.89, 0.91, 0.94, and 0.92). Both the 2D and 3D MRE methods provided superior accuracy to the blood-based biomarkers, including APRI, FIB-4, and Forns index, especially for ≥ F2, ≥ F3, and F4 fibrosis stages (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While 3D MRE offers certain advantages and opportunities for new applications of MRE, current widely deployed 2D MRE technology has comparable performance in the basic application of detecting and staging liver fibrosis. KEY POINTS: • 2D MRE and 3D MRE have comparable diagnostic performance in detecting and staging liver fibrosis. • 3D MRE has superior image quality and interobserver agreement compared to 2D MRE.
Authors: Jingbiao Chen; Rosa Martin-Mateos; Jiahui Li; Ziying Yin; Jie Chen; Xin Lu; Kevin J Glaser; Taofic Mounajjed; Hiroaki Yashiro; Jenifer Siegelman; Christopher T Winkelmann; Jin Wang; Richard L Ehman; Vijay H Shah; Meng Yin Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-09-05 Impact factor: 3.928
Authors: Lina Zhang; Jingbiao Chen; Hang Jiang; Dailin Rong; Ning Guo; Hao Yang; Jie Zhu; Bing Hu; Bingjun He; Meng Yin; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Richard L Ehman; Jin Wang Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 4.531