| Literature DB >> 34790034 |
Zhong-Wei Chen1, Kun Tang2, You-Fan Zhao1, Yang-Zong Chen2, Liang-Jie Tang3, Gang Li3, Ou-Yang Huang3, Xiao-Dong Wang4, Giovanni Targher5, Christopher D Byrne6, Xiang-Wu Zheng1,2, Ming-Hua Zheng3,4,7.
Abstract
Rationale: Since non-invasive tests for prediction of liver fibrosis have a poor diagnostic performance for detecting low levels of fibrosis, it is important to explore the diagnostic capabilities of other non-invasive tests to diagnose low levels of fibrosis. We aimed to evaluate the performance of radiomics based on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in predicting any liver fibrosis in individuals with biopsy-proven metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD).Entities:
Keywords: 18F-FDG PET/CT; Fibrosis; Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease; Radiomics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34790034 PMCID: PMC8579290 DOI: 10.7150/ijms.64458
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Med Sci ISSN: 1449-1907 Impact factor: 3.738
Baseline characteristics of individuals with MAFLD stratified by the presence of any histological stage of fibrosis
| With fibrosis (n=12) | Without fibrosis (n=10) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Age, years | 37.7 ± 9.4 | 38.8 ± 11.4 | 0.794 |
| Male sex, n (%) | 11 (91.7%) | 6 (60.0%) | 0.135 |
|
| |||
| Type 2 diabetes, n (%) | 1 (8.3%) | 2 (20.0%) | 0.571 |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 2 (16.7%) | 1 (10.0%) | 0.999 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 27.1 ± 3.3 | 27.8 ± 2.4 | 0.576 |
|
| |||
| Alanine aminotransferase, IU/L | 127.2 ± 71.4 | 88.1 ± 52.6 | 0.167 |
| Aspartate aminotransferase, IU/L | 60.7 ± 26.8 | 48.8 ± 20.9 | 0.267 |
| γ-glutamyltranspeptidase, IU/L | 89.5 ± 50.6 | 59.6 ± 38.3 | 0.140 |
| Albumin, g/L | 48.2 ± 3.7 | 48.2 ± 4.0 | 0.994 |
| Total bilirubin, μmol/L | 13.7 ± 3.23 | 12.2 ± 3.0 | 0.290 |
| Fasting glucose, mmol/L | 5.1 (4.8-5.9) | 5.3 (5.1-5.6) | 0.628 |
| Fasting insulin, pmol/L | 112.4 (71.7-211.1) | 96.8 (78.4-325.5) | 0.923 |
| Glycosylated hemoglobin, mmol/mol | 36 (33-46) | 37 (32-42) | 0.539 |
| Total cholesterol, mmol/L | 5.0 ± 1.5 | 5.6 ± 1.6 | 0.384 |
| Triglycerides, mmol/L | 2.0 ± 1.1 | 2.1 ± 1.1 | 0.868 |
| HDL-cholesterol, mmol/L | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 0.059 |
| LDL-cholesterol, mmol/L | 3.2 ± 1.1 | 3.5 ± 1.2 | 0.567 |
|
| |||
|
| 0.091 | ||
| S1 | 2 (16.7%) | 4 (40.0%) | |
| S2 | 8 (66.7%) | 2 (20.0%) | |
| S3 | 2 (16.7%) | 4 (40.0%) | |
|
| 0.065 | ||
| B0 | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (30.0%) | |
| B1 | 7 (58.3%) | 6 (60.0%) | |
| B2 | 5 (41.7%) | 1 (10.0%) | |
|
| 0.107 | ||
| L0 | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (30.0%) | |
| L1 | 9 (75.0%) | 4 (40.0%) | |
| L2 | 3 (25.0%) | 3 (30.0%) | |
| L3 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
Note: Continuous variables were expressed as means ± standard deviation or medians with interquartile ranges. Categorical variables were expressed as number (percentages).
Performance of 18F-FDG PET radiomics for diagnosing any stage of liver fibrosis, in different models, in biopsy-proven MAFLD
| LR | SVM | NB | 5-NN | LDA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUROC (95%CI) | 0.817 (0.595-0.947) | 0.758 (0.531-0.913) | 0.758 (0.531-0.913) | 0.758 (0.531-0.913) | 0.717 (0.487-0.886) |
| Sensitivity, % (n/N) | 83.3 (10/12) | 91.7 (11/12) | 91.7 (11/12) | 91.7 (11/12) | 83.3 (10/12) |
| Specificity, % (n/N) | 80.0 (8/10) | 60.0 (6/10) | 60. 0 (6/10) | 60.0 (6/10) | 60.0 (6/10) |
| Accuracy, % (n/N) | 81.8 (18/22) | 77.3 (17/22) | 77.3 (17/22) | 77.3 (17/22) | 72.7 (16/22) |
| PPV, % (n/N) | 83.3 (10/12) | 73.3 (11/15) | 73.3 (11/15) | 73.3 (11/15) | 71.4 (10/14) |
| NPV, % (n/N) | 80.0 (8/10) | 85.7 (6/7) | 85.7 (6/7) | 85.7 (6/7) | 75.0 (6/8) |
| PLR | 4.17 | 2.29 | 2.29 | 2.29 | 2.08 |
| NLR | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.28 |
| Diagnostic odds ratio | 19.9 | 16.4 | 16.4 | 16.4 | 7.4 |
Abbreviations: 18F-FDG, fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose; PET, positron emission tomography; MAFLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease; LR: logistic regression; SVM: Support Vector Machine; NB: Naive Bayes; 5-NN: 5-Nearest Neighbor; LDA: linear discriminant analysis; AUROC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CI, confidence interval; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predict value; PLR, positive likelihood ratio; NLR, negative likelihood ratio.