Literature DB >> 35111615

Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of diffuse liver disease: a multiparametric predictive modelling algorithm can aid categorization of liver parenchyma.

Ricardo Donners1, Carmen Zaugg1, Julian E Gehweiler1, Tuyana Boldanova2,3, Markus H Heim2,3, Luigi M Terracciano4, Daniel T Boll1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Liver steatosis is common and tracking disease evolution to steatohepatitis and cirrhosis is essential for risk stratification and resultant patient management. Consequently, diagnostic tools allowing categorization of liver parenchyma based on routine imaging are desirable. The study objective was to compare established mono-factorial, dynamic single parameter and iterative multiparametric routine computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) analyses to distinguish between liver steatosis, steatohepatitis, cirrhosis and normal liver parenchyma.
METHODS: A total of 285 multi-phase contrast enhanced CT and 122 MRI studies with histopathological correlation of underlying parenchymal condition were retrospectively included. Parenchymal conditions were characterized based on CT Hounsfield units (HU) or MRI signal intensity (SI) measurements and calculated HU or SI ratios between non-contrast and contrast enhanced imaging time points. First, the diagnostic accuracy of mono-factorial analyses using established, static non-contrast HU and in- to opposed phase SI change cut-offs to distinguish between parenchymal conditions was established. Second, single dynamic discriminator analyses, with optimized non-contrast and enhancement HU and SI ratio cut-off values derived from the data, employing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve areas under the curve (AUCs) and the Youden index for maximum accuracy, were used for disease diagnosis. Third, multifactorial analyses, employing multiple non-contrast and contrast enhanced HU and SI ratio cut-offs in a nested, predictive-modelling algorithm were performed to distinguish between normal parenchyma, liver steatosis, steatohepatitis and cirrhosis. CT and MRI analyses were performed separately.
RESULTS: No single CT or MRI parameter showed significant difference between all four parenchymal conditions (each P>0.05). Mono-factorial static-CT-discriminator analyses identified liver steatosis with 75% accuracy. Mono-factorial MRI analyses identified steatosis with 89% accuracy. Single-dynamic CT parameter analyses identified normal parenchyma with 72% accuracy and cirrhosis with 75% accuracy. Single-dynamic MRI parameter analyses identified fatty parenchyma with 90% accuracy. Multifactorial CT analyzes identified normal parenchyma with 84%, liver steatosis with 95%, steatohepatitis with 95% and cirrhosis with 80% accuracy. Multifactorial predictive modelling of MRI parameters identified normal parenchyma with 79%, liver steatosis with 89%, steatohepatitis with 92% and cirrhosis with 89% accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric analyses of quantitative measurements derived from routine CT and MRI, utilizing a predictive modelling algorithm, can help to distinguish between normal liver parenchyma, liver steatosis, steatohepatitis and cirrhosis. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Liver; decision-support; diagnostic imaging; fatty liver; liver cirrhosis

Year:  2022        PMID: 35111615      PMCID: PMC8739153          DOI: 10.21037/qims-21-384

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg        ISSN: 2223-4306


  28 in total

Review 1.  Liver biopsy.

Authors:  A A Bravo; S G Sheth; S Chopra
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-02-15       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Comparison of CT methods for determining the fat content of the liver.

Authors:  Yoshihisa Kodama; Chaan S Ng; Tsung T Wu; Gregory D Ayers; Steven A Curley; Eddie K Abdalla; Jean Nicolas Vauthey; Chusilp Charnsangavej
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Authors:  Leon A Adams; Keith D Lindor
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-28       Impact factor: 3.797

Review 4.  From NAFLD in clinical practice to answers from guidelines.

Authors:  Fabio Nascimbeni; Raluca Pais; Stefano Bellentani; Christopher Paul Day; Vlad Ratziu; Paola Loria; Amedeo Lonardo
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 25.083

Review 5.  Perfusion imaging in liver MRI.

Authors:  Choon Hua Thng; Tong San Koh; David Collins; Dow-Mu Koh
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.266

6.  The histological course of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a longitudinal study of 103 patients with sequential liver biopsies.

Authors:  Leon A Adams; Schuyler Sanderson; Keith D Lindor; Paul Angulo
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 25.083

7.  Computed tomography findings in liver fibrosis and cirrhosis.

Authors:  A Huber; L Ebner; M Montani; N Semmo; K Roy Choudhury; J Heverhagen; A Christe
Journal:  Swiss Med Wkly       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 2.193

8.  Cirrhosis and lesion characterization at MR imaging.

Authors:  Shahid M Hussain; Caroline Reinhold; Donald G Mitchell
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 5.333

9.  Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis.

Authors:  Laurent Sandrin; Bertrand Fourquet; Jean-Michel Hasquenoph; Sylvain Yon; Céline Fournier; Frédéric Mal; Christos Christidis; Marianne Ziol; Bruno Poulet; Farad Kazemi; Michel Beaugrand; Robert Palau
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 2.998

10.  Automated Liver Fat Quantification at Nonenhanced Abdominal CT for Population-based Steatosis Assessment.

Authors:  Peter M Graffy; Veit Sandfort; Ronald M Summers; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.