RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The detectability of diffuse liver diseases by quantitative echography was retrospectively investigated using scans of patients with known pathologic findings (n = 103) and of normal subjects (n = 129). The authors determined the best set of quantitative parameters for this task. METHODS: Quantitative echography was comprised of acoustospectrographic parameters (frequency dependence of attenuation and backscattering) and image texture parameters. The disease processes studied included: acute hepatitis, hepatitis/cirrhosis, alcoholic hepatitis/cirrhosis, primary biliary cirrhosis, and steatosis. RESULTS: Correct differentiation of these diseases ranged from 88% to 97%. Correlations between histologic grading and echographic parameters were poor. With only one exception, the differentiation between any two of the diseases could be made in 60% to 99% of cases. Different parameters better differentiated abnormal from normal scans than among diseases. CONCLUSIONS: The detection of diffuse liver diseases can be based on echographic parameters, related to a diffuse scattering model, whereas the differentiation among diseases needs additional parameters derived from a structural scattering model. Further studies are indicated to assess the prospective potential of the devised methods.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The detectability of diffuse liver diseases by quantitative echography was retrospectively investigated using scans of patients with known pathologic findings (n = 103) and of normal subjects (n = 129). The authors determined the best set of quantitative parameters for this task. METHODS: Quantitative echography was comprised of acoustospectrographic parameters (frequency dependence of attenuation and backscattering) and image texture parameters. The disease processes studied included: acute hepatitis, hepatitis/cirrhosis, alcoholic hepatitis/cirrhosis, primary biliary cirrhosis, and steatosis. RESULTS: Correct differentiation of these diseases ranged from 88% to 97%. Correlations between histologic grading and echographic parameters were poor. With only one exception, the differentiation between any two of the diseases could be made in 60% to 99% of cases. Different parameters better differentiated abnormal from normal scans than among diseases. CONCLUSIONS: The detection of diffuse liver diseases can be based on echographic parameters, related to a diffuse scattering model, whereas the differentiation among diseases needs additional parameters derived from a structural scattering model. Further studies are indicated to assess the prospective potential of the devised methods.