SUMMARY Background Current guidelines do not recommend screening for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) or advanced fibrosis. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are known to be at increased risk for NAFLD and advanced fibrosis. Aim We aimed to assess the feasibility in diabetics in a primary care setting of screening for NAFLD and advanced fibrosis by using non-invasive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to estimate the hepatic proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) to estimate hepatic stiffness. Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis of a prospective study that included 100 (53% men) consecutively enrolled diabetics who did not have any other etiology of liver disease. All patients underwent a standardized research visit, laboratory tests, MRI-PDFF, and MRE. Results Mean (± SD) age and BMI was 59.7 (±11.2) years and 30.8 (±6.5) kg/m2, respectively. The prevalence of NAFLD (defined as MRI-PDFF ≥ 5%) and advanced fibrosis (defined as MRE ≥ 3.6 kPa) was 65% and 7.1%, respectively. One patient with advanced fibrosis had definite hepatocellular carcinoma. When compared to those without NAFLD, patients with NAFLD were younger (p=0.028) and had higher mean BMI (p=0.0008), waist circumference (p<0.0001) and prevalence of metabolic syndrome (84.6% vs. 40.0%, p<0.0001). Only 26% of those with NAFLD had elevated ALT. Conclusions This proof-of-concept study demonstrates that T2DM has significant rates of both NAFLD and advanced fibrosis. Concomitant screening for NAFLD and advanced fibrosis by using MRI-PDFF and MRE in T2DM is feasible and may be considered after validation in a larger cohort.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to explore the diagnostic performance of two investigational quantitative ultrasound (QUS) parameters, attenuation coefficient and backscatter coefficient, in comparison with conventional ultrasound (CUS) and MRI-estimated proton density fat fraction (PDFF) for predicting histology-confirmed steatosis grade in adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). SUBJECTS AND METHODS In this prospectively designed pilot study, 61 adults with histology-confirmed NAFLD were enrolled from September 2012 to February 2014. Subjects underwent QUS, CUS, and MRI examinations within 100 days of clinical-care liver biopsy. QUS parameters (attenuation coefficient and backscatter coefficient) were estimated using a reference phantom technique by two analysts independently. Three-point ordinal CUS scores intended to predict steatosis grade (1, 2, or 3) were generated independently by two radiologists on the basis of QUS features. PDFF was estimated using an advanced chemical shift–based MRI technique. Using histologic examination as the reference standard, ROC analysis was performed. Optimal attenuation coefficient, backscatter coefficient, and PDFF cutoff thresholds were identified, and the accuracy of attenuation coefficient, backscatter coefficient, PDFF, and CUS to predict steatosis grade was determined. Interobserver agreement for attenuation coefficient, backscatter coefficient, and CUS was analyzed. RESULTS CUS had 51.7% grading accuracy. The raw and cross-validated steatosis grading accuracies were 61.7% and 55.0%, respectively, for attenuation coefficient, 68.3% and 68.3% for backscatter coefficient, and 76.7% and 71.3% for MRI-estimated PDFF. Interobserver agreements were 53.3% for CUS (κ = 0.61), 90.0% for attenuation coefficient (κ = 0.87), and 71.7% for backscatter coefficient (κ = 0.82) (p < 0.0001 for all). CONCLUSION Preliminary observations suggest that QUS parameters may be more accurate and provide higher interobserver agreement than CUS for predicting hepatic steatosis grade in patients with NAFLD.

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) was introduced with the goal of standardizing the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. The 2014 version of LI-RADS incorporates the use of hepatobiliary contrast agents (HBAs) into the diagnostic algorithm, including gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine. Three new ancillary features are introduced: hepatobiliary phase (HBP) hypointensity and HBP hypointense rim favor malignancy, while HBP isointensity favors benignity. HBP hyperintensity favors neither malignancy nor benignity. In this review, we describe how to use these new features as well as numerous pitfalls associated with the use ofHBAs, including hemangiomas, cholangiocarcinomas, and focal confluent fibrosis. Importantly, findings on the HBP are not included as major criteria and therefore the criteria for the diagnosis of LI-RADS 5 observations remain unchanged, and so congruence with the Organ Procurement Transplant Network system remains intact. Additionally, we review how the major features in LI-RADS, arterial phase hyperenhancement, threshold growth, and washout and capsule appearance, may be affected with HBAs. Notably with HBAs, hypointensity on the delayed phase, termed the transitional phase, does not qualify as washout appearance due to the possibility of early parenchymal enhancement. It is hoped that the incorporation of HBAs into LI-RADS will help create consistency when interpreting HBA enhanced MRIs.

No abstract

LI-RADS v2017 introduces major changes to the diagnostic criteria for LR-M observations to better guide radiologists in the use of this malignant category designation. LR-M is intended to preserve the specificity of the LI-RADS algorithm for diagnosis of HCC while not losing sensitivity for diagnosis of malignancy. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief background on LR-M, discuss the diagnostic criteria new to v2017, special considerations for its application, and management implications.