Prospective comparison of magnetic resonance imaging to transient elastography and serum markers for liver fibrosis detection

Dyvorne, Hadrien; Jajamovich, Guido H.; Bane, Octavia; Fiel, M. Isabel; Chou, Hsin I.; Schiano, Thomas D.; Dieterich, Douglas T.; Babb, James S.; Friedman, Scott L.; Taouli, Bachir

doi:10.1111/liv.13058

Cited by 57 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One study showed a positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of 100%, 99.9% and 96.4%, for diagnosing cirrhosis compared with controls [116]. DWI does not perform as well as MR elastography [117,99,118]. In comparative study, MR elastography demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity in predicting fibrosis scores ≥F2 (91% and 97%), ≥F3 (92% and 95%), and F4 (95% and 87%) compared with DWI (84% and 82%, 88% and 76%, and 85% and 68%, respectively) [118].…”

Section: Diffusion Weighted Imaging (Dwi)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, a meta-analysis showed DWI distinguishing F0–F1 from F2–F4 with a sensitivity of 77%, specificity of 78%, and AUC of 0.83; less reliable than MR elastography [99]. A more recent study showed that for detection of advanced fibrosis (F3–F4), AUCs were 0.94 for MR elastography and 0.79 for DWI [117]. …”

Section: Diffusion Weighted Imaging (Dwi)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a recent prospective study comparing DWI, DCE-MRI, MR elastography, TE, and blood tests [117], MR elastography provided the strongest correlation with fibrosis stage (r = 0.66, P < 0.001), inflammation grade (r = 0.52, P < 0.001) and collagen content (r = 0.53, P = 0.036). For detection of moderate-to-advanced fibrosis (F2–F4), AUCs were 0.78, 0.82, 0.72, 0.79, 0.71 for MR elastography, TE, DCE-MRI, DWI and APRI, respectively.…”

Section: Mr Perfusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of hepatic fibrosis: a review from the society of abdominal radiology disease focus panel

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hepatic fibrosis is potentially reversible, however early diagnosis is necessary for treatment in order to halt progression to cirrhosis and development of complications including portal hypertension and hepatocellular carcinoma. Morphologic signs of cirrhosis on ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone are unreliable and are seen with more advanced disease. Newer imaging techniques to diagnose liver fibrosis are reliable and accurate, and include magnetic resonance elastography and US elastography (1 dimensional transient elastography and point shear wave elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse imaging). Research is ongoing with multiple other techniques for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis, including MRI with diffusion weighted imaging, hepatobiliary contrast enhancement, and perfusion; CT using perfusion, fractional extracellular space techniques, and dual energy, contrast-enhanced US, texture analysis in multiple modalities, quantitative mapping, and direct molecular imaging probes. Efforts to advance the noninvasive imaging assessment of hepatic fibrosis will facilitate earlier diagnosis and improved patient monitoring with the goal of preventing the progression to cirrhosis and its complications.

show abstract

Section: Diffusion Weighted Imaging (Dwi)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Diffusion Weighted Imaging (Dwi)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mr Perfusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of hepatic fibrosis: a review from the society of abdominal radiology disease focus panel

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Liver stiffness measurement can also be used to detect and assess severity of portal hypertension (2, 3), in addition to spleen stiffness (4). Multiple studies showed high accuracy of MRE for liver fibrosis detection and stratification with equivalent to higher performance than other noninvasive modalities, including transient elastography and serum markers (5–8). Moreover, MRE provides larger sampling compared to ultrasound (US) elastography techniques with high repeatability of LS measurements (9, 10).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetic Resonance Elastography of the Liver

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare 2D gradient recalled echo (GRE) and 2D spin echo echoplanar imaging (SE-EPI) magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) sequences of the liver in terms of image quality and quantitative liver stiffness (LS) measurement. Materials and methods This prospective study involved 50 consecutive subjects (M/F 33/17, mean age 58 y) who underwent liver MRI at 3.0T including two MRE sequences, 2D GRE and 2D SE-EPI (acquisition time 56 vs 16 s, respectively). Image quality scores were assessed by two independent observers based on wave propagation and organ coverage on the confidence map (range 0–15). A third observer measured LS on stiffness maps (in kPa). Mean LS values, ROI size (based on confidence map) and image quality scores between SE-EPI and GRE-MRE were compared using paired nonparametric Wilcoxon test. Reproducibility of LS values between the two sequences was assessed using intraclass coefficient correlation (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV) and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (BALA). T2* effect on image quality was assessed using partial Spearman correlation. Results There were 4 cases of failure with GRE-MRE and none with SE-EPI-MRE. Image quality scores and ROI size were significantly higher using SE-EPI-MRE vs. GRE-MRE (p <0.0001 for both measurements and observers). LS measurements were not significantly different between the two sequences (3.75 ± 1.87 vs. 3.51 ± 1.53 kPa, p=0.062), were significantly correlated (ICC=0.909) and had excellent reproducibility (CV=10.2%, bias=0.023, BALA −1.19; 1.66 kPa). Image quality scores using GRE-MRE were significantly correlated with T2*, while there was no correlation for SE-EPI-MRE. Conclusion Our data suggest that suggest that SE-EPI-MRE may be a better alternative to GRE-MRE. The diagnostic performance of SE-EPI-MRE for detection of liver fibrosis needs to be assessed in a future study.

show abstract

“…2 The advantages of MRI are the whole liver coverage, with large sampling and lack of ionizing radiation, and high sensitivity for HCC detection. Despite these promising results, only a few studies have compared the diagnostic performance of mpMRI for liver fibrosis staging, showing greater performance of MRE against morphologic criteria 4,5 and DCE-MRI and DWI, 6,7 with improved detection of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis when using a multiparametric approach. 3 Among these, measurement of liver stiffness with MRE has gained clinical acceptance, as it is a highly accurate method for assessing liver fibrosis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of liver fibrosis using qualitative and quantitative MR elastography compared to liver surface nodularity measurement, gadoxetic acid uptake, and serum markers

Besa

Wagner

et al. 2017

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Prospective comparison of magnetic resonance imaging to transient elastography and serum markers for liver fibrosis detection

Cited by 57 publications

References 42 publications

Evaluation of hepatic fibrosis: a review from the society of abdominal radiology disease focus panel

Evaluation of hepatic fibrosis: a review from the society of abdominal radiology disease focus panel

Magnetic Resonance Elastography of the Liver

Detection of liver fibrosis using qualitative and quantitative MR elastography compared to liver surface nodularity measurement, gadoxetic acid uptake, and serum markers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About