nach oben

Erschienen in:

12.09.2023 | Hepatobiliary

Magnetic resonance elastography for noninvasive detection of liver fibrosis: is there an added value of 3D acquisition?

verfasst von: Enamul H. Bhuiyan, Efe Ozkaya, Paul Kennedy, Juan Lloret Del Hoyo, Bassam El Achkar, Swan Thung, Sara Lewis, Octavia Bane, Bachir Taouli

Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology | Ausgabe 11/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

(1) Assess the diagnostic performance of liver 3D magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) parameters (including stiffness, storage/loss modulus and damping ratio) compared to liver stiffness measured with 2D MRE for noninvasive detection of advanced liver fibrosis (F3-F4) and cirrhosis (F4) in patients with chronic liver disease. (2) Assess the value of serum markers (FIB-4) in detecting advanced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis in the same patients.

Methods

This was a single center, prospective IRB-approved cross-sectional study that included 49 patients (M/F: 23/26, mean age 50.8 y) with chronic liver disease and concomitant liver biopsy. MRE was acquired at 1.5T using a spin echo-EPI sequence. The following parameters were measured: liver stiffness using 2D MRE (LS-2D) and 3D MRE parameters (LS-3D, liver storage, loss modulus and damping ratio). The Mann-Whitney U test, ROC curve analysis, Spearman correlation and logistic regression were performed to evaluate diagnostic performance of MRE parameters and FIB-4.

Results

LS-2D and LS-3D had similar diagnostic performance for diagnosis of F3-F4, with AUCs of 0.87 and 0.88, sensitivity of 0.71 and 0.81, specificity of 0.89 for both. For diagnosis of F4, LS-2D and LS-3D had similar performance with AUCs of 0.81 for both, sensitivity of 0.75 and 0.83, and specificity of 0.84 and 0.73, respectively. Additional 3D parameters (storage modulus, loss modulus, damping ratio) had variable performance, with AUC range of 0.59-0.78 for F3-F4; and 0.52-0.70 for F4. FIB-4 had lower diagnostic performance, with AUCs of 0.66 for F3-F4, and 0.68 for F4.

Conclusion

Our study shows no added value of 3D MRE compared to 2D MRE for detection of advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, while FIB-4 had lower diagnostic performance.

Graphical abstract

Kennedy P, Wagner M, Castéra L, Hong CW, Johnson CL, Sirlin CB, Taouli B. Quantitative Elastography Methods in Liver Disease: Current Evidence and Future Directions. Radiology. 2018;286(3):738-63. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018170601. PubMed PMID: 29461949; PMCID: PMC5831316.CrossRefPubMed

Castera L. Noninvasive methods to assess liver disease in patients with hepatitis B or C. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(6):1293–302; PMCID: PubMed: 22537436.

Kennedy P, Stocker D, Carbonell G, Said D, Bane O, Hectors S, Abboud G, Cuevas J, Bolster BD, Jr., Friedman SL, Lewis S, Schiano T, Bhattacharya D, Fischman A, Thung S, Taouli B. MR elastography outperforms shear wave elastography for the diagnosis of clinically significant portal hypertension. Eur Radiol. 2022;32(12):8339-49. Epub 20220621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08935-9. PubMed PMID: 35727321.

Rustogi R, Horowitz J, Harmath C, Wang Y, Chalian H, Ganger DR, et al. Accuracy of MR elastography and anatomic MR imaging features in the diagnosis of severe hepatic fbrosis and cirrhosis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35(6):1356-64. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23585.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Singh S, Venkatesh SK, Wang Z, Miller FH, Motosugi U, Low RN, et al. Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance elastography in staging liver fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(3):440-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2014.09.046.CrossRefPubMed

Srinivasa B, A, Wells ML, Teytelboym OM, et al. Elastography in Chronic Liver Disease: Modalities, Techniques, Limitations, and Future Directions. Radiographics. 2016;36(7):1987-2006.

Lefebvre T, Wartelle-Bladou C, Wong P et al. Prospective comparison of transient, point shear wave, and magnetic resonance elastography for staging liver fibrosis. Eur Radiol. 2019;29:6477– 88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06331-4.CrossRefPubMed

Hoodeshenas S YM, Venkatesh SK. Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: current update. Top Magn Reson Imaging2018;27:319–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/RMR.0000000000000177.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Venkatesh SK YM, Ehman RL. Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: technique, analysis, and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(3):544–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23731.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Yin M TJ, Glaser KJ et al. Assessment of hepatic fibrosis with magnetic resonance elastography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5(10):1207–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2007.06.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Zhan C, Kannengiesser S, Chandarana H, Fenchel M, Ream J, Shanbhogue KP. MR elastography of liver at 3 Tesla: comparison of gradient-recalled echo (GRE) and spin-echo (SE) echo-planar imaging (EPI) sequences and agreement across stiffness measurements. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019;44:1825–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-01932-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Shi Y, Xia F, Li QJ, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography for the evaluation of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis b and c by using both gradient-recalled echo and spin-echo echo planar imaging: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:823–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2016.56.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kim YS, Jang YN, Song JS. Comparison of gradient-recalled echo and spin-echo echo¬ planar imaging MR elastography in staging liver fibrosis: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(4):1709– 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5149-5.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Chang W, Lee JM, Yoon JH, et al. Liver fibrosis staging with MR elastography: comparison of diagnostic performance between patients with chronic hepatitis b and those with other etiologic causes. Radiology. 2016;280(1):88–97. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016150397.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Wang J, Glaser KJ, Zhang T et al. Assessment of advanced hepatic MR elastography methods for susceptibility artifact suppression in clinical patients. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;47(4):976– 87. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25818.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Wagner M, Corcuera-Solano I, Lo G et al. Technical failure of MR elastography examinations of the liver: experience from a large Single-Center study. Radiology. 2017;284(2):401–12. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016160863.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Felker ER, Choi KS, Sung K, et al Liver MR elastography at 3 T: agreement across pulse sequences and effect of liver R2* on image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211(3):588–94. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.19288.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Wagner M, Besa C, Bou AJ, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography of the liver: qualitative and quantitative comparison of gradient echo and spin echo echoplanar imaging sequences. Invest Radiol. 2016;51(9):575–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000269.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Mariappan YK, Dzyubak B, Glaser KJ, et al. Application of modified spin-echo-based sequences for hepatic MR elastography: evaluation, comparison with the conventional gradient-echo sequence, and preliminary clinical experience. Radiology. 2017;282(2):390–8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016160153.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Choi SL, Lee ES, Ko A, et al. Technical success rates and reliability of spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SE-EPI) MR elastography in patients with chronic liver disease or liver cirrhosis. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(3):1730–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06496-y.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kim D, W, Kim SY, Yoon HM, Kim KW, Byun JH. Comparison of technical failure of MR elastography for measuring liver stiffness between gradient-recalled echo and spin-echo echo-planar imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;51(4):1086–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26918.

22.

Wagner M, Hectors S, Bane O, et al. Noninvasive prediction of portal pressure with MR elastography and DCE-MRI of the liver and spleen: preliminary results. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;48:1091-103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Glaser KJ, Manduca A, Ehman RL. Review of MR elastography applications and recent developments. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36(4):757–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23597.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Allen AM, Shah VH, Therneau TM et al. The role of three-dimensional magnetic resonance elastography in the diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Hepatology. 2020;71(2):510–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.30483.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Loomba R CJ, Wolfson T, et al. . Novel 3D Magnetic Resonance Elastography for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Advanced Fibrosis in NAFLD: A Prospective Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(7):986-94. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2016.65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Li M, Yang H, Liu Y, Zhang L, Chen J, Deng Y, et al Comparison of the diagnostic performance of 2D and 3D MR elastography in staging liver fibrosis. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(12):9468-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08053-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Forsgren MF, Norén B, Kihlberg J, Dahlqvist Leinhard O, Kechagias S, Lundberg P. Comparing hepatic 2D and 3D magnetic resonance elastography methods in a clinical setting - Initial experiences. Eur J Radiol Open. 2015;2:66-70. Epub 20150428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2015.04.001. PubMed PMID: 26937438; PMCID: PMC4750624.

28.

Morisaka H, Motosugi U, Glaser KJ, Ichikawa S, Ehman RL, Sano K, Ichikawa T, Onishi H. Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of two- and three-dimensional MR elastography of the liver. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;45(4):1163-70. Epub 20160923. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25425. PubMed PMID: 27662640; PMCID: PMC5584543.

29.

Qu Y, Middleton MS, Loomba R, Glaser KJ, Chen J, Hooker JC, Wolfson T, Covarrubias Y, Valasek MA, Fowler KJ, Zhang YN, Sy E, Gamst AC, Wang K, Mamidipalli A, Schwimmer JB, Song B, Reeder SB, Yin M, Ehman RL, Sirlin CB. Magnetic resonance elastography biomarkers for detection of histologic alterations in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in the absence of fibrosis. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(11):8408-19. Epub 20210426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-07988-6. PubMed PMID: 33899143; PMCID: PMC8530863.

30.

Shi Y, Xia F, Li QJ, Li JH, Yu B, Li Y, An H, Glaser KJ, Tao S, Ehman RL, Guo QY. Magnetic Resonance Elastography for the Evaluation of Liver Fibrosis in Chronic Hepatitis B and C by Using Both Gradient-Recalled Echo and Spin-Echo Echo Planar Imaging: A Prospective Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(6):823-33. Epub 20160315. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2016.56. PubMed PMID: 26977760.

31.

Shi Y QY, Lan GY, et al. . Three-dimensional MR Elastography Depicts Liver Inflammation, Fibrosis, and Portal Hypertension in Chronic Hepatitis B or C. . Radiology. 2021;301(1):154-62. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021202804.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Wang J, Shan Q, Liu Y, et al. 3D MR elastography of hepatocellular carcinomas as a potential biomarker for predicting tumor recurrence. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;49(3):719–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26250.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Yin M, Glaser KJ, Talwalkar JA, Chen J, Manduca A, Ehman RL. Hepatic MR elastography: clinical performance in a series of 1377 consecutive examinations. Radiology. 2016;278(1):114–24. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142141.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Dzyubak B, Venkatesh SK, Manduca A, Glaser KJ, Ehman RL Automated liver elasticity calculation for MR elastography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;43(5):1055–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25072.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Yin M, Glaser KJ, Manduca A, Mounajjed T, Malhi H, Simonetto DA, Wang R, Yang L, Mao SA, Glorioso JM, Elgilani FM, Ward CJ, Harris PC, Nyberg SL, Shah VH, Ehman RL. Distinguishing between Hepatic Inflammation and Fibrosis with MR Elastography. Radiology. 2017;284(3):694-705. Epub 20170127. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017160622. PubMed PMID: 28128707; PMCID: PMC5529282.

36.

Bedossa P PT. An algorithm for the grading of activity in chronic hepatitis C. The METAVIR Cooperative Study Group. Hepatology. 1996;24(2):289–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.510240201.CrossRef

37.

Bedossa P, Poynard T An algorithm for the grading of activity in chronic hepatitis C. The METAVIR Cooperative Study Group. Hepatology. 1996;24(2):289-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.510240201.CrossRef

38.

Puri P SAPSdc. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Definitions, risk factors, and workup. . Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken). 2012;1(1):99-103. https://doi.org/10.1002/cld.81.

39.

Calvaruso V, Burroughs AK, Standish R, Manousou P, Grillo F, Leandro G, Maimone S, Pleguezuelo M, Xirouchakis I, Guerrini GP, Patch D, Yu D, O'Beirne J, Dhillon AP. Computer-assisted image analysis of liver collagen: relationship to Ishak scoring and hepatic venous pressure gradient. Hepatology. 2009;49(4):1236-44. Epub 2009/01/13. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.22745. PubMed PMID: 19133646.

40.

Kennedy P WM, Castéra L, Hong CW, Johnson CL, Sirlin CB, Taouli B. . Quantitative Elastography Methods in Liver Disease: Current Evidence and Future Directions. . Radiology. 2018 286(3):738-63. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018170601.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Besa C, Wagner M, Lo G, Gordic S, Chatterji M, Kennedy P, Stueck A, Thung S, Babb J, Smith A, Taouli B. Detection of liver fibrosis using qualitative and quantitative MR elastography compared to liver surface nodularity measurement, gadoxetic acid uptake, and serum markers. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;47(6):1552-61. Epub 20171128. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25911. PubMed PMID: 29193508.

42.

Li M YH, Liu Y, Zhang L, Chen J, Deng Y, et al. . Comparison of the diagnostic performance of 2D and 3D MR elastography in staging liver fibrosis. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(12):9468-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08053-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Wang Y, Ganger DR, Levitsky J, Sternick LA, McCarthy RJ, Chen ZE, Fasanati CW, Bolster B, Shah S, Zuehlsdorff S, Omary RA, Ehman RL, Miller FH. Assessment of chronic hepatitis and fibrosis: comparison of MR elastography and diffusion-weighted imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(3):553-61. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.10.4580. PubMed PMID: 21343496; PMCID: PMC3093963.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Serai SD, Yin M, Wang H, Ehman RL, Podberesky DJ. Cross-vendor validation of liver magnetic resonance elastography. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40(4):789-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0282-y. PubMed PMID: 25476489; PMCID: PMC4523216.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Magnetic resonance elastography for noninvasive detection of liver fibrosis: is there an added value of 3D acquisition?
verfasst von: Enamul H. Bhuiyan
Efe Ozkaya
Paul Kennedy
Juan Lloret Del Hoyo
Bassam El Achkar
Swan Thung
Sara Lewis
Octavia Bane
Bachir Taouli
Publikationsdatum: 12.09.2023
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology / Ausgabe 11/2023
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Elektronische ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-023-04036-3

Subcentimeter hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on gadoxetic-acid-enhanced MRI: less frequent typical imaging features compared to 1–2 cm HCC but better prognosis after surgical resection

Hepatobiliary

CT radiomics analysis of primary colon cancer patients with or without liver metastases: a correlative study with [18F]FDG PET uptake values

Technical

DCE-MRI-based radiomics in predicting angiopoietin-2 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma

Open Access
Hepatobiliary

Morphologic perfusion patterns and PI-RADSv2.1 in transition zone prostate cancer

Open Access
Pelvis

Correlations between contrast-enhanced CT-measured extracellular volume fraction, histopathological features, and MYCN amplification status in abdominal neuroblastoma: a retrospective study

Kidneys, Ureters, Bladder, Retroperitoneum

Liver parenchymal changes detected by MR elastography and diffusion-weighted imaging after stereotactic body radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatobiliary

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Ringen um den richtigen Umgang mit Zufallsbefunden

24.04.2025
DGP 2025
Kongressbericht

Wenn 2026 in Deutschland das Lungenkrebsscreening mittels Low-Dose-Computertomografie (LDCT) eingeführt wird, wird es auch viele Zufallsbefunde ans Licht bringen. Das birgt Chancen und Risiken.

Bald 5% der Krebserkrankungen durch CT verursacht

23.04.2025
Computertomografie
Nachrichten

Die jährlich rund 93 Millionen CTs in den USA könnten künftig zu über 100.000 zusätzlichen Krebserkrankungen führen, geht aus einer Modellrechnung hervor. Damit würde eine von 20 Krebserkrankungen auf die ionisierende Strahlung bei CT-Untersuchungen zurückgehen.

Röntgen-Thorax oder LDCT fürs Lungenscreening nach HNSCC?

06.04.2025
Kopf-Hals-Tumoren
Nachrichten

Personen, die an einem Plattenepithelkarzinom im Kopf-Hals-Bereich erkrankt sind, haben ein erhöhtes Risiko für Metastasen oder zweite Primärmalignome der Lunge. Eine Studie hat untersucht, wie die radiologische Überwachung aussehen sollte.

Statine: Was der G-BA-Beschluss für Praxen bedeutet

06.04.2025
Praxis und Beruf
Nachrichten

Nach dem G-BA-Beschluss zur erweiterten Verordnungsfähigkeit von Lipidsenkern rechnet die DEGAM mit 200 bis 300 neuen Dauerpatienten pro Praxis. Im Interview erläutert Präsidiumsmitglied Erika Baum, wie Hausärztinnen und Hausärzte am besten vorgehen.

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Magnetic resonance elastography for noninvasive detection of liver fibrosis: is there an added value of 3D acquisition?