Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2020
Non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis: comparison of MR elastography to transient elastography and intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MRI.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fu Fangfang, Li Xiaodong, Chen Cuiyun, Bai Yan, Liu Qiuyu, Shi Dapeng, Sang Jia, Wang Kaiyu, Wang Meiyun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of MR elastography (MRE) with transient elastography (TE) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion-weighted MRI in staging hepatic fibrosis (HF).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 patients with chronic liver disease and 25 healthy volunteers underwent preoperative MRE, IVIM on a 3T MRI unit, and ultrasound-based TE. Liver stiffness measurement from MRE (LSM-MRE) and liver stiffness measurement from TE (LSM-TE) were measured; four diffusion parameters including the true diffusion coefficient (Dt), pseudo-diffusion coefficient, perfusion fraction (f), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed for significant parameters to compare the diagnosis performance for detecting HF.
RESULTS: LSM-MRE and LSM-TE values showed positive correlation with the fibrosis stage (r = 0.910 and 0.813, P < 0.001). Dt, f, and ADC values showed negative correlation with the fibrosis stage (r = - 0.727, - 0.503, and - 0.601, all P < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of LSM-MRE (AUC = 0.965, 0.957, 0.983) was significantly higher than that of LSM-TE (AUC = 0.906, 0.913, 0.931) and Dt (AUC = 0.875, 0.879, 0.861) in discriminating significant HF (≥ F2), advanced HF (≥ F3), or cirrhosis (F4) (all P < 0.05). Although LSM-TE showed higher AUCs than Dt in detecting fibrosis stages, there were no significant differences between LSM-TE and Dt (P > 0.05) except for detecting F4 (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: MRE shows excellent diagnostic performance for predicting significant fibrosis, advanced fibrosis compared with TE and IVIM, while TE and IVIM have comparable diagnostic performance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 patients with chronic liver disease and 25 healthy volunteers underwent preoperative MRE, IVIM on a 3T MRI unit, and ultrasound-based TE. Liver stiffness measurement from MRE (LSM-MRE) and liver stiffness measurement from TE (LSM-TE) were measured; four diffusion parameters including the true diffusion coefficient (Dt), pseudo-diffusion coefficient, perfusion fraction (f), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed for significant parameters to compare the diagnosis performance for detecting HF.
RESULTS: LSM-MRE and LSM-TE values showed positive correlation with the fibrosis stage (r = 0.910 and 0.813, P < 0.001). Dt, f, and ADC values showed negative correlation with the fibrosis stage (r = - 0.727, - 0.503, and - 0.601, all P < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of LSM-MRE (AUC = 0.965, 0.957, 0.983) was significantly higher than that of LSM-TE (AUC = 0.906, 0.913, 0.931) and Dt (AUC = 0.875, 0.879, 0.861) in discriminating significant HF (≥ F2), advanced HF (≥ F3), or cirrhosis (F4) (all P < 0.05). Although LSM-TE showed higher AUCs than Dt in detecting fibrosis stages, there were no significant differences between LSM-TE and Dt (P > 0.05) except for detecting F4 (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: MRE shows excellent diagnostic performance for predicting significant fibrosis, advanced fibrosis compared with TE and IVIM, while TE and IVIM have comparable diagnostic performance.