» Articles » PMID: 26977760

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

Overview
Specialty Gastroenterology
Date 2016 Mar 16
PMID 26977760
Citations 38
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) with three-dimensional spin-echo echo planar imaging (3D-SE-EPI) is a newly emerging noninvasive method for assessing liver fibrosis. We hypothesized that 3D-SE-EPI might have better diagnostic accuracy than conventional two-dimensional gradient-recalled echo (2D-GRE).

Methods: We prospectively included 179 consecutive patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) or C (CHC) who underwent both MRE and liver biopsy. Liver stiffness was measured by both 3D-SE-EPI and 2D-GRE for staging biopsy-proven liver fibrosis (using METAVIR scores). A receiver-operating characteristic analysis using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to compare the diagnostic performance in predicting liver fibrosis between these two techniques, and compared them to serum markers of fibrosis.

Results: The technical failure rate of 3D-SE-EPI (2.2%, n=4/179) was lower compared with 2D-GRE (8.3%, n=15/179). The stiffness measured by 3D-SE-EPI was slightly lower compared with 2D-GRE, with the mean difference of 0.57 kPa (Bland and Altman plot, 95% limits of agreement: -0.32 and 1.45 kPa). AUCs for the characterization of ≥F1, ≥F2, ≥F3, and F4 were 0.957 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.913-0.983), 0.971 (0.932-0.991), 0.991 (0.961-0.999), and 0.979 (0.942-0.995) for 3D-SE-EPI, which was slightly higher compared with the AUCs for 2D-GRE at each fibrosis stage (0.948 (0.901-0.977), 0.959 (0.915-0.981), 0.979 (0.943-0.995), and 0.976 (0.938-0.994), respectively), although none reached statistical significance (P=0.160-0.585). In an "intention-to-diagnose" analysis, the diagnostic accuracy (the proportion of well-classified patients) by EPI (86.7-91.3%, n=169) was higher compared with GRE (80.9-82.1%, n=158) after applying optimal cutoffs. Both 3D-SE-EPI and 2D-GRE performed better than serum fibrosis markers.

Conclusions: With respect to 2D-GRE, 3D-SE-EPI has the advantage of lower failure rate with equivalent high diagnostic performance for staging liver fibrosis in CHB/CHC patients, and thus more helpful for those challenging cases in 2D-GRE.

Citing Articles

Interpretation, Reporting, and Clinical Applications of Liver MR Elastography.

Moura Cunha G, Fan B, Navin P, Olivie D, Venkatesh S, Ehman R Radiology. 2024; 310(3):e231220.

PMID: 38470236 PMC: 10982829. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.231220.


Comparison of spin-echo echo planar imaging and gradient-recalled echo sequences in magnetic resonance elastography of liver at 1.5T same MRI scanner.

Abe R, Fukuzawa K, Yoshihara C, Tano M, Saitoh S Abdom Radiol (NY). 2023; 49(3):694-702.

PMID: 38012395 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-023-04098-3.


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

Bhuiyan E, Ozkaya E, Kennedy P, Lloret Del Hoyo J, Achkar B, Thung S Abdom Radiol (NY). 2023; 48(11):3420-3429.

PMID: 37700185 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-023-04036-3.


Correction to: Comparison of diffusion‑weighted imaging and MR elastography in staging liver fibrosis: a meta‑analysis.

Jang W, Jo S, Song J, Hwang H, Kim S Abdom Radiol (NY). 2023; 48(8):2763-2768.

PMID: 37231220 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-023-03942-w.


Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance elastography and point-shear wave elastography for significant hepatic fibrosis screening: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Schambeck J, Forte G, Goncalves L, Stuker G, Kotlinski J, Tramontin G PLoS One. 2023; 18(2):e0271572.

PMID: 36730265 PMC: 9894488. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271572.


References
1.
Shi Y, Guo Q, Xia F, Dzyubak B, Glaser K, Li Q . MR elastography for the assessment of hepatic fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B infection: does histologic necroinflammation influence the measurement of hepatic stiffness?. Radiology. 2014; 273(1):88-98. PMC: 4263647. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14132592. View

2.
Sturm N, Marlu A, Arvers P, Zarski J, Leroy V . Comparative assessment of liver fibrosis by computerized morphometry in naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B and C. Liver Int. 2013; 33(3):428-38. DOI: 10.1111/liv.12092. View

3.
Hines C, Bley T, Lindstrom M, Reeder S . Repeatability of magnetic resonance elastography for quantification of hepatic stiffness. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 31(3):725-31. PMC: 2901399. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22066. View

4.
Yin M, Glaser K, Talwalkar J, Chen J, Manduca A, Ehman R . Hepatic MR Elastography: Clinical Performance in a Series of 1377 Consecutive Examinations. Radiology. 2015; 278(1):114-24. PMC: 4688072. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015142141. View

5.
Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Sano K, Sou H, Muhi A, Koshiishi T . Magnetic resonance elastography of the liver: preliminary results and estimation of inter-rater reliability. Jpn J Radiol. 2010; 28(8):623-7. PMC: 4584141. DOI: 10.1007/s11604-010-0478-1. View