Technical Success Rates and Reliability of Spin-echo Echo-planar Imaging (SE-EPI) MR Elastography in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease or Liver Cirrhosis

Overview

Journal Eur Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2019 Nov 16

PMID 31728687

Citations 10

Authors

Sang Lim Choi

Eun Sun Lee

Ara Ko

Hyun Jeong Park

Sung Bin Park

Byung Ihn Choi

Young Youn Cho

Stephan Kannengiesser

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the technical success rates of MR elastography (MRE) according to established gradient-recalled echo (GRE) and spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SE-EPI) sequences and to compare liver stiffness (LS) values between the sequences during expiratory and inspiratory phases in patients with chronic liver disease or liver cirrhosis.

Methods: One hundred and eight patients who underwent MRE were included in this retrospective study. MRE was performed at 3 T based on both sequences during expiration as well as inspiration. Technical failure of MRE was determined if there was no pixel value with a confidence index higher than 95% and/or no apparent shear waves imaged. LS measurements were performed using free-drawing region of interest. To evaluate clinical factors related to the technical success rate of MRE, we assessed etiology of liver disease, ascites, body habitus, iron deposition, and liver morphology of patients. Statistical analysis was performed with the Wilcoxon test, Bland-Altman plot, independent t test, Mann-Whitney test, and McNemar test.

Results: The technical success rate of MRE in SE-EPI was significantly higher than that of GRE (98.1% vs. 80.7%, p < 0.0001). On the basis of univariate analysis, height, weight, and BMI were significantly associated with failure of MRE (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in LS values between GRE and SE-EPI (2.82 kPa vs. 2.92 kPa (p > 0.05)). However, the LS values were significantly higher during inspiration than expiration with both GRE and SE-EPI (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: MRE in SE-EPI during expiratory breath-hold can be used as a reliable examination to evaluate liver fibrosis.

Key Points: • The technical success rate of MR elastography in spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SE-EPI) was significantly higher than that in gradient-recalled echo (GRE) during both the inspiratory and expiratory phases. • Liver stiffness values were significantly higher during inspiration than during expiration in both GRE and SE-EPI. • MR elastography in SE-EPI during expiratory breath-hold can be used as a reliable examination in patients with liver fibrosis.

Citing Articles

Deep Learning-Enabled Automated Quality Control for Liver MR Elastography: Initial Results.

Nieves-Vazquez H, Ozkaya E, Meinhold W, Geahchan A, Bane O, Ueda J J Magn Reson Imaging. 2025; 61(2):985-994.

PMID: 39776044 PMC: 11706309. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.29490.

Feasibility and performance of spin-echo EPI MR elastography at 3 Tesla for staging hepatic fibrosis in the presence of hepatic iron overload.

Sgier D, Stocker D, Jungst C, Renzulli M, Biletska-Hanchorova H, Weber A Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024; 49(11):3871-3882.

PMID: 38990302 PMC: 11519119. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-023-04160-0.

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.

Single Breath-Hold 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Elastography Depicts Liver Fibrosis and Inflammation in Obese Patients.

Darwish O, Gharib A, Jeljeli S, Metwalli N, Feeley J, Rotman Y Invest Radiol. 2023; 58(6):413-419.

PMID: 36719974 PMC: 10735168. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000952.

Assessment of hepatic fibrosis and inflammation with look-locker T1 mapping and magnetic resonance elastography with histopathology as reference standard.

von Ulmenstein S, Bogdanovic S, Honcharova-Biletska H, Blumel S, Deibel A, Segna D Abdom Radiol (NY). 2022; 47(11):3746-3757.

PMID: 36038643 PMC: 9560941. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-022-03647-6.

References

Kim Y, Jang Y, Song J . Comparison of gradient-recalled echo and spin-echo echo-planar imaging MR elastography in staging liver fibrosis: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2017; 28(4):1709-1718. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5149-5. View

Moura Cunha G, Glaser K, Bergman A, Luz R, de Figueiredo E, Lopes F . Feasibility and agreement of stiffness measurements using gradient-echo and spin-echo MR elastography sequences in unselected patients undergoing liver MRI. Br J Radiol. 2018; 91(1087):20180126. PMC: 6221762. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20180126. View

Serai S, Dillman J, Trout A . Spin-echo Echo-planar Imaging MR Elastography versus Gradient-echo MR Elastography for Assessment of Liver Stiffness in Children and Young Adults Suspected of Having Liver Disease. Radiology. 2016; 282(3):761-770. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016160589. View

Chang W, Lee J, Yoon J, Han J, Choi B, Yoon J . 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. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016150397. View

Gherlan G . Liver ultrasound elastography: More than staging the disease. World J Hepatol. 2015; 7(12):1595-600. PMC: 4483541. DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i12.1595. View

Wagner M, Besa C, Bou Ayache J, Yasar T, Bane O, Fung M . 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. PMC: 5590632. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000269. View

Kowdley K . Iron Overload in Patients With Chronic Liver Disease. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2016; 12(11):695-698. PMC: 5193089. View

Yoshimitsu K, Mitsufuji T, Shinagawa Y, Fujimitsu R, Morita A, Urakawa H . MR elastography of the liver at 3.0 T in diagnosing liver fibrosis grades; preliminary clinical experience. Eur Radiol. 2015; 26(3):656-63. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3863-4. View

Kennedy P, Wagner M, Castera L, Hong C, Johnson C, Sirlin C . Quantitative Elastography Methods in Liver Disease: Current Evidence and Future Directions. Radiology. 2018; 286(3):738-763. PMC: 5831316. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018170601. View

10.

Petta S, Di Marco V, Camma C, Butera G, Cabibi D, Craxi A . Reliability of liver stiffness measurement in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: the effects of body mass index. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 33(12):1350-60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04668.x. View

11.

Wang K, Manning P, Szeverenyi N, Wolfson T, Hamilton G, Middleton M . Repeatability and reproducibility of 2D and 3D hepatic MR elastography with rigid and flexible drivers at end-expiration and end-inspiration in healthy volunteers. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017; 42(12):2843-2854. PMC: 5698170. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-017-1206-4. View

12.

Venkatesh S, Yin M, Ehman R . Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: technique, analysis, and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013; 37(3):544-55. PMC: 3579218. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.23731. View

13.

Pang J, Pradhan F, Zimmer S, Niu S, Crotty P, Tracey J . The feasibility and reliability of transient elastography using Fibroscan®: a practice audit of 2335 examinations. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 28(3):143-9. PMC: 4071883. DOI: 10.1155/2014/952684. View

14.

Huwart L, Salameh N, Ter Beek L, Vicaut E, Peeters F, Sinkus R . MR elastography of liver fibrosis: preliminary results comparing spin-echo and echo-planar imaging. Eur Radiol. 2008; 18(11):2535-41. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1051-5. View

15.

Wagner M, Corcuera-Solano I, Lo G, Esses S, Liao J, Besa C . Technical Failure of MR Elastography Examinations of the Liver: Experience from a Large Single-Center Study. Radiology. 2017; 284(2):401-412. PMC: 5548447. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016160863. View

16.

Garteiser P, Sahebjavaher R, Ter Beek L, Salcudean S, Vilgrain V, Van Beers B . Rapid acquisition of multifrequency, multislice and multidirectional MR elastography data with a fractionally encoded gradient echo sequence. NMR Biomed. 2013; 26(10):1326-35. DOI: 10.1002/nbm.2958. View

17.

Venkatesh S, Yin M, Ehman R . Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: clinical applications. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2013; 37(6):887-96. PMC: 4075049. DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000032. View

18.

Schuppan D, Ashfaq-Khan M, Yang A, Kim Y . Liver fibrosis: Direct antifibrotic agents and targeted therapies. Matrix Biol. 2018; 68-69:435-451. DOI: 10.1016/j.matbio.2018.04.006. View

19.

Rockey D . Current and future anti-fibrotic therapies for chronic liver disease. Clin Liver Dis. 2008; 12(4):939-62, xi. PMC: 2610449. DOI: 10.1016/j.cld.2008.07.011. View

20.

Zhan C, Kannengiesser S, Chandarana H, Fenchel M, Ream J, Shanbhogue K . 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(5):1825-1833. PMC: 6927036. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-019-01932-5. View