3 years ago

Magnetic resonance elastography is as accurate as liver biopsy for liver fibrosis staging

Hiroyuki Morisaka, Hiroshi Onishi, Masanori Matsuda, Shintaro Ichikawa, Tomoaki Ichikawa, Utaroh Motosugi, Tadao Nakazawa, Tetsuo Kondo, Satoshi Funayama
Background Liver MR elastography (MRE) is available for the noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis; however, no previous studies have compared the diagnostic ability of MRE with that of liver biopsy. Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracy of liver fibrosis staging between MRE-based methods and liver biopsy using the resected liver specimens as the reference standard. Study Type A retrospective study at a single institution. Population In all, 200 patients who underwent preoperative MRE and subsequent surgical liver resection were included in this study. Data from 80 patients were used to estimate cutoff and distributions of liver stiffness values measured by MRE for each liver fibrosis stage (F0–F4, METAVIR system). In the remaining 120 patients, liver biopsy specimens were obtained from the resected liver tissues using a standard biopsy needle. Field Strength/Sequence 2D liver MRE with gradient-echo based sequence on a 1.5 or 3T scanner was used. Assessment Two radiologists independently measured the liver stiffness value on MRE and two types of MRE-based methods (threshold and Bayesian prediction method) were applied. Two pathologists evaluated all biopsy samples independently to stage liver fibrosis. Surgically resected whole tissue specimens were used as the reference standard. Statistical Tests The accuracy for liver fibrosis staging was compared between liver biopsy and MRE-based methods with a modified McNemar's test. Results Accurate fibrosis staging was achieved in 53.3% (64/120) and 59.1% (71/120) of patients using MRE with threshold and Bayesian methods, respectively, and in 51.6% (62/120) with liver biopsy. Accuracies of MRE-based methods for diagnoses of ≥F2 (90–91% [108–9/120]), ≥F3 (79–81% [95–97/120]), and F4 (82–85% [98–102/120]) were statistically equivalent to those of liver biopsy (≥F2, 79% [95/120], P ≤ 0.01; ≥F3, 88% [105/120], P ≤ 0.006; and F4, 82% [99/120], P ≤ 0.017). Data Conclusion MRE can be an alternative to liver biopsy for fibrosis staging. Level of Evidence: 3. Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017.

Publisher URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi

DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25868

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.