TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of the diagnostic performance of 2D and 3D MR elastography in staging liver fibrosis
AU - Li, Mengsi
AU - Yang, Hao
AU - Liu, Yong
AU - Zhang, Linqi
AU - Chen, Jingbiao
AU - Deng, Ying
AU - Xiao, Yuanqiang
AU - Zhu, Jie
AU - Yi, Zhuoya
AU - Hu, Bing
AU - Kuang, Sichi
AU - He, Bingjun
AU - Glaser, Kevin J.
AU - Yin, Meng
AU - Venkatesh, Sudhakar K.
AU - Ehman, Richard L.
AU - Wang, Jin
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors state that this study has received funding by the National Natural Science Foundation of China grant 91959118 (JW), Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou, China 201704020016 (JW), Clinical Research Foundation of the 3rd Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University YHJH201901 (JW), and Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (No.2021A1515010582) (JW).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, European Society of Radiology.
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - Objectives: To compare the diagnostic performance and image quality of state-of-the-art 2D MR elastography (MRE) and 3D MRE in the basic application of liver fibrosis staging. Methods: This retrospective study assessed data from 293 patients who underwent 2D and 3D MRE examinations. MRE image quality was assessed with a qualitative 2-point grading system by evaluating artifacts. Two experienced analysts independently measured mean liver stiffness values. The interobserver agreement of liver stiffness measurement was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the diagnostic performance of 2D and 3D MRE and blood-based markers for fibrosis staging using the pathology-proven liver fibrosis stage as the gold standard. Results: The image quality provided by 3D MRE was graded as significantly higher than that obtained with the 2D MRE method (p < 0.01). Interobserver agreement in liver stiffness measurements was higher for 3D MRE (ICC: 3D 0.979 vs 2D 0.955). The AUC values for discriminating ≥ F1, ≥ F2, ≥ F3, and F4 fibrosis for 3D MRE (0.89, 0.92, 0.95, and 0.93) were similar to those for 2D MRE (0.89, 0.91, 0.94, and 0.92). Both the 2D and 3D MRE methods provided superior accuracy to the blood-based biomarkers, including APRI, FIB-4, and Forns index, especially for ≥ F2, ≥ F3, and F4 fibrosis stages (all p < 0.01). Conclusions: While 3D MRE offers certain advantages and opportunities for new applications of MRE, current widely deployed 2D MRE technology has comparable performance in the basic application of detecting and staging liver fibrosis. Key Points: • 2D MRE and 3D MRE have comparable diagnostic performance in detecting and staging liver fibrosis. • 3D MRE has superior image quality and interobserver agreement compared to 2D MRE.
AB - Objectives: To compare the diagnostic performance and image quality of state-of-the-art 2D MR elastography (MRE) and 3D MRE in the basic application of liver fibrosis staging. Methods: This retrospective study assessed data from 293 patients who underwent 2D and 3D MRE examinations. MRE image quality was assessed with a qualitative 2-point grading system by evaluating artifacts. Two experienced analysts independently measured mean liver stiffness values. The interobserver agreement of liver stiffness measurement was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the diagnostic performance of 2D and 3D MRE and blood-based markers for fibrosis staging using the pathology-proven liver fibrosis stage as the gold standard. Results: The image quality provided by 3D MRE was graded as significantly higher than that obtained with the 2D MRE method (p < 0.01). Interobserver agreement in liver stiffness measurements was higher for 3D MRE (ICC: 3D 0.979 vs 2D 0.955). The AUC values for discriminating ≥ F1, ≥ F2, ≥ F3, and F4 fibrosis for 3D MRE (0.89, 0.92, 0.95, and 0.93) were similar to those for 2D MRE (0.89, 0.91, 0.94, and 0.92). Both the 2D and 3D MRE methods provided superior accuracy to the blood-based biomarkers, including APRI, FIB-4, and Forns index, especially for ≥ F2, ≥ F3, and F4 fibrosis stages (all p < 0.01). Conclusions: While 3D MRE offers certain advantages and opportunities for new applications of MRE, current widely deployed 2D MRE technology has comparable performance in the basic application of detecting and staging liver fibrosis. Key Points: • 2D MRE and 3D MRE have comparable diagnostic performance in detecting and staging liver fibrosis. • 3D MRE has superior image quality and interobserver agreement compared to 2D MRE.
KW - 2D and 3D MRE
KW - Fibrosis
KW - MR elastography
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85106419418&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85106419418&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-021-08053-y
DO - 10.1007/s00330-021-08053-y
M3 - Article
C2 - 34023968
AN - SCOPUS:85106419418
SN - 0938-7994
VL - 31
SP - 9468
EP - 9478
JO - European radiology
JF - European radiology
IS - 12
ER -