TY - JOUR
T1 - Liver stiffness measurement by magnetic resonance elastography is not affected by hepatic steatosis
AU - Chen, Jie
AU - Allen, Alina M.
AU - Therneau, Terry M.
AU - Chen, Jun
AU - Li, Jiahui
AU - Hoodeshenas, Safa
AU - Chen, Jingbiao
AU - Lu, Xin
AU - Zhu, Zheng
AU - Venkatesh, Sudhakar K.
AU - Song, Bin
AU - Ehman, Richard L.
AU - Yin, Meng
N1 - Funding Information:
This work has been supported by grant funding from the National Institutes of Health: R37 EB001981 (R.L.E.), R01 EB017197 (M.Y.), K23 DK115594 (A.M.A.), and the US Department of Defense: W81XWH-19-1-0583-01 (M.Y.). The author would like to thank Jennifer Kugel for providing language help for this manuscript.
Funding Information:
This study has received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health: R37 EB001981 (R.L.E.), R01 EB017197 (M.Y.), K23 DK115594 (A.M.A.), and the US Department of Defense: W81XWH-19–1-0583–01 (M.Y.).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, European Society of Radiology.
PY - 2022/2
Y1 - 2022/2
N2 - Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between biopsy-assessed hepatic steatosis, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–assessed proton density fat fraction (PDFF), and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE)–assessed liver stiffness measurement (LSM), in patients with or at risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Methods: A retrospective study was performed, encompassing 256 patients who had a liver biopsy and MRI/MRE examination performed within 1 year. Clinical and laboratory data were retrieved from the electronic medical record. Hepatic steatosis and fibrosis were assessed by histopathological grading/staging. First, we analyzed the diagnostic performance of PDFF for distinguishing hepatic steatosis with the receiver operating characteristic analyses. Second, variables influencing LSM were screened with univariant analyses, then identified with multivariable linear regression. Finally, the potential relationship between PDFF and LSM was assessed with linear regression after adjustment for other influencing factors, in patients with diagnosed steatosis (PDFF ≥ 5%). Results: The diagnostic accuracy of PDFF in distinguishing steatosis grades (S0-3) was above 0.82. No significant difference in LSM was found between patients with S1, S2, and S3 steatosis and between all steatosis grades after patients were grouped according to fibrosis stage. No statistically significant relationship was found between the LSM and PDFF (estimate = − 0.02, p = 0.065) after adjustment for fibrosis stage and age in patients with diagnosed steatosis (PDFF ≥ 5%). Conclusions: In patients with NAFLD, the severity of hepatic steatosis has no significant influence on the liver stiffness measurement with magnetic resonance elastography. Key Points: • The MRI-based proton density fat fraction provides a quantitative assessment of hepatic steatosis with high accuracy. • No significant effect of hepatic steatosis on MRE-based liver stiffness measurement was found in patients with S1, S2, and S3 steatosis and between all steatosis grades after patients were grouped according to fibrosis stage. • After adjusting for fibrosis stage and age, there was no statistically significant relationship between liver stiffness and proton density fat fraction in patients with hepatic steatosis (p = 0.065).
AB - Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between biopsy-assessed hepatic steatosis, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–assessed proton density fat fraction (PDFF), and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE)–assessed liver stiffness measurement (LSM), in patients with or at risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Methods: A retrospective study was performed, encompassing 256 patients who had a liver biopsy and MRI/MRE examination performed within 1 year. Clinical and laboratory data were retrieved from the electronic medical record. Hepatic steatosis and fibrosis were assessed by histopathological grading/staging. First, we analyzed the diagnostic performance of PDFF for distinguishing hepatic steatosis with the receiver operating characteristic analyses. Second, variables influencing LSM were screened with univariant analyses, then identified with multivariable linear regression. Finally, the potential relationship between PDFF and LSM was assessed with linear regression after adjustment for other influencing factors, in patients with diagnosed steatosis (PDFF ≥ 5%). Results: The diagnostic accuracy of PDFF in distinguishing steatosis grades (S0-3) was above 0.82. No significant difference in LSM was found between patients with S1, S2, and S3 steatosis and between all steatosis grades after patients were grouped according to fibrosis stage. No statistically significant relationship was found between the LSM and PDFF (estimate = − 0.02, p = 0.065) after adjustment for fibrosis stage and age in patients with diagnosed steatosis (PDFF ≥ 5%). Conclusions: In patients with NAFLD, the severity of hepatic steatosis has no significant influence on the liver stiffness measurement with magnetic resonance elastography. Key Points: • The MRI-based proton density fat fraction provides a quantitative assessment of hepatic steatosis with high accuracy. • No significant effect of hepatic steatosis on MRE-based liver stiffness measurement was found in patients with S1, S2, and S3 steatosis and between all steatosis grades after patients were grouped according to fibrosis stage. • After adjusting for fibrosis stage and age, there was no statistically significant relationship between liver stiffness and proton density fat fraction in patients with hepatic steatosis (p = 0.065).
KW - Liver fibrosis
KW - Liver steatosis
KW - Magnetic resonance elastography
KW - Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85113392896&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85113392896&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-021-08225-w
DO - 10.1007/s00330-021-08225-w
M3 - Article
C2 - 34432123
AN - SCOPUS:85113392896
SN - 0938-7994
VL - 32
SP - 950
EP - 958
JO - European radiology
JF - European radiology
IS - 2
ER -