Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in assessing hepatic fibrosis: performance in a cohort of patients with histological data

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare fibrosis seen on liver biopsy to MR elastography (MRE) stiffness measurements in normal controls and patients with abnormal transaminases and chronic liver disease.

Methods

The control group consisted of 22 healthy liver transplant donors who by definition had normal transaminases. The patient group (32 patients) was recruited from the Mayo Clinic Arizona hepatobiliary clinic over a 3-year span. All subjects underwent a liver biopsy as part of their evaluation and agreed to MRE within 35 days of biopsy. Non-parametric tests were used to compare the MRE-predicted liver fibrosis to the fibrosis noted on liver biopsy.

Results

Analysis included 54 subjects (32 patients with chronic liver disease and 22 healthy liver donor candidates). MRE median liver stiffness measurements increased per histologic liver fibrosis stage (one-way ANOVA p = 0.001), with significant correlation between increasing fibrosis stage and stiffness values. Median MRE for control group (2.13 kPa; mean = 2.3 ± 0.6 kPa) was significantly lower than for patient group (3.7 kPa; mean = 4.1 ± 2.1 kPa) (p = 0.003). Significantly, lower median stiffness was seen in zero-to-moderate (F0–2, n = 22) vs. severe fibrosis stages (F3–4, n = 10) 2.80 vs. 5.9 kPa, respectively (p < 0.05). Using a 3.7-kPa cut-off value, the predicted sensitivity and specificity for detecting F0–2 from F3–4 were 91% and 80%, respectively.

Conclusions

Our analysis supports previous findings that MRE is a non-invasive and effective method for detection and assessment of liver fibrosis, particularly for discrimination between F0–2 stages and F3–4 stages. MRE may represent a valuable tool to finely discern hepatic fibrosis non-invasively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Friedman SL, Rockey DC, Bissell DM (2007) Hepatic fibrosis 2006: report of the Third AASLD Single Topic Conference. Hepatology 45:242–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Perrault J, McGill DB, Ott BJ, et al. (1978) Liver biopsy: complications in 1000 inpatients and outpatients. Gastroenterology 74:103–106

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Thampanitchawong P, Piratvisuth T (1999) Liver biopsy: complications and risk factors. World J Gastroenterol 5:301–304

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Afdhal NH, Nunes D (2004) Evaluation of liver fibrosis: a concise review. Am J Gastroenterol 99:1160–1174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Regev A, Berho M, Jeffers LJ, et al. (2002) Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection. Am J Gastroenterol 97:2614–2618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nishizaki T, Matsumata T, Kamakura T, et al. (1995) Significance of intraoperative measurement of liver consistency prior to hepatic resection. Hepato-gastroenterology 42:5–8

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yamanaka N, Okamoto E, Toyosaka A, et al. (1985) Consistency of human liver. J Surg Res 39:192–198

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yeh WC, Li PC, Jeng YM, et al. (2002) Elastic modulus measurements of human liver and correlation with pathology. Ultrasound Med Biol 28:467–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Castera L, Vergniol J, Foucher J, et al. (2005) Prospective comparison of transient elastography, Fibrotest, APRI, and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 128:343–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ziol M, Handra-Luca A, Kettaneh A, et al. (2005) Noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis by measurement of stiffness in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 41:48–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Huwart L, Sempoux C, Salameh N, et al. (2007) Liver fibrosis: noninvasive assessment with MR elastography versus aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index. Radiology 245:458–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yin M, Talwalkar JA, Glaser KJ, et al. (2007) Assessment of hepatic fibrosis with magnetic resonance elastography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 5(1207–1213):e2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sandrin L, Fourquet B, Hasquenoph JM, et al. (2003) Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Ultrasound Med Biol 29:1705–1713

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yoshioka K, Kawabe N, Hashimoto S (2008) Transient elastography: applications and limitations. Hepatol Res. 38(11):1063–1068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kwok R, Tse YK, Wong GL, et al. (2014) Systematic review with meta-analysis: non-invasive assessment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease—the role of transient elastography and plasma cytokeratin-18 fragments. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 39(3):254–269. doi:10.1111/apt.12569

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldschmidt I, Streckenbach C, Dingemann C, et al. (2013) Application and limitations of transient liver elastography in children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 57(1):109–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee CK, Perez-Atayde AR, Mitchell PD, et al. (2013) Serum biomarkers and transient elastography as predictors of advanced liver fibrosis in a United States cohort: the Boston children’s hospital experience. J Pediatr 163(4):1058.e2–1064.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.04.044

    Google Scholar 

  18. Talwalkar JA (2008) Elastography for detecting hepatic fibrosis: options and considerations. Gastroenterology 135:299–302

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Muthupillai R, Lomas DJ, Rossman PJ, et al. (1995) Magnetic resonance elastography by direct visualization of propagating acoustic strain waves. Science 269:1854–1857

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. (1994) Intraobserver and interobserver variations in liver biopsy interpretation in patients with chronic hepatitis C. The French METAVIR Cooperative Study Group. Hepatology 20:15–20

  21. Brunt EM (1999) Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH): further expansion of this clinical entity? Liver 19:263–264

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Batts KP, Ludwig J (1995) Chronic hepatitis. An update on terminology and reporting. Am J Surg Pathol 19:1409–1417

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dunn OJ (1964) Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6:241–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim BH, Lee JM, Lee YJ, et al. (2011) MR elastography for noninvasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis: experience from a tertiary center in Asia. J Magn Reson Imaging 34(5):1110–1116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ichikawa S, Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, et al. (2012) Magnetic resonance elastography for staging liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Magn Reson Med Sci 11(4):291–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Venkatesh SK, Wang G, Lim SG, Wee A (2014) Magnetic resonance elastography for the detection and staging of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B. Eur Radiol 24(1):70–78. doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2978-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Goldstein NS, Hastah F, Galan MV, Gordon SC (2005) Fibrosis heterogeneity in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and hepatitis C virus needle core biopsy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 123(3):382–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

    Mashal Batheja

  2. Department of Hepatology, Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

    Hugo Vargas

  3. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic in Arizona, 13400 East Shea Boulevard, Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA

    Forrest Walker & Alvin C. Silva

  4. Division of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

    Yu-Hui Chang

  5. Department of Laboratory Medicine/Pathology, Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

    Giovanni De Petris

  6. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Annelise M. Silva

Authors
  1. Mashal Batheja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hugo Vargas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Annelise M. Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Forrest Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yu-Hui Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giovanni De Petris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alvin C. Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alvin C. Silva.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Batheja, M., Vargas, H., Silva, A.M. et al. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in assessing hepatic fibrosis: performance in a cohort of patients with histological data. Abdom Imaging 40, 760–765 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0321-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0321-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation