Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between ROI-based and volumetric measurements in quantifying heterogeneity of liver stiffness using MR elastography

  • Hepatobiliary-Pancreas
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This study was conducted to quantify the heterogeneity of liver stiffness (LS) on MR elastography (MRE) by comparing ROI-based and volumetric measurements.

Methods

LS was measured by ROI-based and volumetric segmentation of the liver parenchyma. Mean LS (MLS) was calculated and used to assign stages of fibrosis. Volumetric measurements of stiffness maps were used to determine the percentage of liver volume above/below MLS and presence of LS heterogeneity. Heterogeneous stiffness was defined when the first and second most predominant stages were more than one category apart. MLS values by each method were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

We included 128 patients with suspected liver fibrosis (mean age 54.4 ± 14.8 years). MLS was 2.7 ± 1.0 kPa for ROI measurements and 2.6 ± 0.9 kPa for the volumetric method (p = 0.001). Of 59 patients with normal stage (F0), 31 patients (52.5%) had > 20% of liver volume with abnormal LS (F1–F4). Heterogeneous LS was reported in 18 patients (14%).

Conclusions

MLS measurement may not represent the entire spectrum of hepatic fibrosis. Volumetric segmentation may potentially improve the detection of heterogeneous fibrosis and the accuracy of LS measurement.

Key Points

• Heterogeneity of hepatic fibrosis may occur in patients with chronic liver disease.

• MR elastography is used to assess hepatic fibrosis by measuring liver stiffness.

• Measuring liver stiffness by the ROI method and reporting a mean value may fail to detect heterogeneity of hepatic fibrosis. Volumetric assessment of liver stiffness by MR elastography may detect heterogeneity of parenchymal involvement.

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

Abbreviations

CLD:

Chronic liver diseases

LS:

Liver stiffness

MLS stage:

Stage of fibrosis assigned to each patient based on mean liver stiffness value of ROIs

MLS:

Mean liver stiffness

MRE:

Magnetic resonance elastography

ROI-Seg:

ROI-based segmentation for liver stiffness measurement

SD:

Standard deviation

V-Seg:

Volumetric segmentation for liver stiffness measurement

References

  1. Friedman SL (2003) Liver fibrosis—from bench to bedside. J Hepatol 38(Suppl 1):S38–S53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pinzani M, Rombouts K (2004) Liver fibrosis: from the bench to clinical targets. Dig Liver Dis 36:231–242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Poynard T, Mathurin P, Lai CL et al (2003) A comparison of fibrosis progression in chronic liver diseases. J Hepatol 38:257–265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Caballero T, Perez-Milena A, Masseroli M et al (2001) Liver fibrosis assessment with semiquantitative indexes and image analysis quantification in sustained-responder and non-responder interferon-treated patients with chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol 34:740–747

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Duchatelle V, Marcellin P, Giostra E et al (1998) Changes in liver fibrosis at the end of alpha interferon therapy and 6 to 18 months later in patients with chronic hepatitis C: quantitative assessment by a morphometric method. J Hepatol 29:20–28

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Friedman SL, Bansal MB (2006) Reversal of hepatic fibrosis—fact or fantasy? Hepatology 43:S82–S88

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD, Nelson RC, Smith AD (2009) Liver biopsy. Hepatology 49:1017–1044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 123:382–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dhall D, Kim SA, Mc Phaul C et al (2018) Heterogeneity of fibrosis in liver biopsies of patients with heart failure undergoing heart transplant evaluation. Am J Surg Pathol 42:1617–1624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tacke F, Zimmermann HW (2014) Macrophage heterogeneity in liver injury and fibrosis. J Hepatol 60:1090–1096

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Li J, Qureshi M, Gupta A, Anderson SW, Soto J, Li B (2019) Quantification of degree of liver fibrosis using fibrosis area fraction based on statistical chi-square analysis of heterogeneity of liver tissue texture on routine ultrasound images. Acad Radiol 26:1001–1007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Venkatesh SK, Yin M, Ehman RL (2013) Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: technique, analysis, and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:544–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yin M, Talwalkar JA, Glaser KJ et al (2007) Assessment of hepatic fibrosis with magnetic resonance elastography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:1207–1213 e1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 34:1110–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Asbach P, Klatt D, Schlosser B et al (2010) Viscoelasticity-based staging of hepatic fibrosis with multifrequency MR elastography. Radiology 257:80–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Standish RA, Cholongitas E, Dhillon A, Burroughs AK, Dhillon AP (2006) An appraisal of the histopathological assessment of liver fibrosis. Gut 55:569–578

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Morisaka H, Motosugi U, Ichikawa S et al (2018) Magnetic resonance elastography is as accurate as liver biopsy for liver fibrosis staging. J Magn Reson Imaging 47:1268–1275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mariappan YK, Glaser KJ, Ehman RL (2010) Magnetic resonance elastography: a review. Clin Anat 23:497–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Huwart L, Sempoux C, Vicaut E et al (2008) Magnetic resonance elastography for the noninvasive staging of liver fibrosis. Gastroenterology 135:32–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hoodeshenas S, Yin M, Venkatesh SK (2018) Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: current update. Top Magn Reson Imaging 27:319–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Venkatesh SK, Xu S, Tai D, Yu H, Wee A (2014) Correlation of MR elastography with morphometric quantification of liver fibrosis (Fibro-C-Index) in chronic hepatitis B. Magn Reson Med 72:1123–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wanless IR, Nakashima E, Sherman M (2000) Regression of human cirrhosis. Morphologic features and the genesis of incomplete septal cirrhosis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124:1599–1607

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pinzani M, Rombouts K, Colagrande S (2005) Fibrosis in chronic liver diseases: diagnosis and management. J Hepatol 42(Suppl):S22–S36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wanless IR, Shiota K (2004) The pathogenesis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and other fatty liver diseases: a four-step model including the role of lipid release and hepatic venular obstruction in the progression to cirrhosis. Semin Liver Dis 24:99–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sakaida I, Nagatomi A, Hironaka K, Uchida K, Okita K (1999) Quantitative analysis of liver fibrosis and stellate cell changes in patients with chronic hepatitis C after interferon therapy. Am J Gastroenterol 94:489–496

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Abe H, Midorikawa Y, Matsumoto N et al (2019) Prediction of esophageal varices by liver and spleen MR elastography. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06230-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yin Z, Murphy MC, Li J et al (2019) Prediction of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) activity score (NAS) with multiparametric hepatic magnetic resonance imaging and elastography. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06076-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ichikawa S, Motosugi U, Enomoto N, Onishi H (2019) Magnetic resonance elastography can predict development of hepatocellular carcinoma with longitudinally acquired two-point data. Eur Radiol 29:1013–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vizzotto L, Vertemati M, Gambacorta M, Sabatella G, Spina V, Minola E (2002) Analysis of histological and immunohistochemical patterns of the liver in posthepatitic and alcoholic cirrhosis by computerized morphometry. Mod Pathol 15:798–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cassiman D, Roskams T (2002) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: emerging concepts and pitfalls in hepatic stellate cell research. J Hepatol 37:527–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pinzani M (2015) Pathophysiology of liver fibrosis. Dig Dis 33:492–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chang W, Lee JM, Yoon JH et al (2016) Liver fibrosis staging with MR elastography: comparison of diagnostic performance between patients with chronic hepatitis B and those with other etiologic causes. Radiology 280:88–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee VS, Miller FH, Omary RA et al (2011) Magnetic resonance elastography and biomarkers to assess fibrosis from recurrent hepatitis C in liver transplant recipients. Transplantation 92:581–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dzyubak B, Venkatesh SK, Glaser K et al (2013) Stable automated segmentation of liver MR elastography images for clinical stiffness measurement. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng, 8672

  35. Dzyubak B, Venkatesh SK, Manduca A, Glaser KJ, Ehman RL (2016) Automated liver elasticity calculation for MR elastography. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:1055–1063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bonekamp D, Bonekamp S, Halappa VG et al (2014) Interobserver agreement of semi-automated and manual measurements of functional MRI metrics of treatment response in hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 83:487–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Room 143, MRI 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Roya Rezvani Habibabadi, Pegah Khoshpouri, Maryam Ghadimi, Mohammadreza Shaghaghi, Sanaz Ameli, Bita Hazhirkarzar, Pallavi Pandey, Mounes Aliyari Ghasabeh, Ankur Pandey & Ihab R. Kamel

Authors
  1. Roya Rezvani Habibabadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pegah Khoshpouri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maryam Ghadimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohammadreza Shaghaghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sanaz Ameli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bita Hazhirkarzar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Pallavi Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mounes Aliyari Ghasabeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ankur Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ihab R. Kamel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ihab R. Kamel.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Ihab R Kamel, M.D., Ph.D.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Cross-sectional study diagnostic

• Performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rezvani Habibabadi, R., Khoshpouri, P., Ghadimi, M. et al. Comparison between ROI-based and volumetric measurements in quantifying heterogeneity of liver stiffness using MR elastography. Eur Radiol 30, 1609–1615 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06478-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06478-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation