Exploring the impact of excluding intrahepatic segmental vessels on liver stiffness measurement and advanced fibrosis diagnosis using magnetic resonance elastography

Abstract

Background

The impact of excluding intrahepatic segmental vessels from regions of interest (ROIs) on liver stiffness measurement (LSM) via magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) remains uncertain.

Purpose

To determine the effect of excluding intrahepatic segmental vessels from ROIs on LSM obtained from MRE.

Material and Methods

This retrospective analysis included 95 participants who underwent successful two-dimensional gradient recalled-echo MRE before hepatic tumor resection (n = 49) or living liver donation (n = 46). The conventional LSM was determined by manually drawing ROIs on the elastogram within the 95% confidence region, staying 1 cm within the liver capsule and excluding large hilar vessels, the gallbladder, hepatic lesions, and artifacts. In addition, the modified LSM was determined by excluding intrahepatic segmental vessels. LSMs obtained by the two methods were compared with paired sample signed-rank test. Diagnostic performance for advanced fibrosis was calculated and compared using McNemar's test and Delong's test. The stage of hepatic fibrosis was assessed using surgical specimens by the METAVIR system.

Results

The modified LSM was larger than the conventional LSM (2.4 kPa vs. 2.2 kPa in reader 1; 2.7 kPa vs. 2.4 kPa in reader 2; P < 0.001). The modified LSM showed superior sensitivity (0.841 vs. 0.659 in reader 1; 0.864 vs. 0.705 in reader 2; P < 0.05) and area under the curve (0.901 vs. 0.820 in reader 1; 0.912 vs. 0.843 in reader 2; P < 0.05) for detecting advanced fibrosis (≥F3) than conventional LSM.

Conclusion

The exclusion of intrahepatic segmental vessels from ROIs in MRE affected the LSM and enhanced diagnostic performance for advanced fibrosis.

Keywords

Elasticity imaging techniques magnetic resonance imaging hepatic fibrosis liver cirrhosis region of interest

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kim

Brown

Jr Terrault

, et al. Burden of liver disease in the United States: summary of a workshop. Hepatology 2002;36:227–242.

Ghany

Morgan

Panel

A-IHCG

. Hepatitis C guidance 2019 update: American association for the study of liver diseases-Infectious Diseases Society of America recommendations for testing, managing, and treating hepatitis C virus infection. Hepatology 2020;71:686–721.

Poynard

Bedossa

Opolon

. Natural history of liver fibrosis progression in patients with chronic hepatitis C. The OBSVIRC, METAVIR, CLINIVIR, and DOSVIRC groups. Lancet 1997;349:825–832.

Tsochatzis

Bosch

Burroughs

. Liver cirrhosis. Lancet 2014;383:1749–1761.

Setiawan

Stram

Porcel

, et al. Prevalence of chronic liver disease and cirrhosis by underlying cause in understudied ethnic groups: the multiethnic cohort. Hepatology 2016;64:1969–1977.

D'Ambrosio

Aghemo

Rumi

, et al. A morphometric and immunohistochemical study to assess the benefit of a sustained virological response in hepatitis C virus patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology 2012;56:532–543.

Marcellin

Gane

Buti

, et al. Regression of cirrhosis during treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for chronic hepatitis B: a 5-year open-label follow-up study. Lancet 2013;381:468–475.

Castera

. Noninvasive methods to assess liver disease in patients with hepatitis B or C. Gastroenterology 2012;142:1293–1302.e1294.

Venkatesh

Yin

Ehman

. Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: technique, analysis, and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;37:544–555.

10.

Petitclerc

Sebastiani

Gilbert

, et al. Liver fibrosis: review of current imaging and MRI quantification techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;45:1276–1295.

11.

Regev

Berho

Jeffers

, et al. Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:2614–2618.

12.

Lee

Han

, et al. MR elastography of healthy liver parenchyma: normal value and reliability of the liver stiffness value measurement. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;38:1215–1223.

13.

Cogneau

Cho

Lucidarme

, et al.

Do regions of interest location and type influence liver stiffness measurement using magnetic resonance elastography?

Diagn Interv Imaging 2019;100:363–370.

14.

Rusak

Zawada

Lemanowicz

, et al. Whole-organ and segmental stiffness measured with liver magnetic resonance elastography in healthy adults: significance of the region of interest. Abdom Imaging 2015;40:776–782.

15.

QIBA MR Biomarker Committee. MR Elastography of the Liver, Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance. Profile Stage: Technically Confirmed. February 14, 2022. Available at: http://qibawiki.rsna.org/images/5/54/MRE-QIBAProfile-2022-02-14-TECHNICALLY-CONFIRMED.pdf (accessed 1 November 2023).

16.

Chang

Lee

Yoon

, et al. Liver fibrosis staging with MR elastography: comparison of diagnostic performance between patients with chronic hepatitis B and those with other etiologic causes. Radiology 2016;280:88–97.

17.

Guglielmo

Venkatesh

Mitchell

. Liver MR elastography technique and image interpretation: pearls and pitfalls. Radiographics 2019;39:1983–2002.

18.

Group

TFMCS

. Intraobserver and interobserver variations in liver biopsy interpretation in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 1994;20:15–20.

19.

Morisaka

Motosugi

Ichikawa

, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography is as accurate as liver biopsy for liver fibrosis staging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;47:1268–1275.

20.

Altamirano-Barrera

Barranco-Fragoso

Mendez-Sanchez

. Management strategies for liver fibrosis. Ann Hepatol 2017;16:48–56.

21.

Rezvani Habibabadi

Khoshpouri

Ghadimi

, et al. Comparison between ROI-based and volumetric measurements in quantifying heterogeneity of liver stiffness using MR elastography. Eur Radiol 2020;30:1609–1615.

22.

Dzyubak

Venkatesh

Manduca

, et al. Automated liver elasticity calculation for MR elastography. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;43:1055–1063.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB