4.7 Article

Cross-Validation of Magnetic Resonance Elastography and Ultrasound-Based Transient Elastography: A Preliminary Phantom Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 30, Issue 5, Pages 1145-1150

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21929

Keywords

fibrosis diagnosis; phantoms; elastography; ultrasound-based elastography; magnetic resonance elastography; cross-validation

Funding

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [R01 EB001981, R01 EB001981-10] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To cross-validate two recent noninvasive elastographic techniques, ultrasound-based transient elastography (UTE) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE). As potential alternatives to liver biopsy, UTE and MRE are undergoing clinical investigations for liver fibrosis diagnosis and liver disease management around the world. These two techniques use tissue stiffness as a marker for disease state and it is important to do a cross-validation study of both elastographic techniques to determine the consistency with which the two techniques can measure the mechanical properties of materials. Materials and Methods: In this study, 19 well-characterized phantoms with a range of stiffness values were measured by two clinical devices (a Fibroscan and an MRE system based respectively on the UTE and MRE techniques) successively with the operators double-blinded. Results: Statistical analysis showed that the correlation coefficient was r(2) = 0.93 between MRE and UTE, and there was no evidence of a systematic difference between them within the range of stiffnesses examined. Conclusion: These two noninvasive methods, MIZE and UTE, provide clinicians with important new options for improving patient care regarding liver diseases in terms of the diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of fibrosis progression, as well for evaluating the efficacy of treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available