4.7 Article

Liver Fibrosis in Viral Hepatitis: Noninvasive Assessment with Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse Imaging versus Transient Elastography

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 252, Issue 2, Pages 595-604

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2523081928

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compare, in a pilot study, acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging technology integrated into a conventional ultrasonography (US) system with both transient elastography (TE) and serologic fibrosis marker testing for the noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis. Materials and Methods: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects, and the local ethics committee approved the study. ARFI imaging involved the mechanical excitation of tissue with use of short-duration acoustic pulses to generate localized displacements in tissue. The displacements resulted in shearwave propagation, which was tracked by using US correlation-based methods and recorded in meters per second. Eighty-six patients with chronic viral hepatitis underwent TE, ARFI imaging, and serum fibrosis marker testing. Results were compared with liver biopsy findings, which served as the reference standard. Results: ARFI imaging (rho = 0.71), TE (rho = 0.73), and serum fibrosis marker test (rho = 0.66) results correlated significantly with histologic fibrosis stage (P < .001). Median ARFI velocities ranged from 0.84 to 3.83 m/sec. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the accuracy of ARFI imaging, TE, and serum fibrosis marker testing were 0.82, 0.84, and 0.82, respectively, for the diagnosis of moderate fibrosis (histologic fibrosis stage, >= 2) and 0.91, 0.91, and 0.82, respectively, for the diagnosis of cirrhosis. Conclusion: ARFI imaging is a promising US-based method for assessing liver fibrosis in chronic viral hepatitis, with diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of TE in this preliminary study. (c) RSNA, 2009

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