4.5 Article

Which are the cut-off values of 2D-Shear Wave Elastography (2D-SWE) liver stiffness measurements predicting different stages of liver fibrosis, considering Transient Elastography (TE) as the reference method?

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 83, Issue 3, Pages E118-E122

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.12.011

Keywords

Liver stiffness; Transient Elastography; Shear Waves Elastography; Liver fibrosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: To identify liver stiffness (LS) cut-off values assessed by means of 2D-Shear Wave Elastography (2D-SWE) for predicting different stages of liver fibrosis, considering Transient Elastography (TE) as the reference method. Methods: Our prospective study included 383 consecutive subjects, with or without hepatopathies, in which LS was evaluated by means of TE and 2D-SWE. To discriminate between various stages of fibrosis by TE we used the following LS cut-offs (kPa): F1-6, F2-7.2, F3-9.6 and F4-14.5. Results: The rate of reliable LS measurements was similar for TE and 2D-SWE: 73.9% vs. 79.9%, p = 0.06. Older age and higher BMI were associated for both TE and 2D-SWE with the impossibility to obtain reliable LS measurements. Reliable LS measurements by both elastographic methods were obtained in 65.2% of patients. A significant correlation was found between TE and 2D-SWE measurements (r = 0.68). The best LS cut-off values assessed by 2D-SWE for predicting different stages of liver fibrosis were: F >= 1: >7.1 kPa (AUROC = 0.825); F >= 2: >7.8 kPa (AUROC = 0.859); F >= 3: > 8 kPa (AUROC = 0.897) and for F = 4: >11.5 kPa (AUROC = 0.914). Conclusions: 2D-SWE is a reliable method for the non-invasive evaluation of liver fibrosis, considering TE as the reference method. The accuracy of 2D-SWE measurements increased with the severity of liver fibrosis. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available