4.7 Article

Necro-inflammatory activity grading in chronic viral hepatitis with three-dimensional multifrequency MR elastography

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-98726-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. France Life Imaging network [ANR-11-INBS-0006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of multifrequency MR elastography in grading necro-inflammation in the liver. The multifrequency dispersion coefficient was found to be the most accurate in assessing necro-inflammatory activity, while the storage modulus was suitable for evaluating fibrosis.
The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic value of multifrequency MR elastography for grading necro-inflammation in the liver. Fifty participants with chronic hepatitis B or C were recruited for this institutional review board-approved study. Their liver was examined with multifrequency MR elastography. The storage, shear and loss moduli, and the damping ratio were measured at 56 Hz. The multifrequency wave dispersion coefficient of the shear modulus was calculated. The measurements were compared to reference markers of necro-inflammation and fibrosis with Spearman correlations and multiple regression analysis. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed. At multiple regression analysis, necro-inflammation was the only determinant of the multifrequency dispersion coefficient, whereas fibrosis was the only determinant of the storage, loss and shear moduli. The multifrequency dispersion coefficient had the largest AUC for necro-inflammatory activity A >= 2 [0.84 (0.71-0.93) vs. storage modulus AUC: 0.65 (0.50-0.79), p = 0.03], whereas the storage modulus had the largest AUC for fibrosis F >= 2 [AUC (95% confidence intervals) 0.91 (0.79-0.98)] and cirrhosis F4 [0.97 (0.88-1.00)]. The measurement of the multifrequency dispersion coefficient at three-dimensional MR elastography has the potential to grade liver necro-inflammation in patients with chronic vial hepatitis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据