4.7 Article

MR elastography of the liver at 3.0 T in diagnosing liver fibrosis grades; preliminary clinical experience

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 656-663

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3863-4

关键词

MR elastography; 3.0 T; Chronic liver disease; Fibrosis; Necroinflammation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To clarify the usefulness of 3.0-T MR elastography (MRE) in diagnosing the histological grades of liver fibrosis using preliminary clinical data. Between November 2012 and March 2014, MRE was applied to all patients who underwent liver MR study at a 3.0-T clinical unit. Among them, those who had pathological evaluation of liver tissue within 3 months from MR examinations were retrospectively recruited, and the liver stiffness measured by MRE was correlated with histological results. Institutional review board approved this study, waiving informed consent. There were 70 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Liver stiffness showed significant correlation with the pathological grades of liver fibrosis (rho = 0.89, p < 0.0001, Spearman's rank correlation). Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.93, 0.95, 0.99 and 0.95 for fibrosis score greater than or equal to F1, F2, F3 and F4, with cut-off values of 3.13, 3.85, 4.28 and 5.38 kPa, respectively. Multivariate analysis suggested that grades of necroinflammation also affected liver stiffness, but to a significantly lesser degree as compared to fibrosis. 3.0-T clinical MRE was suggested to be sufficiently useful in assessing the grades of liver fibrosis. aEuro cent MR elastography may help clinicians assess patients with chronic liver diseases aEuro cent Usefulness of 3.0-T MR elastography has rarely been reported aEuro cent Measured liver stiffness correlated well with the histological grades of liver fibrosis aEuro cent Measured liver stiffness was also affected by necroinflammation, but to a lesser degree aEuro cent 3.0-T MRE could be a non-invasive alternative to liver biopsy.

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