4.5 Article

MR elastography is effective for the non-invasive evaluation of fibrosis and necroinflammatory activity in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 98, 期 -, 页码 82-89

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.003

关键词

Magnetic resonance elastography; Liver fibrosis; Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; Hepatic steatosis; Steatohepatitis

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)
  2. Instituto Hermes Pardini

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To evaluate the performance of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in diagnosing and staging hepatic fibrosis in patients with histologically confirmed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and in distinguishing simple steatosis from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Methods: Ninety subjects (49 NAFLD patients and 41 healthy volunteers) were prospectively enrolled. Liver stiffness measured by MRE was correlated with the grade of fibrosis and/or inflammation determined by liver biopsy. Correlations, ROC (receiver operator characteristic) curves and diagnostic performance were evaluated. The study was approved by the local ethics committee. Results: The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of MRE in discriminating healthy from NAFLD individuals was 0.964 (P < 0.0001), and that for distinguishing advanced (F3-F4) from absent/mild fibrosis (F0-F2) was 0.928 (P < 0.0001). The use of a threshold > 4.39 kPa resulted in a sensitivity of 90.9% and a specificity of 97.3% for diagnosing advanced fibrosis. For discriminating NASH from simple steatosis, the AUROC was 0.783 (P < 0.0001), and the threshold, 3.22 kPa. Conclusions: MRE is an effective, non-invasive method for detecting/staging hepatic fibrosis in NAFLD. This method has good performance in discriminating normal from NAFLD subjects and between the extreme grades of fibrosis. NAFLD patients with inflammation and without fibrosis have higher liver stiffness than those with simple steatosis.

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

4.5
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