Cargando…

Alcoholic vs. Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis: Vascular Branching Heterogeneity on Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Diagnostic Marker

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Distinguishing alcoholic steatohepatitis (ASH) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with biopsy alone is often difficult without a reliable clinical context. A novel finding on liver imaging, perivascular branching heterogeneity, has shown promise in distinguishing between th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Garrido, Daniel, Noverati, Nicholas, Robbins, Justin, Dave, Jaydev K., Naringrekar, Haresh, Mitchell, Donald G., Marzio, Dina Halegoua-De
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: XIA & HE Publishing Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10037508/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36969887
http://dx.doi.org/10.14218/JCTH.2022.00279
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Distinguishing alcoholic steatohepatitis (ASH) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with biopsy alone is often difficult without a reliable clinical context. A novel finding on liver imaging, perivascular branching heterogeneity, has shown promise in distinguishing between these chronic liver diseases. Our study investigated the role of this finding on imaging to differentiate between ASH and NASH. The aim of this study was to determine the utility and reproducibility of this novel radiographic marker to help distinguish ASH from NASH. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted between 2016 and 2020 in patients with both liver biopsy-confirmed steatohepatitis/chronic hepatitis and abdominal magnetic resonance imaging within 13 months of each other. Two radiologists, blinded to patient clinical history and diagnosis, categorized the appearance of the liver as: 1- homogeneity, 2- mild heterogeneity, 3- moderate heterogeneity, 4- possible perivascular branching, 5- definite perivascular branching. RESULTS: Of the 90 patients in the study, 60 were identified as NASH and 30 as ASH. The area under the curve (AUC) for both reader 1 and 2 when using the 5-point scale was 0.69 (CI: 0.56–0.82, p=0.006) and 0.72 (CI: 0.60–0.85, p=0.001), respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) for identification of ASH when scoring 5 was 64.7% and 66.7% for reader 1 and 2, respectively. Interclass correlation coefficient was 0.74 in patients with ASH, indicating moderate reliability among both readers. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of this perivascular branching pattern on imaging is a promising novel diagnostic marker that can be used with other methods to help distinguish between ASH and NASH.