Cargando…
Head-to-head comparison of magnetic resonance elastography-based liver stiffness, fat fraction, and T1 relaxation time in identifying at-risk NASH
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The presence of at-risk NASH is associated with an increased risk of cirrhosis and complications. Therefore, noninvasive identification of at-risk NASH with an accurate biomarker is a critical need for pharmacologic therapy. We aim to explore the performance of several magnetic...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10521779/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37080558 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HEP.0000000000000417 |
_version_ | 1785110210416738304 |
---|---|
author | Li, Jiahui Lu, Xin Zhu, Zheng Kalutkiewicz, Kyle J. Mounajjed, Taofic Therneau, Terry M. Venkatesh, Sudhakar K. Sui, Yi Glaser, Kevin J. Hoodeshenas, Safa Manduca, Armando Shah, Vijay H. Ehman, Richard L. Allen, Alina M. Yin, Meng |
author_facet | Li, Jiahui Lu, Xin Zhu, Zheng Kalutkiewicz, Kyle J. Mounajjed, Taofic Therneau, Terry M. Venkatesh, Sudhakar K. Sui, Yi Glaser, Kevin J. Hoodeshenas, Safa Manduca, Armando Shah, Vijay H. Ehman, Richard L. Allen, Alina M. Yin, Meng |
author_sort | Li, Jiahui |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The presence of at-risk NASH is associated with an increased risk of cirrhosis and complications. Therefore, noninvasive identification of at-risk NASH with an accurate biomarker is a critical need for pharmacologic therapy. We aim to explore the performance of several magnetic resonance (MR)-based imaging parameters in diagnosing at-risk NASH. APPROACH AND RESULTS: This prospective clinical trial (NCT02565446) includes 104 paired MR examinations and liver biopsies performed in patients with suspected or diagnosed NAFLD. Magnetic resonance elastography-assessed liver stiffness (LS), 6-point Dixon-derived proton density fat fraction (PDFF), and single-point saturation-recovery acquisition-calculated T1 relaxation time were explored. Among all predictors, LS showed the significantly highest accuracy in diagnosing at-risk NASH [AUC(LS): 0.89 (0.82, 0.95), AUC(PDFF): 0.70 (0.58, 0.81), AUC(T1): 0.72 (0.61, 0.82), z-score test z >1.96 for LS vs any of others]. The optimal cutoff value of LS to identify at-risk NASH patients was 3.3 kPa (sensitivity: 79%, specificity: 82%, negative predictive value: 91%), whereas the optimal cutoff value of T1 was 850 ms (sensitivity: 75%, specificity: 63%, and negative predictive value: 87%). PDFF had the highest performance in diagnosing NASH with any fibrosis stage [AUC(PDFF): 0.82 (0.72, 0.91), AUC(LS): 0.73 (0.63, 0.84), AUC(T1): 0.72 (0.61, 0.83), |z| <1.96 for all]. CONCLUSION: Magnetic resonance elastography-assessed LS alone outperformed PDFF, and T1 in identifying patients with at-risk NASH for therapeutic trials. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10521779 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105217792023-09-27 Head-to-head comparison of magnetic resonance elastography-based liver stiffness, fat fraction, and T1 relaxation time in identifying at-risk NASH Li, Jiahui Lu, Xin Zhu, Zheng Kalutkiewicz, Kyle J. Mounajjed, Taofic Therneau, Terry M. Venkatesh, Sudhakar K. Sui, Yi Glaser, Kevin J. Hoodeshenas, Safa Manduca, Armando Shah, Vijay H. Ehman, Richard L. Allen, Alina M. Yin, Meng Hepatology Original Articles: Steatohepatitis BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The presence of at-risk NASH is associated with an increased risk of cirrhosis and complications. Therefore, noninvasive identification of at-risk NASH with an accurate biomarker is a critical need for pharmacologic therapy. We aim to explore the performance of several magnetic resonance (MR)-based imaging parameters in diagnosing at-risk NASH. APPROACH AND RESULTS: This prospective clinical trial (NCT02565446) includes 104 paired MR examinations and liver biopsies performed in patients with suspected or diagnosed NAFLD. Magnetic resonance elastography-assessed liver stiffness (LS), 6-point Dixon-derived proton density fat fraction (PDFF), and single-point saturation-recovery acquisition-calculated T1 relaxation time were explored. Among all predictors, LS showed the significantly highest accuracy in diagnosing at-risk NASH [AUC(LS): 0.89 (0.82, 0.95), AUC(PDFF): 0.70 (0.58, 0.81), AUC(T1): 0.72 (0.61, 0.82), z-score test z >1.96 for LS vs any of others]. The optimal cutoff value of LS to identify at-risk NASH patients was 3.3 kPa (sensitivity: 79%, specificity: 82%, negative predictive value: 91%), whereas the optimal cutoff value of T1 was 850 ms (sensitivity: 75%, specificity: 63%, and negative predictive value: 87%). PDFF had the highest performance in diagnosing NASH with any fibrosis stage [AUC(PDFF): 0.82 (0.72, 0.91), AUC(LS): 0.73 (0.63, 0.84), AUC(T1): 0.72 (0.61, 0.83), |z| <1.96 for all]. CONCLUSION: Magnetic resonance elastography-assessed LS alone outperformed PDFF, and T1 in identifying patients with at-risk NASH for therapeutic trials. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023-10 2023-05-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10521779/ /pubmed/37080558 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HEP.0000000000000417 Text en Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) |
spellingShingle | Original Articles: Steatohepatitis Li, Jiahui Lu, Xin Zhu, Zheng Kalutkiewicz, Kyle J. Mounajjed, Taofic Therneau, Terry M. Venkatesh, Sudhakar K. Sui, Yi Glaser, Kevin J. Hoodeshenas, Safa Manduca, Armando Shah, Vijay H. Ehman, Richard L. Allen, Alina M. Yin, Meng Head-to-head comparison of magnetic resonance elastography-based liver stiffness, fat fraction, and T1 relaxation time in identifying at-risk NASH |
title | Head-to-head comparison of magnetic resonance elastography-based liver stiffness, fat fraction, and T1 relaxation time in identifying at-risk NASH |
title_full | Head-to-head comparison of magnetic resonance elastography-based liver stiffness, fat fraction, and T1 relaxation time in identifying at-risk NASH |
title_fullStr | Head-to-head comparison of magnetic resonance elastography-based liver stiffness, fat fraction, and T1 relaxation time in identifying at-risk NASH |
title_full_unstemmed | Head-to-head comparison of magnetic resonance elastography-based liver stiffness, fat fraction, and T1 relaxation time in identifying at-risk NASH |
title_short | Head-to-head comparison of magnetic resonance elastography-based liver stiffness, fat fraction, and T1 relaxation time in identifying at-risk NASH |
title_sort | head-to-head comparison of magnetic resonance elastography-based liver stiffness, fat fraction, and t1 relaxation time in identifying at-risk nash |
topic | Original Articles: Steatohepatitis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10521779/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37080558 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HEP.0000000000000417 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lijiahui headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash AT luxin headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash AT zhuzheng headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash AT kalutkiewiczkylej headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash AT mounajjedtaofic headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash AT therneauterrym headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash AT venkateshsudhakark headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash AT suiyi headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash AT glaserkevinj headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash AT hoodeshenassafa headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash AT manducaarmando headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash AT shahvijayh headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash AT ehmanrichardl headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash AT allenalinam headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash AT yinmeng headtoheadcomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographybasedliverstiffnessfatfractionandt1relaxationtimeinidentifyingatrisknash |