The spectrum of magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF), magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), and two different histopathologic methods (artificial intelligence vs. pathologist) in quantifying hepatic steatosis

BACKGROUND: The grade of hepatic steatosis is assessed semi-quantitatively and graded as a discrete value. However, the proton density fat fraction (PDFF) measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and FF measured by MR spectroscopy (FF(MRS)) are continuous values. Therefore, a quantitative histopathologic method may be needed. This study aimed to (I) provide a spectrum of values of MRI-PDFF, FF(MRS), and FFs measured by two different histopathologic methods [artificial intelligence (AI) and pathologist], (II) to evaluate the correlation among them, and (III) to evaluate the diagnostic performance of MRI-PDFF and MRS for grading hepatic steatosis. METHODS: Forty-seven patients who underwent liver biopsy and MRI for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) evaluation were included. The agreement between MRI-PDFF and MRS was evaluated through Bland-Altman analysis. Correlations among MRI-PDFF, MRS, and two different histopathologic methods were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient (r). The diagnostic performance of MRI-PDFF and MRS was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve analyses and the area under the curve (AUC) were obtained. RESULTS: The means±standard deviation of MRI-PDFF, FF(MRS), FF measured by pathologist (FF(pathologist)), and FF measured by AI (FF(AI)) were 12.04±6.37, 14.01±6.16, 34.26±19.69, and 6.79±4.37 (%), respectively. Bland-Altman bias [mean of MRS – (MRI-PDFF) differences] was 2.06%. MRI-PDFF and MRS had a very strong correlation (r=0.983, P<0.001). The two different histopathologic methods also showed a very strong correlation (r=0.872, P<0.001). Both MRI-PDFF and MRS demonstrated a strong correlation with FF(pathologist) (r=0.701, P<0.001 and r=0.709, P<0.001, respectively) and with FF(AI) (r=0.700, P<0.001 and r=0.690, P<0.001, respectively). The AUCs of MRI-PDFF for grading ≥S2 and ≥S3 were 0.846 and 0.855, respectively. The AUCs of MRS for grading ≥S2 and ≥S3 were 0.860 and 0.878, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Since MRS and MRI-PDFF demonstrated a strong correlation with each other and with the two different histopathologic methods, they can be used as an alternative noninvasive reference standard in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) patients. However, these preliminary results should be interpreted with caution until they are validated in further studies.