Noninvasive assessment of hepatic steatosis using a pathologic reference standard: comparison of CT, MRI, and US-based techniques

30Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: The present study compared the performance of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging-derived proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF), controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), grayscale ultrasonography (US), and attenuation imaging (ATI) for the diagnosis of hepatic steatosis (HS). Methods: In total, 120 prospectively recruited patients who underwent hepatic resection between June 2018 and June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. CT, MRI-PDFF, CAP, grayscale US, and ATI were performed within 3 months before surgery. Diagnostic performance for HS ≥5% and HS >33% was compared using the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves. Histopathologic examinations served as the reference standard for the degree of HS. Results: For detecting HS ≥5%, MRI-PDFF (AUC, 0.946) significantly outperformed CT, CAP and grayscale US (AUC, 0.807, 0.829, and 0.761, respectively) (P<0.01 for all). ATI (AUC, 0.892) was the second-best modality and significantly outperformed grayscale US (P=0.001). In pairwise comparisons, there were no significant differences between the AUC of ATI and the values of MRI-PDFF, CT, or CAP (P=0.133, P=0.063, and P=0.150, respectively). For detecting HS >33%, all the modalities provided good diagnostic performance without significant differences (AUC, 0.887-0.947; P>0.05 for all). Conclusion: For detecting HS ≥5%, MRI-PDFF was the best imaging modality, while ATI outperformed grayscale US. For detecting HS >33%, all five imaging tools demonstrated good diagnostic performance.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bae, J. S., Lee, D. H., Suh, K. S., Kim, H., Lee, K. B., Lee, J. Y., & Han, J. K. (2022). Noninvasive assessment of hepatic steatosis using a pathologic reference standard: comparison of CT, MRI, and US-based techniques. Ultrasonography, 41(2), 344–354. https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.21150

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free