Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intra-patient comparison of 3D and 2D magnetic resonance elastography techniques for assessment of liver stiffness

  • Hepatobiliary
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate performance of 3D magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) using spin-echo echo-planar imaging (seEPI) for assessment of hepatic stiffness compared with 2D gradient-recalled echo (GRE) and 2D seEPI sequences.

Methods

Fifty-seven liver MRE examinations including 2D GRE, 2D seEPI, and 3D seEPI sequences were retrospectively evaluated. Elastograms were analyzed by 2 radiologists and polygonal regions of interests (ROIs) were drawn in 2 different fashions: “curated” ROI (avoiding liver edge, major vessels, and areas of wave interferences) and “non-curated” ROI (including largest cross section of liver, to assess the contribution of artifacts). Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) was calculated as the arithmetic mean of individual stiffness values for each technique. For 3D MRE, LSMs were also calculated based on 4 slices (“abbreviated LSM”). Intra-patient variations in LSMs and different methods of ROI placement were assessed by univariate tests. A p-value of < 0.05 was set as a statistically significant difference.

Results

Mean surface areas of the ROIs were 50,723 mm2, 12,669 mm2, 5814 mm2, and 10,642 mm2 for 3D MRE, abbreviated 3D MRE, 2D GRE, and 2D seEPI, respectively. 3D LSMs based on curated and non-curated ROIs showed no clinically significant difference, with a mean difference less than 0.1 kPa. Abbreviated 3D LSMs had excellent correlation with 3D LSMs based on all slices (r = 0.9; p < 0.001) and were not significantly different (p = 0.927).

Conclusion

3D MRE allows more reproducible measurements due to its lower susceptibility to artifacts and provides larger areas of parenchyma, enabling a more comprehensive evaluation of the liver.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data and materials support our published claims and comply with field standards.

Code availability

N/A.

References

  1. Paik JM, Golabi P, Younossi Y, Mishra A, Younossi ZM. Changes in the Global Burden of Chronic Liver Diseases From 2012 to 2017: The Growing Impact of NAFLD. Hepatology. 2020;72(5):1605-16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aguilar M, Bhuket T, Torres S, Liu B, Wong RJ. Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in the United States, 2003-2012. JAMA. 2015;313(19):1973-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Shiha G, Ibrahim A, Helmy A, Sarin SK, Omata M, Kumar A, et al. Asian-Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) consensus guidelines on invasive and non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis: a 2016 update. Hepatol Int. 2017;11(1):1-30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dulai PS, Singh S, Patel J, Soni M, Prokop LJ, Younossi Z, et al. Increased risk of mortality by fibrosis stage in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatology. 2017;65(5):1557-65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Innes H, Morling JR, Aspinall EA, Goldberg DJ, Hutchinson SJ, Guha IN. Late diagnosis of chronic liver disease in a community cohort (UK biobank): determinants and impact on subsequent survival. Public Health. 2020;187:165-71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Campana L, Iredale JP. Regression of Liver Fibrosis. Semin Liver Dis. 2017;37(1):1-10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Marcellin P, Gane E, Buti M, Afdhal N, Sievert W, Jacobson IM, et al. Regression of cirrhosis during treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for chronic hepatitis B: a 5-year open-label follow-up study. Lancet. 2013;381(9865):468-75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Martinez SM, Foucher J, Combis JM, Metivier S, Brunetto M, Capron D, et al. Longitudinal liver stiffness assessment in patients with chronic hepatitis C undergoing antiviral therapy. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47715.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gidener T, Ahmed OT, Larson JJ, Mara KC, Therneau TM, Venkatesh SK, et al. Liver Stiffness by Magnetic Resonance Elastography Predicts Future Cirrhosis, Decompensation, and Death in NAFLD. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(9):1915-24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mathew RP, Venkatesh SK. Imaging of Hepatic Fibrosis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2018;20(10):45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Singh S, Venkatesh SK, Loomba R, Wang Z, Sirlin C, Chen J, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography for staging liver fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a diagnostic accuracy systematic review and individual participant data pooled analysis. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(5):1431-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Furlan A, Tublin ME, Yu L, Chopra KB, Lippello A, Behari J. Comparison of 2D Shear Wave Elastography, Transient Elastography, and MR Elastography for the Diagnosis of Fibrosis in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;214(1):W20-W6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Li J, Venkatesh SK, Yin M. Advances in Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Liver. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2020;28(3):331-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moura Cunha G, Navin PJ, Fowler KJ, Venkatesh SK, Ehman RL, Sirlin CB. Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging for chronic liver disease. Br J Radiol. 2021; doi: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20201377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoodeshenas S, Yin M, Venkatesh SK. Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Liver: Current Update. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;27(5):319-33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/RMR.0000000000000177.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Idilman IS, Li J, Yin M, Venkatesh SK. MR elastography of liver: current status and future perspectives. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020;45(11):3444-62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yin M, Glaser KJ, Talwalkar JA, Chen J, Manduca A, Ehman RL. Hepatic MR Elastography: Clinical Performance in a Series of 1377 Consecutive Examinations. Radiology. 2016;278(1):114-24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wagner M, Besa C, Bou Ayache J, Yasar TK, Bane O, Fung M, et al. Magnetic Resonance Elastography of the Liver: Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison of Gradient Echo and Spin Echo Echoplanar Imaging Sequences. Invest Radiol. 2016;51(9):575-81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Morisaka H, Motosugi U, Glaser KJ, Ichikawa S, Ehman RL, Sano K, et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of two- and three-dimensional MR elastography of the liver. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;45(4):1163-70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25425.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Loomba R, Cui J, Wolfson T, Haufe W, Hooker J, Szeverenyi N, et al. Novel 3D Magnetic Resonance Elastography for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Advanced Fibrosis in NAFLD: A Prospective Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(7):986-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2016.65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang K, Manning P, Szeverenyi N, Wolfson T, Hamilton G, Middleton MS, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of 2D and 3D hepatic MR elastography with rigid and flexible drivers at end-expiration and end-inspiration in healthy volunteers. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017;42(12):2843-54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1206-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Venkatesh SK, Wells ML, Miller FH, Jhaveri KS, Silva AC, Taouli B, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography: beyond liver fibrosis-a case-based pictorial review. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018;43(7):1590-611. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1383-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. RSNA Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance. Magnetic Resonance Elastography of the Liver: Stage 2—Consensus profile. Published May 2, 2018. Available from: https://qibawiki.rsna.org/images/a/a5/MRE-QIBAProfile-2018-05-02-CONSENSUS.pdf. Accessed November 15, 2021

  24. Venkatesh SK, Ehman RL. Magnetic resonance elastography of liver. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2014;22(3):433-46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2014.05.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Allen AM, Shah VH, Therneau TM, Venkatesh SK, Mounajjed T, Larson JJ, et al. The Role of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Elastography in the Diagnosis of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis in Obese Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery. Hepatology. 2020;71(2):510-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.30483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dzyubak B, Venkatesh SK, Manduca A, Glaser KJ, Ehman RL. Automated liver elasticity calculation for MR elastography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;43(5):1055-63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dillman JR, Franck MD, Gandhi D, Pednekar AS, Tkach JA, Trout AT. Agreement Between Automated and Clinically-Reported Manual ROIBased MR Elastography Liver Stiffness Measurements in Children and Young Adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.21.26423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Serai SD, Dillman JR, Trout AT. Spin-echo Echo-planar Imaging MR Elastography versus Gradient-echo MR Elastography for Assessment of Liver Stiffness in Children and Young Adults Suspected of Having Liver Disease. Radiology. 2017;282(3):761-70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim YS, Jang YN, Song JS. Comparison of gradient-recalled echo and spin-echo echo-planar imaging MR elastography in staging liver fibrosis: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(4):1709-18.. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5149-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wagner M, Corcuera-Solano I, Lo G, Esses S, Liao J, Besa C, et al. Technical Failure of MR Elastography Examinations of the Liver: Experience from a Large Single-Center Study. Radiology. 2017;284(2):401-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016160863.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Huwart L, Salameh N, ter Beek L, Vicaut E, Peeters F, Sinkus R, et al. MR elastography of liver fibrosis: preliminary results comparing spin-echo and echo-planar imaging. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(11):2535-41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yoshimitsu K, Mitsufuji T, Shinagawa Y, Fujimitsu R, Morita A, Urakawa H, et al. MR elastography of the liver at 3.0 T in diagnosing liver fibrosis grades; preliminary clinical experience. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(3):656-63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang J, Glaser KJ, Zhang T, Shan Q, He B, Chen J, et al. Assessment of advanced hepatic MR elastography methods for susceptibility artifact suppression in clinical patients. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;47(4):976-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25818.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Singh S, Venkatesh SK, Wang Z, Miller FH, Motosugi U, Low RN, et al. Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance elastography in staging liver fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(3):440-51 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2014.09.046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Roger C. Grimm from Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester (MN)

Funding

N/A.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 N. Saint Clair Street, Suite 800, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Roberta Catania, Camila Lopes Vendrami, Richard Niemzcura, Amir A. Borhani & Frank H. Miller

  2. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Bradley D. Bolster

Authors
  1. Roberta Catania
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Camila Lopes Vendrami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bradley D. Bolster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard Niemzcura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amir A. Borhani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Frank H. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberta Catania.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Roberta Catania and Amir A. Borhani received Institutional Research Grant from Siemens.

Ethical approval

Waived by our institutional review board due to retrospective design.

Consent to participate

N/A

Consent for publication

N/A

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Catania, R., Lopes Vendrami, C., Bolster, B.D. et al. Intra-patient comparison of 3D and 2D magnetic resonance elastography techniques for assessment of liver stiffness. Abdom Radiol 47, 998–1008 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03355-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03355-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation