Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetic resonance elastography: beyond liver fibrosis—a case-based pictorial review

  • Pictorial essay
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) has been introduced for clinical evaluation of liver fibrosis for nearly a decade. MRE has proven to be a robust and accurate technique for diagnosis and staging of liver fibrosis. As clinical experience with MRE grows, the possible role in evaluation of other diffuse and focal disorders of liver is emerging. Stiffness maps provide an opportunity to evaluate mechanical properties within a large volume of liver tissue. This enables appreciation of spatial heterogeneity of stiffness. Stiffness maps may reveal characteristic and differentiating features of chronic liver diseases and focal liver lesions and therefore provide useful information for clinical management. The objective of this pictorial review is to recapture the essentials of MRE technique and illustrate with examples, the utility of stiffness maps in other chronic liver disorders and focal liver lesions.

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
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Venkatesh SK, Yin M, Ehman RL (2013) Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: technique, analysis, and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:544–555

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Singh S, Venkatesh SK, Wang Z, et al. (2015) Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance elastography in staging liver fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 13(440–451):e6

    Google Scholar 

  3. Singh S, Venkatesh SK, Loomba R, et al. (2016) 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 26:1431–1440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Singh S, Venkatesh SK, Keaveny A, et al. (2016) Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance elastography in liver transplant recipients: a pooled analysis. Ann Hepatol 15:363–376

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Jajamovich GH, Dyvorne H, Donnerhack C, et al. (2014) Quantitative liver MRI combining phase contrast imaging, elastography, and DWI: assessment of reproducibility and postprandial effect at 3.0 T. PLoS ONE 9:e97355

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Yasar TK, Wagner M, Bane O, et al. (2016) Interplatform reproducibility of liver and spleen stiffness measured with MR elastography. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:1064–1072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Venkatesh SK, Wang G, Lim SG, et al. (2014) Magnetic resonance elastography for the detection and staging of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B. Eur Radiol 24:70–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ichikawa S, Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, et al. (2012) Magnetic resonance elastography for staging liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Magn Reson Med Sci 11:291–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cui J, Heba E, Hernandez C, et al. (2016) Magnetic resonance elastography is superior to acoustic radiation force impulse for the Diagnosis of fibrosis in patients with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a prospective study. Hepatology 63:453–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bensamoun SF, Leclerc GE, Charleux F, et al. (2012) Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE): a non invasive technique to identify the cut-off values for alcoholic liver fibrosis. J Hepatol 56:S527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang J, Malik N, Yin M, et al. (2017) Magnetic resonance elastography is accurate in detecting advanced fibrosis in autoimmune hepatitis. World J Gastroenterol 23:859–868

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Venkatesh SK, Yin M, Ehman RL (2013) Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: clinical applications. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:887–896

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Cui J, Ang B, Haufe W, et al. (2015) Comparative diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance elastography vs. eight clinical prediction rules for non-invasive diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in biopsy-proven non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a prospective study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 41:1271–1280

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Loomba R, Sirlin CB, Ang B, et al. (2015) Ezetimibe for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: assessment by novel magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance elastography in a randomized trial (MOZART trial). Hepatology 61:1239–1250

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Venkatesh SK, Yin M, Glockner JF, et al. (2008) MR elastography of liver tumors: preliminary results. AJR 190:1534–1540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Garteiser P, Doblas S, Daire JL, et al. (2012) MR elastography of liver tumours: value of viscoelastic properties for tumour characterisation. Eur Radiol 22:2169–2177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hennedige TP, Hallinan JT, Leung FP, et al. (2016) Comparison of magnetic resonance elastography and diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating benign and malignant liver lesions. Eur Radiol 26:398–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gordic S, Ayache JB, Kennedy P, et al. (2017) Value of tumor stiffness measured with MR elastography for assessment of response of hepatocellular carcinoma to locoregional therapy. Abdom Radiol 42:1685–1694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Barr RG, Ferraioli G, Palmeri ML, et al. (2015) Elastography Assessment of liver fibrosis: society of radiologists in ultrasound consensus conference statement. Radiology 276:845–861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yin M, Venkatesh SK (2017) Ultrasound or MR elastography of liver: which one shall I use? Abdom Radiol . https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1340-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S (2001) Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med 344:495–500

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Venkatesh SK, Ehman RL (2014) Magnetic resonance elastography of abdomen. Abdominal Imaging 40:745–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Glaser KJ, Manduca A, Ehman RL (2012) Review of MR elastography applications and recent developments. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:757–774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mariappan YK, Dzyubak B, Glaser KJ, et al. (2017) Application of modified spin-echo-based sequences for hepatic MR elastography: evaluation, comparison with the conventional gradient-echo sequence, and preliminary clinical experience. Radiology 282:390–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mariappan YK, Glaser KJ, Ehman RL (2010) Magnetic resonance elastography: a review. Clin Anat 23:497–511

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Tang A, Cloutier G, Szeverenyi NM, et al. (2015) Ultrasound elastography and MR elastography for assessing liver fibrosis: part 1, principles and techniques. AJR 205:22–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Venkatesh SK, Ehman RL (2014) Magnetic resonance elastography of liver. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 22:433–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kurbel S, Sven K, Flam J, et al. (2007) Interstitial hydrostatic pressure: a manual for students. Adv Physiol Educ 31:116–117

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Standish RA, Cholongitas E, Dhillon A, et al. (2006) An appraisal of the histopathological assessment of liver fibrosis. Gut 55:569–578

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lazzarini AL, Levine RA, Ploutz-Snyder RJ, et al. (2005) Advances in digital quantification technique enhance discrimination between mild and advanced liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Liver Int 25:1142–1149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Biagini G, Ballardini G (1989) Liver fibrosis and extracellular matrix. J Hepatol 8:115–124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Singh S, Venkatesh S, Wang Z, et al. (2014) Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance elastography for the staging of liver fibrosis: a systematic review and collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 109:S144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Soloway RD, Baggenstoss AH, Schoenfield LJ, et al. (1971) Observer error and sampling variability tested in evaluation of hepatitis and cirrhosis by liver biopsy. Am J Dig Dis 16:1082–1086

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Maharaj B, Maharaj RJ, Leary WP, et al. (1986) Sampling variability and its influence on the diagnostic yield of percutaneous needle biopsy of the liver. Lancet 1:523–525

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Abdi W, Millan J, Mezey E (1979) Sampling variability on percutaneous liver biopsy. Arch Intern Med 139:667–669

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Regev A, Berho M, Jeffers LJ, et al. (2002) Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection. Am J Gastroenterol 97:2614–2618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sigrist RMS, Liau J, Kaffas AE, et al. (2017) Ultrasound elastography: review of techniques and clinical applications. Theranostics 7:1303–1329

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Loomba R, Cui J, Wolfson T, et al. (2016) Novel 3D magnetic resonance elastography for the noninvasive diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in NAFLD: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol 111:986–994

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Yin M, Glaser KJ, Manduca A, et al. (2017) Distinguishing between hepatic inflammation and fibrosis with MR elastography. Radiology 284:694–705

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Babu AS, Wells ML, Teytelboym OM, et al. (2016) Elastography in chronic liver disease: modalities, techniques, limitations, and future directions. Radiographics 36:1987–2006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wells ML, Fenstad ER, Poterucha JT, et al. (2016) Imaging findings of congestive hepatopathy. Radiographics 36:1024–1037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Morisaka H, Motosugi U, Glaser KJ, et al. (2017) Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of two- and three-dimensional MR elastography of the liver. J Magn Reson Imaging 45:1163–1170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wang J, Glaser KJ, Zhang T, et al. (2017) Assessment of advanced hepatic MR elastography methods for susceptibility artifact suppression in clinical patients. J Magn Reson Imaging . https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25818

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided by National Institutes of Health (Grant No. EB001981).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200, First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Sudhakar K. Venkatesh, Michael L. Wells & Richard L. Ehman

  2. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Frank H. Miller

  3. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Kartik S. Jhaveri

  4. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

    Alvin C. Silva

  5. NYU Medical College, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Bachir Taouli

Authors
  1. Sudhakar K. Venkatesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael L. Wells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank H. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kartik S. Jhaveri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alvin C. Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bachir Taouli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Richard L. Ehman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sudhakar K. Venkatesh.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors confirm that this article content has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

A waiver of informed consent was obtained from our institutional review board for the retrospective review of images.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Venkatesh, S.K., Wells, M.L., Miller, F.H. et al. Magnetic resonance elastography: beyond liver fibrosis—a case-based pictorial review. Abdom Radiol 43, 1590–1611 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1383-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1383-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation