Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 19, Issue 8, pp 1991–1997 | Cite as

Liver fibrosis staging with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography: prospective multicenter study compared with METAVIR scoring

  • F. StaubEmail author
  • C. Tournoux-Facon
  • J. Roumy
  • C. Chaigneau
  • M. Morichaut-Beauchant
  • P. Levillain
  • C. Prevost
  • C. Aubé
  • J. Lebigot
  • F. Oberti
  • J. B. Galtier
  • H. Laumonier
  • H. Trillaud
  • P. H. Bernard
  • J. F. Blanc
  • S. Sironneau
  • F. Machet
  • J. Drouillard
  • V. de Ledinghen
  • P. Couzigou
  • P. Foucher
  • L. Castéra
  • F. Tranquard
  • Y. Bacq
  • L. d’Altéroche
  • P. Ingrand
  • J. P. Tasu
Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Abstract

We prospectively assessed contrast-enhanced sonography for evaluating the degree of liver fibrosis as diagnosed via biopsy in 99 patients. The transit time of microbubbles between the portal and hepatic veins was calculated from the difference between the arrival time of the microbubbles in each vein. Liver biopsy was obtained for each patient within 6 months of the contrast-enhanced sonography. Histological fibrosis was categorized into two classes: (1) no or moderate fibrosis (F0, F1, and F2 according to the METAVIR staging) or (2) severe fibrosis (F3 and F4). At a cutoff of 13 s for the transit time, the diagnosis of severe fibrosis was made with a specificity of 78.57%, a sensitivity of 78.95%, a positive predictive value of 78.33%, a negative predictive value of 83.33%, and a performance accuracy of 78.79%. Therefore, contrast-enhanced ultrasound can help with differentiation between moderate and severe fibrosis.

Keywords

Liver Fibrosis Transit time Contrast-enhanced sonography 

References

  1. 1.
    Friedman SL (2004) Mechanisms of disease: mechanisms of hepatic fibrosis and therapeutic implications. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 1:98–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blanc JF, Bioulac-Sage P, Balabaud C et al (2005) Investigation of liver fibrosis in clinical practice. Hepatol Res 32:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blomley MJ, Lim AK, Harvey CJ et al (2003) Liver microbubble transit time compared with histology and Child-Pugh score in diffuse liver disease: a cross sectional study. Gut 52:1188–1193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lim AK, Taylor-Robinson SD, Patel N et al (2005) Hepatic vein transit times using a microbubble agent can predict disease severity non-invasively in patients with hepatitis C. Gut 54:128–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hashimoto K, Murakami T, Dono K et al (2006) Assessment of the severity of liver disease and fibrotic change: the usefulness of hepatic CT perfusion imaging. Oncol Rep 16:677–683PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ridolfi F, Abbattista T, Marini F et al (2007) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound to evaluate the severity of chronic hepatitis C. Dig Liver Dis 39:929–935PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim H, Booth CJ, Pinus AB et al (2008) Induced hepatic fibrosis in rats: hepatic steatosis, macromolecule content, perfusion parameters, and their correlations—preliminary MR imaging in rats. Radiology 247:696–705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Albrecht T, Blomley MJ, Cosgrove DO et al (1999) Non-invasive diagnosis of hepatic cirrhosis by transit-time analysis of an ultrasound contrast agent. Lancet 353:1579–1583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pedersen JF, Larsen VA, Bytzer P et al (2005) Hepatic transit time of ultrasound contrast in biopsy characterized liver disease. Acta Radiol 46:557–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Searle J, Mendelson R, Zelesco M et al (2008) Non-invasive prediction of the degree of liver fibrosis in patients with hepatitis C using an ultrasound contrast agent. A pilot study. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 52:130–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang BH, Yang BH, Tang ZY (2004) Randomized controlled trial of screening for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 130:417–422PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jalan R, Hayes PC (2000) UK guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients. British Society of Gastroenterology. Gut 46(Suppl 3–4):III1–III15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Palma DT, Fallon MB (2006) The hepatopulmonary syndrome. J Hepatol 45:617–625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mori H, Hayashi K, Fukuda T, Matsunaga N et al (1987) Intrahepatic portosystemic venous shunt: occurrence in patients with and without liver cirrhosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 149(4):711–714Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sherman IA, Papas SC, Fisher MM (1990) Hepatic microvascular changes associated with development of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. Am J Physiol 258:460–465Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sugimoto H, Kaneko T, Hirota M et al (2002) Earlier hepatic vein transit-time measured by contrast ultrasonography reflects intrahepatic hemodynamic changes accompanying cirrhosis. J Hepatol 37(5):578–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ohnishi K, Chin N, Saito M et al (1986) Portographic opacification of hepatic veins and (anomalous) anastomoses between the portal and hepatic veins in cirrhosis—indication of extensive intrahepatic shunts. Am J Gastroenterol 81(10):975–978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blomley MJ, Albrecht T, Cosgrove DO et al (1999) Stimulated acoustic emission to image a late liver and spleen-specific phase of Levovist in normal volunteers and patients with and without liver disease. Ultrasound Med Biol 25(9):1341–1352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lim AK, Patel N, Eckersley RJ et al (2006) Hepatic vein transit time of SonoVue: a comparative study with Levovist. Radiology 240(1):130–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lim AK, Patel N, Eckersley RJ et al (2004) Evidence for spleen-specific uptake of a microbubble contrast agent: a quantitative study in healthy volunteers. Radiology 231:785–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Friedrich-Rust M, Ong MF, Martens S et al (2008) Performance of transient elastography for the staging of liver fibrosis: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 134:960–974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Poynard T, Morra R, Halfon P et al (2007) Meta-analyses of FibroTest diagnostic value in chronic liver disease. BMC Gastroenterol 7:40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bedossa P, Dargere D, Paradis V (2003) Sampling variability of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 38:1449–1457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Strader DB, Wright T, Thomas DL et al (2004) Diagnosis, management, and treatment of hepatitis C. Hepatology 39:1147–1171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Staub
    • 1
    • 11
    Email author
  • C. Tournoux-Facon
    • 4
  • J. Roumy
    • 1
  • C. Chaigneau
    • 2
  • M. Morichaut-Beauchant
    • 3
  • P. Levillain
    • 2
    • 4
  • C. Prevost
    • 1
  • C. Aubé
    • 5
  • J. Lebigot
    • 5
  • F. Oberti
    • 8
  • J. B. Galtier
    • 7
  • H. Laumonier
    • 7
  • H. Trillaud
    • 7
  • P. H. Bernard
    • 9
  • J. F. Blanc
    • 9
  • S. Sironneau
    • 7
  • F. Machet
    • 7
  • J. Drouillard
    • 7
  • V. de Ledinghen
    • 9
  • P. Couzigou
    • 9
  • P. Foucher
    • 9
  • L. Castéra
    • 9
  • F. Tranquard
    • 6
  • Y. Bacq
    • 10
  • L. d’Altéroche
    • 10
  • P. Ingrand
    • 4
  • J. P. Tasu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCHU de PoitiersPoitiersFrance
  2. 2.Department of HepatologyCHU de PoitiersPoitiersFrance
  3. 3.Department of PathologyCHU de PoitiersPoitiersFrance
  4. 4.Centre d’investigation clinique INSERM CIC-P U802CHU de PoitiersPoitiersFrance
  5. 5.Radiology DepartmentCHU d’AngersAngersFrance
  6. 6.Radiology DepartmentCHU de ToursToursFrance
  7. 7.Radiology DepartementCHU de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  8. 8.Hepatology DepartmentCHU d’AngersAngersFrance
  9. 9.Hepatology DepartmentCHU de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  10. 10.Hepatology DepartmentCHU de ToursToursFrance
  11. 11.Fabrice Staub service de RadiologiePoitiersFrance

Personalised recommendations