European Radiology

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 638–648 | Cite as

Non-invasive evaluation of liver fibrosis: a comparison of ultrasound-based transient elastography and MR elastography in patients with viral hepatitis B and C

  • Anneloes E. Bohte
  • Annikki de Niet
  • Louis Jansen
  • Shandra Bipat
  • Aart J. Nederveen
  • Joanne Verheij
  • Valeska Terpstra
  • Ralph Sinkus
  • Karin M. J. van Nieuwkerk
  • Rob J. de Knegt
  • Bert C. Baak
  • Peter L. M. Jansen
  • Henk W. Reesink
  • Jaap Stoker



To compare the diagnostic accuracy of TE and MRE and establish cutoff levels and diagnostic strategies for both techniques, enabling selection of patients for liver biopsy.


One hundred three patients with chronic hepatitis B or C and liver biopsy were prospectively included. Areas under curves (AUROC) were compared for TE and MRE for METAVIR fibrosis grade ≥ F2 and ≥F3. We defined cutoff values for selection of patients with F0–F1 (sensitivity >95 %) and for significant fibrosis F2–F4 (specificity >95 %).


Following exclusions, 85 patients were analysed (65 CHB, 19 CHC, 1 co-infected). Fibrosis stages were F0 (n = 3), F1 (n = 53), F2 (n = 15), F3 (n = 8) and F4 (n = 6). TE and MRE accuracy were comparable [AUROCTE ≥ F2: 0.914 (95 % CI: 0.857–0.972) vs. AUROCMRE ≥ F2: 0.909 (0.840–0.977), P = 0.89; AUROCTE ≥ F3: 0.895 (0.816–0.974) vs. AUROCMRE ≥ F3: 0.928 (0.874–0.982), P = 0.42]. Cutoff values of <5.2 and ≥8.9 kPa (TE) and <1.66 and ≥2.18 kPa (MRE) diagnosed 64 % and 66 % of patients correctly as F0–F1 or F2–F4. A conditional strategy in inconclusive test results increased diagnostic yield to 80 %.


TE and MRE have comparable accuracy for detecting significant fibrosis, which was reliably detected or excluded in two-thirds of patients. A conditional strategy further increased diagnostic yield to 80 %.

Key Points

Both ultrasound-based transient elastography and magnetic resonance elastography can assess hepatic fibrosis.

Both have comparable accuracy for detecting liver fibrosis in viral hepatitis.

The individual techniques reliably detect or exclude significant liver fibrosis in 66 %.

A conditional strategy for inconclusive findings increases the number of correct diagnoses.


Elasticity imaging techniques Hepatitis C Hepatitis B Sensitivity and specificity 



chronic hepatitis B


chronic hepatitis C


ultrasound-based transient elastography


magnetic resonance elastography


area under the receiver operator characteristic curve


alanine aminotransferase


aspartate aminotransferase


times upper limit of normal


modified histology activity index


liver stiffness measurement


interquartile range


spin-echo echo planar imaging


region of interest




Spearman’s rho


positive predictive value


negative predictive value


likelihood ratio


confidence interval


American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases



The authors wish to acknowledge Ton van der Meijden from the Free University Medical Center Amsterdam and Jurgen H. Runge from the Academic Medical Center Amsterdam for their help with the inclusion of participants in this study. This work was funded by the NutsOhra Foundation, The Netherlands.

We would like to point out that 12 patients included in this study were also included in a recently published study [26]. This study reports on reproducibility of MRE, which is a different endpoint from those of the present study. Therefore, we do not believe that including these patients in both studies has caused conflicting overlap in data reporting.


  1. 1.
    Huwart L, Peeters F, Sinkus R et al (2006) Liver fibrosis: non-invasive assessment with MR elastography. NMR Biomed 19:173–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Muthupillai R, Lomas DJ, Rossman PJ et al (1995) Magnetic resonance elastography by direct visualization of propagating acoustic strain waves. Science 269:1854–1857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rouvière O, Yin M, Dresner MA et al (2006) MR elastography of the liver: preliminary results. Radiology 240:440–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sandrin L (2003) Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Ultrasound Med Biol 29:1705–1713PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Viganò M, Paggi S, Lampertico P et al (2011) Dual cut-off transient elastography to assess liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B: a cohort study with internal validation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 34:353–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Degos F, Perez P, Roche B et al (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of FibroScan and comparison to liver fibrosis biomarkers in chronic viral hepatitis: a multicenter prospective study (the FIBROSTIC study). J Hepatol 53:1013–1021PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedrich-Rust M, Ong M-F, Martens S et al (2008) Performance of transient elastography for the staging of liver fibrosis: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 134:960–974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsochatzis EA, Gurusamy KS, Ntaoula S et al (2011) Elastography for the diagnosis of severity of fibrosis in chronic liver disease: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. J Hepatol 54:650–659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang Q-B, Zhu H, Liu H-L, Zhang B (2012) Performance of magnetic resonance elastography and diffusion-weighted imaging for the staging of hepatic fibrosis: a meta-analysis. Hepatology 56:239–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Asbach P, Klatt D, Schlosser B et al (2010) Viscoelasticity-based staging of hepatic fibrosis with multifrequency MR elastography. Radiology 257:80–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huwart L, Sempoux C, Vicaut E et al (2008) Magnetic resonance elastography for the noninvasive staging of liver fibrosis. Gastroenterology 135:32–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huwart L, Sempoux C, Salameh N et al (2007) Liver fibrosis: noninvasive assessment with MR elastography versus aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index. Radiology 245:458–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yin M, Chen J, Glaser KJ et al (2009) Abdominal magnetic resonance elastography. Top Magn Reson Imaging 20:79–87PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Castéra L, Vergniol J, Foucher J et al (2005) Prospective comparison of transient elastography, Fibrotest, APRI, and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 128:343–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Castera L, Denis J, Babany G, Roudot-Thoraval F (2007) Evolving practices of non-invasive markers of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C in France: time for new guidelines? J Hepatol 46:528–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Association for the Study of the Liver EASL (2012) EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of chronic hepatitis B virus infection. J Hepatol 57:167–185Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    European Association for the Study of the Liver EASL (2011) EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: management of hepatitis C virus infection. J Hepatol 55:245–264Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marcellin P, Ziol M, Bedossa P et al (2009) Non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis by stiffness measurement in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Liver Int 29:242–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bedossa P, Poynard T (1996) An algorithm for the grading of activity in chronic hepatitis C. The METAVIR Cooperative Study Group. Hepatology 24:289–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ishak K, Baptista A, Bianchi L et al (1995) Histological grading and staging of chronic hepatitis. J Hepatol 22:696–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kleiner DE, Brunt EM, Van Natta M et al (2005) Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 41:1313–1321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brunt EM, Olynyk JK, Britton RS et al (2000) Histological evaluation of iron in liver biopsies: relationship to HFE mutations. Am J Gastroenterol 95:1788–1793PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boursier J, Zarski J-P, De Ledinghen V et al (2013) Determination of reliability criteria for liver stiffness evaluation by transient elastography. Hepatology 57:1182–1191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sinkus R, Siegmann K, Xydeas T et al (2007) MR elastography of breast lesions: understanding the solid/liquid duality can improve the specificity of contrast-enhanced MR mammography. Magn Reson Med 58:1135–1144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839–843PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bohte AE, Garteiser P, De Niet A, et al (2013) MR elastography of the liver: defining thresholds for detecting viscoelastic changes. Radiology. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13122669
  27. 27.
    Chon YE, Choi EH, Song KJ et al (2012) Performance of transient elastography for the staging of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a meta-analysis. PloS One 7:e44930PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stebbing J, Farouk L, Panos G et al (2010) A meta-analysis of transient elastography for the detection of hepatic fibrosis. J Clin Gastroenterol 44:214–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Verveer C, Zondervan PE, Ten Kate FJW et al (2012) Evaluation of transient elastography for fibrosis assessment compared with large biopsies in chronic hepatitis B and C. Liver Int 32:622–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Glaser KJ, Manduca A, Ehman RL (2012) Review of MR elastography applications and recent developments. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:757–774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    De Torres M, Poynard T (2003) Risk factors for liver fibrosis progression in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Ann Hepatol 2:5–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fraquelli M, Rigamonti C, Casazza G et al (2011) Etiology-related determinants of liver stiffness values in chronic viral hepatitis B or C. J Hepatol 54:621–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Boursier J, de Ledinghen V, Sturm N, et al (2013) Precise evaluation of liver histology by computerized morphometry shows that steatosis influences liver stiffness measured by transient elastography in chronic hepatitis C. J Gastroenterol. doi: 10.1007/s00535-013-0819-9
  34. 34.
    Kumar M, Sharma P, Garg H et al (2011) Transient elastographic evaluation in adult subjects without overt liver disease: influence of alanine aminotransferase levels. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 26:1318–1325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tapper EB, Cohen EB, Patel K et al (2012) Levels of alanine aminotransferase confound use of transient elastography to diagnose fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 10:932–937PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nobili V, Vizzutti F, Arena U et al (2008) Accuracy and reproducibility of transient elastography for the diagnosis of fibrosis in pediatric nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology 48:442–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD et al (2009) Liver biopsy. Hepatology 49:1017–1044PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fraquelli M, Rigamonti C, Casazza G et al (2007) Reproducibility of transient elastography in the evaluation of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic liver disease. Gut 56:968–973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Boursier J, Konaté A, Gorea G et al (2008) Reproducibility of liver stiffness measurement by ultrasonographic elastometry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 6:1263–1269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yin M, Talwalkar JA, Glaser KJ et al (2011) Dynamic postprandial hepatic stiffness augmentation assessed with MR elastography in patients with chronic liver disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:64–70PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mederacke I, Wursthorn K, Kirschner J et al (2009) Food intake increases liver stiffness in patients with chronic or resolved hepatitis C virus infection. Liver Int 29:1500–1506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Marcellin P, Gane E, Buti M et al (2012) Regression of cirrhosis during treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for chronic hepatitis B: a 5-year open-label follow-up study. Lancet 6736:1–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anneloes E. Bohte
    • 1
    • 9
  • Annikki de Niet
    • 2
  • Louis Jansen
    • 2
  • Shandra Bipat
    • 1
  • Aart J. Nederveen
    • 1
  • Joanne Verheij
    • 3
  • Valeska Terpstra
    • 4
  • Ralph Sinkus
    • 5
  • Karin M. J. van Nieuwkerk
    • 6
  • Rob J. de Knegt
    • 7
  • Bert C. Baak
    • 8
  • Peter L. M. Jansen
    • 2
  • Henk W. Reesink
    • 2
  • Jaap Stoker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyAcademic Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyAcademic Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of PathologyAcademic Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of PathologyBronovo HospitalThe HagueThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Radiology and IPMA, INSERM UMR 773, Beaujon University HospitalUniversity of Paris DiderotClichyFrance
  6. 6.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyFree University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyErasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands
  8. 8.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyOnze Lieve Vrouwe GasthuisAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  9. 9.Academic Medical Center AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations