Intra-individual comparison of liver stiffness measurements by magnetic resonance elastography and two-dimensional shear-wave elastography in 888 patients

Quantitative elastography methods, such as ultrasound two-dimensional shear-wave elastography (2D-SWE) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), are used to diagnose liver fibrosis. The present study compared liver stiffness determined by 2D-SWE and MRE within individuals and analyzed the degree of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) Korea), 2023-01, Vol.42 (1), p.65-77
Main Authors: Ichikawa, Hideo, Yasuda, Eisuke, Kumada, Takashi, Takeshima, Kenji, Ogawa, Sadanobu, Tsunekawa, Akikazu, Goto, Tatsuya, Nakaya, Koji, Akita, Tomoyuki, Tanaka, Junko
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Ascites
Biopsy
bland-altman analysis
Failure
intraclass correlation coefficient
Liver cancer
Liver diseases
magnetic resonance elastography
Magnetic resonance imaging
Original
Patients
proton density fat fraction
Review boards
two-dimensional shear-wave elastography
Ultrasonic imaging
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Quantitative elastography methods, such as ultrasound two-dimensional shear-wave elastography (2D-SWE) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), are used to diagnose liver fibrosis. The present study compared liver stiffness determined by 2D-SWE and MRE within individuals and analyzed the degree of agreement between the two techniques. In total, 888 patients who underwent 2D-SWE and MRE were analyzed. Bland-Altman analysis was performed after both types of measurements were log-transformed to a normal distribution and converted to a common set of units using linear regression analysis for differing scales. The expected limit of agreement (LoA) was defined as the square root of the sum of the squares of 2D-SWE and MRE precision. The percentage difference was expressed as (2D-SWEMRE)/ mean of the two methods×100. A Bland-Altman plot showed that the bias and upper and lower LoAs (ULoA and LLoA) were 0.0002 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.0057 to 0.0061), 0.1747 (95% CI, 0.1646 to 0.1847), and -0.1743 (95% CI, -0.1843 to -0.1642), respectively. In terms of percentage difference, the mean, ULoA, and LLoA were -0.5944%, 19.8950%, and -21.0838%, respectively. The calculated expected LoA was 17.1178% (95% CI, 16.6353% to 17.6002%), and 789 of 888 patients (88.9%) had a percentage difference within the expected LoA. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the two methods indicated an almost perfect correlation (0.8231; 95% CI, 0.8006 to 0.8432; P
ISSN:2288-5919
2288-5943
DOI:10.14366/usg.22052