Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 1039–1047 | Cite as

The development and validation of magnetic resonance elastography for fibrosis staging in primary sclerosing cholangitis

  • Kartik S. JhaveriEmail author
  • Hooman Hosseini-Nik
  • Nima Sadoughi
  • Harry Janssen
  • Jordan J. Feld
  • Sandra Fischer
  • Ravi Menezes
  • Angela C. Cheung
Hepatobiliary-Pancreas
  • 278 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To develop and internally validate MR elastography (MRE) quantified liver stiffness (LS) cut-off values for distinguishing early/moderate fibrosis from cirrhosis in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) against non-invasive fibrosis test of vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE).

Methods

Sixty-seven patients were enrolled prospectively at a tertiary care centre to undergo MRE and VCTE. MRE-quantified LS was calculated using three region-of-interest (ROI) methods: Trace, Average and Maximum. Each ROI method was compared with the reference standard of VCTE. Internal validation was performed with bootstrapping. Univariable and multivariable linear regression determined independent predictors for MRE-quantified LS and final Mayo Risk Score (MRS).

Results

MRE-quantified LS by Trace ROI method had the highest sensitivity [87.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 66.0-96.8] and specificity (96.1%; 95%CI, 89.6-99.0) for distinguishing cirrhosis; and was the strongest predictor of final MRS (β, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.61). Alkaline phosphatase twice the normal upper limit (β, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.95-2.17), abnormal bilirubin (β, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.41-2.14) and thrombocytopaenia (β, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.12-1.46) were independent predictors of LS.

Conclusions

MRE has a higher correlation with MRS than VCTE; and though MRE is possibly influenced by severe cholestasis and portal hypertension, MRE-quantified LS is an independent predictor of worse MRS.

Key Points

MRE is valid and reliable in assessing cirrhosis in PSC, and MRE-quantified Liver stiffness (LS) score was the strongest predictor of final Mayo Risk Score (MRS).

• Trace ROI performs best for distinguishing moderate fibrosis from cirrhosis and has the highest correlation with Mayo Risk Score (MRS).

• Cholestasis, hyperbilirubinaemia and portal hypertension may influence MRE LS score.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Primary sclerosing cholangitis Elasticity imaging techniques Liver cirrhosis Bile ducts 

Abbreviations

AIH

Autoimmune hepatitis

ALP

Alkaline phosphatase

ALT

Alanine aminotransferase

APRI

Aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio

AST

Aspartate aminotransferase

AUROC

Area under the receiver operating characteristic

BMI

Body mass index

CI

Confidence interval

GGT

Gamma-glutamyltransferase

IBD

Inflammatory bowel disease

GRE

Gradient recalled echo

INR

International normalised ratio

IQR

Interquartile range

LS

Liver stiffness

MRCP

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticogram

MRE

Magnetic resonance elastography

MRS

Mayo Risk score

Na-MELD

Sodium-model for end-stage liver disease

PBC

Primary biliary cirrhosis

PSC

Primary sclerosing cholangitis

PT

Prothrombin time

ROI

Region-of-interest

ULN

Upper limit of normal

VCTE

Vibration-controlled transient elastography

Notes

Funding

This study has received peer-reviewed research grant funding by “The Physicians Services Incorporated Foundation, Toronto, Canada".

There has been no financial support for this work to the authors that could have influenced its outcome.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Kartik Jhaveri.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Ravi Menezes kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript. Dr. Angela Cheung, one of the co-authors, also has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• diagnostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Kim WR, Therneau TM, Wiesner RH et al (2000) A revised natural history model for primary sclerosing cholangitis. Mayo Clin Proc 75:688–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abraham SC, Kamath PS, Eghtesad B, Demetris AJ, Krasinskas AM (2006) Liver transplantation in precirrhotic biliary tract disease: Portal hypertension is frequently associated with nodular regenerative hyperplasia and obliterative portal venopathy. Am J Surg Pathol 30:1454–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carbone M, Neuberger J (2011) Liver transplantation in PBC and PSC: indications and disease recurrence. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 35:446–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Okolicsanyi L, Fabris L, Viaggi S, Carulli N, Podda M, Ricci G (1996) Primary sclerosing cholangitis: clinical presentation, natural history and prognostic variables: an Italian multicentre study. The Italian PSC Study Group. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 8:685–691PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ponsioen CY, Vrouenraets SM, Prawirodirdjo W et al (2002) Natural history of primary sclerosing cholangitis and prognostic value of cholangiography in a Dutch population. Gut 51:562–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bambha K, Kim WR, Talwalkar J et al (2003) Incidence, clinical spectrum, and outcomes of primary sclerosing cholangitis in a United States community. Gastroenterology 125:1364–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burak KW, Angulo P, Lindor KD (2003) Is there a role for liver biopsy in primary sclerosing cholangitis? Am J Gastroenterol 98:1155–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Myers RP, Ramji A, Bilodeau M, Wong S, Feld JJ (2012) An update on the management of hepatitis C: consensus guidelines from the Canadian Association for the Study of the Liver. Can J Gastroenterol 26:359–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coffin CS, Fung SK, Ma MM, Canadian Association for the Study of the Liver (2012) Management of chronic hepatitis B: Canadian Association for the Study of the Liver consensus guidelines. Can J Gastroenterol 26:917–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Castera L (2012) Noninvasive methods to assess liver disease in patients with hepatitis B or C. Gastroenterology 142:1293–1302 e1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Association for the Study of the Liver (2011) EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: management of hepatitis C virus infection. J Hepatol 55:245–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ratziu V, Cadranel JF, Serfaty L et al (2012) A survey of patterns of practice and perception of NAFLD in a large sample of practicing gastroenterologists in France. J Hepatol 57:376–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Low G, Kruse SA, Lomas DJ (2016) General review of magnetic resonance elastography. World J Radiol 8:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Venkatesh SK, Yin M, Ehman RL (2013) Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: technique, analysis, and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:544–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sandrin L, Fourquet B, Hasquenoph JM et al (2003) Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Ultrasound Med Biol 29:1705–1713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Faria SC, Ganesan K, Mwangi I et al (2009) MR imaging of liver fibrosis: current state of the art. Radiographics 29:1615–1635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carrasco-Avino G, Schiano TD, Ward SC, Thung SN, Fiel MI (2015) Primary sclerosing cholangitis: detailed histologic assessment and integration using bioinformatics highlights arterial fibrointimal hyperplasia as a novel feature. Am J Clin Pathol 143:505–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chapman R, Fevery J, Kalloo A et al (2010) Diagnosis and management of primary sclerosing cholangitis. Hepatology 51:660–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Armstrong MJ, Corbett C, Hodson J et al (2013) Operator training requirements and diagnostic accuracy of Fibroscan in routine clinical practice. Postgrad Med J 89:685–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giannini EG (2006) Review article: thrombocytopenia in chronic liver disease and pharmacologic treatment options. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 23:1055–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Corpechot C, Gaouar F, El Naggar A et al (2014) Baseline values and changes in liver stiffness measured by transient elastography are associated with severity of fibrosis and outcomes of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gastroenterology 146:970–979 quiz e915-976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee DH, Lee JM, Han JK, Choi BI (2013) MR elastography of healthy liver parenchyma: Normal value and reliability of the liver stiffness value measurement. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:1215–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Silva AM, Grimm RC, Glaser KJ et al (2015) Magnetic resonance elastography: evaluation of new inversion algorithm and quantitative analysis method. Abdom Imaging 40:810–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Millonig G, Reimann FM, Friedrich S et al (2008) Extrahepatic cholestasis increases liver stiffness (FibroScan) irrespective of fibrosis. Hepatology 48:1718–1723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Corpechot C, El Naggar A, Poujol-Robert A et al (2006) Assessment of biliary fibrosis by transient elastography in patients with PBC and PSC. Hepatology 43:1118–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Corpechot C, Carrat F, Poujol-Robert A et al (2012) Noninvasive elastography-based assessment of liver fibrosis progression and prognosis in primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology 56:198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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 29:242–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ziol M, Handra-Luca A, Kettaneh A et al (2005) Noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis by measurement of stiffness in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 41:48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wong VW, Vergniol J, Wong GL et al (2010) Diagnosis of fibrosis and cirrhosis using liver stiffness measurement in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 51:454–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eaton JE, Dzyubak B, Venkatesh SK et al (2016) Performance of magnetic resonance elastography in primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 31:1184–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vesterhus M, Hov JR, Holm A et al (2015) Enhanced liver fibrosis score predicts transplant-free survival in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Hepatology 62:188–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kartik S. Jhaveri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hooman Hosseini-Nik
    • 1
  • Nima Sadoughi
    • 1
  • Harry Janssen
    • 2
  • Jordan J. Feld
    • 2
  • Sandra Fischer
    • 3
  • Ravi Menezes
    • 1
  • Angela C. Cheung
    • 2
  1. 1.Joint Department of Medical ImagingUniversity of Toronto, University Health Network and Mount Sinai HospitalTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Toronto Centre for Liver DiseaseUniversity Health Network, University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of Laboratory Medicine and PathologyUniversity Health Network, University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations