The purpose of this study is to determine whether magnetic resonance (MR)-proton density fat fraction (PDFF) estimate of negligible hepatic fat percentage (<5%) can exclude significant hepatic steatosis (≥10%) in living liver donor candidates obviating the need for liver biopsy and to perform intraindividual comparisons between MR-PDFF techniques for hepatic steatosis quantification. In an ethics-approved retrospective study, 144 liver donor candidates with magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) and 6-echo Dixon magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between 2013 and 2015 were included. A subset of 32 candidates underwent liver biopsy. Hepatic fat percentage was determined using MR-PDFF and histopathology-determined fat fraction as the reference standard. A receiver operating characteristic analysis with positive predictive value, negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity was performed to discriminate between clinically significant steatosis (≥10%) or not (<10%) at MRS-PDFF and MRI-PDFF thresholds of 5% and 10%. Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analyses between MRS-PDFF and MRI-PDFF were performed for intraindividual comparison of hepatic steatosis estimation. There was significant association between MRS-PDFF and MRI-PDFF with HP-FP. High NPV of 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78%-99%) and 100% (95% CI, 76%-100%) as well as an area under the curve of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.79-1.0) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.84-1.0) were obtained with a cutoff threshold of 5% MRI-PDFF and MRS-PDFF, respectively, to exclude clinically significant steatosis (≥10%). Intraindividual comparison between MRS-PDFF and MRI-PDFF showed a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.83. Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 1% with 95% limits of agreement between -1% and 3%. MR-PDFF estimate of negligible hepatic fat percentage (<5%) has sufficient NPV for excluding clinically significant hepatic steatosis (≥10%) in living liver donor candidates obviating the need for liver biopsy. It may be sufficient to acquire only the multiecho Dixon MRI-PDFF for hepatic steatosis estimation. Liver Transplantation 24 470-477 2018 AASLD.

Background: The detection of liver metastases is important for pancreatic cancer curative treatment eligibility. The data suggest that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is more sensitive than computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer liver metastases. However, MRI is not currently recommended in multiple published guidelines. Purpose: To perform a comparative diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis comparing CT and MRI for pancreatic cancer liver metastases detection. Study Type: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and multiple radiology society meeting archives were searched until November 2018. Comparative design studies reporting on liver CT and MRI accuracy for detection of pancreatic cancer liver metastases in the same cohort were included. Field Strength: 1.5T or 3.0T. Assessment: Demographic, methodologic, and diagnostic test accuracy data were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. Statistical Tests: Accuracy metrics were obtained using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. The impact of different covariates on accuracy estimates was assessed using a meta-regression model. Covariates included modality, study design, tumor characteristics, risk of bias, and imaging protocols. Results: Fourteen studies including 987 patients with pancreatic cancer (205 with liver metastases) were included. Sensitivity for CT and MRI was 45% (confidence intervals [95% CI] 21-71%) and 83% (95% CI 74-88%), respectively. Specificity for CT and MRI was 94% (95% CI 84-98%) and 96% (95% CI 93-97%), respectively. The greater observed sensitivity of MRI was preserved in the meta-regression model (P = 0.01), while no difference in specificity was detected (P = 0.16). CT sensitivity was highest for triphasic and quadriphasic examinations compared to single phase or biphasic protocols (P = 0.03). Most studies were at high risk of bias.