No abstract

Using ultrasonic shear wave speed (SWS) estimates has become popular to noninvasively evaluate liver fibrosis, but significant inter-system variability in liver SWS measurements can preclude meaningful comparison of measurements performed with different systems. The RSNA Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA) ultrasound SWS committee has been developing elastic and viscoelastic (VE) phantoms to evaluate system dependencies of SWS estimates. The objective of this study is to compare SWS measurements between commercially-available systems using phantoms that have viscoelastic properties similar to those observed in normal and fibrotic liver. CIRS, Inc. fabricated three phantoms using a proprietary oil-water emulsion infused in a Zerdine R hydrogel that were matched in viscoelastic behavior to healthy and fibrotic human liver data. Phantoms were measured at academic, clinical, government and vendor sites using different systems with curvilinear arrays at multiple focal depths (3.0, 4.5 & 7.0 cm). The results of this study show that current-generation ultrasound SWS measurement systems are able to differentiate viscoelastic materials that span healthy to fibrotic liver. The deepest focal depth (7.0 cm) yielded the greatest inter-system variability for each phantom (maximum of 17.7%) as evaluated by IQR. Inter-system variability was consistent across all 3 phantoms and was not a function of stiffness. Median SWS estimates for the greatest outlier system for each phantom/focal depth combination ranged from 12.7-17.6%. Future efforts will include performing more robust statistical analyses of these data, comparing these phantom data trends with viscoelastic digital phantom data, providing vendors with study site data to refine their systems to have more consistent measurements, and integrating these data into the QIBA ultrasound shear wave speed measurement profile.

No abstract

Elastographic techniques used in addition to imaging techniques (ultrasound, resonance magnetic or optical) provide new clinical information on the pathological state of soft tissues. However, system-dependent variation in elastographic measurements may limit the clinical utility of these measurements by introducing uncertainty into the measurement. This work is aimed at showing differences in the evaluation of the elastic properties of phantoms performed by four different techniques: quasi-static compression, dynamic mechanical analysis, vibration-controlled transient elastography and hyper-frequency viscoelastic spectroscopy. Four Zerdine® gel materials were tested and formulated to yield a Young's modulus over the range of normal and cirrhotic liver stiffnesses. The Young's modulus and the shear wave speed obtained with each technique were compared. Results suggest a bias in elastic property measurement which varies with systems and highlight the difficulty in finding a reference method to determine and assess the elastic properties of tissue-mimicking materials. Additional studies are needed to determine the source of this variation, and control for them so that accurate, reproducible reference standards can be made for the absolute measurement of soft tissue elasticity.

Objectives To quantify the bias of shear wave speed (SWS) measurements between different commercial ultrasonic shear elasticity systems and a magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) system in elastic and viscoelastic phantoms. Methods Two elastic phantoms, representing healthy through fibrotic liver, were measured with 5 different ultrasound platforms, and 3 viscoelastic phantoms, representing healthy through fibrotic liver tissue, were measured with 12 different ultrasound platforms. Measurements were performed with different systems at different sites, at 3 focal depths, and with different appraisers. The SWS bias across the systems was quantified as a function of the system, site, focal depth, and appraiser. A single MRE research system was also used to characterize these phantoms using discrete frequencies from 60 to 500 Hz. Results The SWS from different systems had mean difference 95% confidence intervals of ±0.145 m/s (±9.6%) across both elastic phantoms and ± 0.340 m/s (±15.3%) across the viscoelastic phantoms. The focal depth and appraiser were less significant sources of SWS variability than the system and site. Magnetic resonance elastography best matched the ultrasonic SWS in the viscoelastic phantoms using a 140 Hz source but had a − 0.27 ± 0.027‐m/s (−12.2% ± 1.2%) bias when using the clinically implemented 60‐Hz vibration source. Conclusions Shear wave speed reconstruction across different manufacturer systems is more consistent in elastic than viscoelastic phantoms, with a mean difference bias of < ±10% in all cases. Magnetic resonance elastographic measurements in the elastic and viscoelastic phantoms best match the ultrasound systems with a 140‐Hz excitation but have a significant negative bias operating at 60 Hz. This study establishes a foundation for meaningful comparison of SWS measurements made with different platforms.