Evaluation of diffuse liver steatosis by ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging: which modality is best?

Qayyum, Aliya; Chen, Daryl M.; Breiman, Richard S.; Westphalen, Antonio C.; Yeh, Benjamin M.; Jones, Kirk D.; Lü, Ying; Coakley, Fergus V.; Callen, P W

doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2008.06.036

Cited by 86 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In spite of that, and considering that this method is still poorly utilized, the authors of the present study suggest that the noncontrast-enhanced phase continues to be utilized in the investigation of steatosis. However, one should remember that magnetic resonance imaging and more recently liver elastography (Fibroscan), have been the methods recommended for such a purpose (28,29) , so the indication of CT as the tool of choice for the diagnosis of hepatic steatosis becomes questionable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When the non-contrast-enhanced phase is unnecessary in abdominal computed tomography scans? A retrospective analysis of 244 cases

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the necessity of the non contrast-enhanced phase in abdominal computed tomography scans. Materials and Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional, observational study was developed, evaluating 244 consecutive abdominal computed tomography scans both with and without contrast injection. Initially, the contrast-enhanced images were analyzed (first analysis). Subsequently, the observers had access to the non-contrast-enhanced images for a second analysis. The primary and secondary diagnoses were established as a function of the clinical indications for each study (such as tumor staging, acute abdomen, investigation for abdominal collection and hepatocellular carcinoma, among others). Finally, the changes in the diagnoses resulting from the addition of the non-contrast-enhanced phase were evaluated. Results: Only one (0.4%; p > 0.999; non-statistically significant) out of the 244 reviewed cases had the diagnosis changed after the reading of non-contrast-enhanced images. As the secondary diagnoses are considered, 35 (14%) cases presented changes after the second analysis, as follows: nephrolithiasis (10%), steatosis (3%), adrenal nodule (0.7%) and cholelithiasis (0.3%). Conclusion: For the clinical indications of tumor staging, acute abdomen, investigation of abdominal collections and hepatocellular carcinoma, the non-contrast-enhanced phase can be excluded from abdominal computed tomography studies with no significant impact on the diagnosis. Keywords: Computed tomography; Ionizing radiation; Abdomen; Contrast media.Objetivo: Avaliar a necessidade da fase sem contraste nos exames de tomografia computadorizada de abdome. Materiais e Métodos: Foi realizado estudo retrospectivo, transversal e observacional, no qual foram avaliados 244 exames consecutivos de tomografia computadorizada de abdome realizados sem e com a injeção do meio de contraste. Procurou-se estabelecer, mediante análise das fases com o uso do meio de contraste (primeira análise), e posteriormente com o acréscimo da avaliação da fase sem meio de contraste (segunda análise), o diagnóstico principal e os secundá-rios em função da indicação clínica do exame (estadiamento tumoral, abdome agudo, pesquisa de coleção abdominal e hepatocarcinoma, entre outros). Foram medidas as mudanças nos diagnósticos principais e secundários, decorrentes do acréscimo da fase sem meio de contraste. Resultados: Dos 244 casos avaliados, apenas um (0,4%; p > 0,999; não significante) teve o seu diagnóstico modificado após a leitura da fase sem meio de contraste. Com relação aos diagnósticos secundários, 35 exames (14%) foram modificados após a segunda análise, sendo: nefrolitíase (10%), esteatose (3%), nódulo de adrenal (0,7%) e colelitíase (0,3%). Conclusão: Para as indicações clínicas de estadiamento tumoral, abdome agudo, pesquisa de coleção abdominal e carcinoma hepatocelular, a supressão da fase sem meio de contraste não apresentou impacto diagnóstico expressivo. Unitermos: Tomografia computadorizada; Radiação ionizante; Abdome; Meio de contraste.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When the non-contrast-enhanced phase is unnecessary in abdominal computed tomography scans? A retrospective analysis of 244 cases

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three circular regions of interest (ROI) can be placed in the liver; two in the right lobe and one in the left with three ROI placed within the spleen at anatomically matched levels. The mean signal intensity can then be calculated using the formula: [(SI in-phase -SI out-of-phase)/SI in-phase] × 100 where SI = average liver signal intensity/average spleen intensity [67] . Fischer et al [68] found that this dual echo MR imaging technique for liver fat quantification was actually superior to histopathological analysis.…”

Section: Hepatic Parenchymamentioning

confidence: 99%

Expectations from imaging for pre-transplant evaluation of living donor liver transplantation

Hennedige

Gopinathan

Madhavan

2014

WJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Core tip: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has evolved to a widely accepted therapeutic option. As a radiologist, knowledge of the various anatomical variations and pathological states in both the donor and recipient are imperative to generating a meaningful report in pre-operative evaluation. This paper provides a brief overview of the common surgical concepts of LDLT and gives a detailed description of the minimum that a radiologist is expected to seek and report in computed tomography and magnetic resonance scans performed for LDLT related evaluation.

show abstract

“…Several studies have used US, CT, and MRI to evaluate a fatty liver (9)(10)(11)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32). Some studies have compared two or three imaging modalities for the diagnosis of a fatty liver (13,18,29,30,32,33).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies have compared two or three imaging modalities for the diagnosis of a fatty liver (13,18,29,30,32,33). To the best of our knowledge, there is no study that has compared all imaging modalities [i.e., US, single-energy CT (SECT), dual-energy CT (DECT), MRI, and MRS].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study of Ultrasonography, Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy for the Diagnosis of Fatty Liver in a Rat Model

Noh

Song

Heo

et al. 2017

J Korean Soc Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To compare the accuracy of ultrasonography (US), single-energy CT (SECT), dual-energy CT (DECT), MR imaging (MRI), and MR spectroscopy (MRS) for detecting fatty liver in a rat model. Materials and Methods: Fatty liver was induced by 60% high-fat diet for 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 weeks (3 rats per group, a total of 15 rats). The control group comprised of five rats fed 10% high-fat diet. US, SECT, DECT, MRI, and MRS of the liver were performed weekly. Histologic steatosis grade and intrahepatocelluar triglyceride level were determined histologically for the livers of sacrificed rats. Pearson correlation test was used to assess the correlation between examinations and standard reference levels. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. Results: US, SECT, DECT, MRI, and MRS were significantly correlated with histologic steatosis grade. The diagnostic performance of AUC, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.893, 80%, and 80% for US, 0.960, 80%, and 80% for SECT, 0.947, 100%, and 60% for DECT, 0.933, 93.3%, and 100% for MRI, and 0.960, 93.3%, and 100% for MRS. Conclusion: MRS showed the strongest correlation with histologic steatosis grade with the highest sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of fatty liver compared to other modalities.

show abstract

Evaluation of diffuse liver steatosis by ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging: which modality is best?

Cited by 86 publications

References 27 publications

When the non-contrast-enhanced phase is unnecessary in abdominal computed tomography scans? A retrospective analysis of 244 cases

When the non-contrast-enhanced phase is unnecessary in abdominal computed tomography scans? A retrospective analysis of 244 cases

Expectations from imaging for pre-transplant evaluation of living donor liver transplantation

Comparative Study of Ultrasonography, Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy for the Diagnosis of Fatty Liver in a Rat Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About