Lessons learnt from pathologic imaging correlation in the liver: an historical perspective

Abstract

Imaging and pathology have become central to the management of patients, from diagnosis to treatment. These two disciplines are complementary in providing multiscale and multiparametric characterization of tissues and organs of interest. Image interpretation is at the centre of both and relies on medical expertise, so much so that both can be considered as two sides of the same diagnostic coin. Yet, they don't have the same place in patient management: while imaging is now of utmost importance in the diagnostic process, pathology is almost always needed when a final diagnosis is to be reached. Consequently, two things are deeply engraved in the mind of radiologists, as it is in that of clinicians: first, that pathology has something to do with the ground truth, and second, that radiologists consider it as a reference method to which they must compare their performance. Pathology has to do with the ontology of medicine (what is and what is not), and with its epistemology (what's true and what's not). Modern medicine is not the daughter of the anatomoclinical method of Laennec, Charcot, and Bichat for nothing.

Vibration‐controlled transient elastography for noninvasive evaluation of liver steatosis

“…15 However, MRI-PDFF use is hampered by high costs and limited availability. 12,13,17 Although some advocate MRI as the new gold standard, 18,19 further validation of the latest techniques remains necessary.…”