Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan;42(1):65-77.
doi: 10.14366/usg.22052. Epub 2022 Jun 21.

Intra-individual comparison of liver stiffness measurements by magnetic resonance elastography and two-dimensional shear-wave elastography in 888 patients

Hideo Ichikawa  1 , Eisuke Yasuda  1 , Takashi Kumada  2 , Kenji Takeshima  3 , Sadanobu Ogawa  3 , Akikazu Tsunekawa  3 , Tatsuya Goto  3 , Koji Nakaya  1 , Tomoyuki Akita  4 , Junko Tanaka  4
Affiliations

Intra-individual comparison of liver stiffness measurements by magnetic resonance elastography and two-dimensional shear-wave elastography in 888 patients

Hideo Ichikawa et al. Ultrasonography. 2023 Jan.

Abstract

Purpose: Quantitative elastography methods, such as ultrasound two-dimensional shear-wave elastography (2D-SWE) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), are used to diagnose liver fibrosis. The present study compared liver stiffness determined by 2D-SWE and MRE within individuals and analyzed the degree of agreement between the two techniques.

Methods: In total, 888 patients who underwent 2D-SWE and MRE were analyzed. Bland-Altman analysis was performed after both types of measurements were log-transformed to a normal distribution and converted to a common set of units using linear regression analysis for differing scales. The expected limit of agreement (LoA) was defined as the square root of the sum of the squares of 2D-SWE and MRE precision. The percentage difference was expressed as (2D-SWEMRE)/ mean of the two methods×100.

Results: A Bland-Altman plot showed that the bias and upper and lower LoAs (ULoA and LLoA) were 0.0002 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.0057 to 0.0061), 0.1747 (95% CI, 0.1646 to 0.1847), and -0.1743 (95% CI, -0.1843 to -0.1642), respectively. In terms of percentage difference, the mean, ULoA, and LLoA were -0.5944%, 19.8950%, and -21.0838%, respectively. The calculated expected LoA was 17.1178% (95% CI, 16.6353% to 17.6002%), and 789 of 888 patients (88.9%) had a percentage difference within the expected LoA. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the two methods indicated an almost perfect correlation (0.8231; 95% CI, 0.8006 to 0.8432; P<0.001).

Conclusion: Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that 2D-SWE and MRE were interchangeable within a clinically acceptable range.

Keywords: Bland-Altman analysis; Intraclass correlation coefficient; Magnetic resonance elastography; Proton density fat fraction; Two-dimensional shear-wave elastography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.. Flowchart of patient selection.
HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.. Two-dimensional shear-wave elastography (2D-SWE) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in three representative patients.
The degree of liver stiffness determined by 2D-SWE and MRE increased with the degree of fibrosis progression, defined as the staging of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C by MRE [19]. The left figure shows no fibrosis (F0, 58-year-old, female, hepatitis C virus [HCV] infection), the middle shows moderate fibrosis (F2, 82-year-old, female, HCV infection), and right shows advanced fibrosis (F4, 82-year-old, female, HCV infection).
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.. Bland-Altman analysis.
A. Bland-Altman plot where differences are presented as units. The Bland-Altman plot demonstrated that the bias, upper limit of agreement (ULoA), and lower limit of agreement (LLoA) were 0.0002 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.0057 to 0.0061), 0.1747 (95% CI, 0.1646 to 0.1847), and -0.1743 (95% CI, -0.1843 to -0.1642), respectively. B. Bland-Altman plot shows the difference as a percentage (% difference). The figure shows the difference (% difference) between the adjusted log LSSWE values and the log LSSWE values, where the mean, ULoA, and LLoA were –0.5944%, 19.8950%, and –21.0838%, respectively. C. Intraclass correlation coefficients are as follows: r=0.8231; 95% CI, 0.8006 to 0.8432. The relationship between the modified log LSSWE and log LSSWE values is shown; the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is 0.8231, indicating almost perfect agreement (P<0.001). MRE, magnetic resonance elastography; 2D-SWE, twodimensional shear-wave elastography; LSMRE, liver stiffness according to MRE; LSSWE, liver stiffness according to 2D-SWE; modified log LSSWE=0.4176+0.8193×log LSMRE; % difference=[modified log LSSWElog LSSWE)/(0.5×(modified log LSSWE+log LSSWE]×100%.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) according to body mass index (BMI).
The correlation between different BMI values is shown: BMI <25.0 kg/m2 (n=569) (A); 25.0≤BMI<30.0 kg/m2 (n=254) (B); BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2 (n=65) (C). The ICCs gradually decreased as BMI increased, but indicated almost perfect agreement except for patients with a BMI ≥30 kg/m2. LSMRE, liver stiffness according to magnetic resonance elastography; LSSWE, liver stiffness according to twodimensional shear-wave elastography; CI, confidence interval.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) according to steatosis grade.
The correlation between different PDFF is shown: grade 0 (n=512), PDFF <5.2% (A); grade 1 (n=185), 5.2%≤PDFF<11.3% (B); grade 2 (n=91), 11.3%≤PDFF<17.1% (C); grade 3 (n=100), PDFF ≥17.1% (D). LSMRE, liver stiffness according to magnetic resonance elastography; LSSWE, liver stiffness according to twodimensional shear-wave elastography; CI, confidence interval.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bataller R, Brenner DA. Liver fibrosis. J Clin Invest. 2005;115:209–218. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bosch FX, Ribes J, Cleries R, Diaz M. Epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Liver Dis. 2005;9:191–211. - PubMed
    1. Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S. Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:495–500. - PubMed
    1. Poynard T, Lenaour G, Vaillant JC, Capron F, Munteanu M, Eyraud D, et al. Liver biopsy analysis has a low level of performance for diagnosis of intermediate stages of fibrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:657–663. - PubMed
    1. Yoon JH, Lee JM, Joo I, Lee ES, Sohn JY, Jang SK, et al. Hepatic fibrosis: prospective comparison of MR elastography and US shearwave elastography for evaluation. Radiology. 2014;273:772–782. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources