These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Assessing hepatic steatosis by magnetic resonance in potential living liver donors.
    Author: Kuru Öz D, Ellik Z, Gürsoy Çoruh A, Adıgüzel M, Gümüşsoy M, Kiremitci S, Kırımker OE, Gökcan H, Elhan AH, Balcı D, Savaş B, Erden A, İdilman R.
    Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol; 2024 Nov 06; 30(6):351-356. PubMed ID: 38737404.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) measurements for detecting liver fat content in potential living liver donors and to compare these results using liver biopsy findings. METHODS: A total of 139 living liver donors (men/women: 83/56) who underwent MRI between January 2017 and September 2021 were included in this analysis retrospectively. The PDFFs were measured using both MR spectroscopy (MRS) and chemical shift-based MRI (CS-MRI) for each donor in a blinded manner. RESULTS: Significant positive correlations were found between liver biopsy and MRS-PDFF and CS-MRI PDFF in terms of hepatic steatosis detection [r = 0.701, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.604–0.798, r = 0.654, 95% CI: 0.544–0.765, P < 0.001, respectively). A weak level correlation was observed between liver biopsy, MRI methods, and vibration-controlled transient elastography attenuation parameters in 42 available donors. Based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, MRS-PDFF and CS-MRI PDFF significantly distinguished >5% of histopathologically detected hepatic steatosis with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.837 ± 0.036 (P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.766–0.907) and 0.810 ± 0.036 (P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.739–0.881), respectively. The negative predictive values (NPVs) of MRS-PDFF and CS-MRI PDFF were 88.3% and 81.3%, respectively. In terms of distinguishing between clinically significant hepatic steatosis (≥10% on histopathology), the AUC of MRS-PDFF and CS-MRI were 0.871 ± 0.034 (P < 0.001 95% CI: 0.804–0.937) and 0.855 ± 0.036 (P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.784–0.925), respectively. The NPVs of MRS-PDFF and CS-MRI were 99% and 92%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The methods of MRS-PDFF and CS-MRI PDFF provide a non-invasive and accurate approach for assessing hepatic steatosis in potential living liver donor candidates. These MRI PDFF techniques present a promising clinical advantage in the preoperative evaluation of living liver donors by eliminating the requirement for invasive procedures like liver biopsy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]