Jie Chen1,2, Alina Allen3, Terry Therneau4, Jun Chen2, Jiahui Li2, Jingbiao Chen2, Xin Lu2, Zheng Zhu2, safa Hoodeshenas2, Sudhakar Venkatesh2, Bin Song1, Richard Ehman2, and Meng Yin2
1Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, 2Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States, 3Devision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States, 4Devision of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
1Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, 2Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States, 3Devision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States, 4Devision of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
This large cross-sectional study demonstrates that unlike ultrasound based elastography, MRE-based measurements of liver stiffness are not affected by the presence and severity hepatic steatosis.
Figure 4. The Locally Weighted Scatterplot smoothing of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) versus proton density fat fraction (PDFF) in all cases (a), and within each fibrosis stage (b). In the gray area where PDFF is less than 5% (mostly S0 cases), there are many F3 and F4 patients, and the slight decrease in LSM in patients with cirrhosis is due to the biased distribution of high LSM and low PDFF, also known as the “burned-out” NASH.
Table 1. Results of linear regressions with liver stiffness measurement as the dependent variable in patients with diagnosed steatosis (PDFF≥5%), and in different subgroups.
