Background Advanced confounder-corrected chemical shift-encoded MRI-derived proton density fat fraction (PDFF) is a leading parameter for fat fraction quantification in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Because of the limited availability of this MRI technique, there is a need to develop and validate alternative parameters to assess liver fat. Purpose To assess relationship of quantitative US parameters to MRI PDFF and to develop multivariable quantitative US models to detect hepatic steatosis and quantify hepatic fat. Materials and Methods Adults with known NAFLD or who were suspected of having NAFLD were prospectively recruited between August 2015 and February 2019. Participants underwent quantitative US and chemical shift-encoded MRI liver examinations. Liver biopsies were performed if clinically indicated. The correlation between seven quantitative US parameters and MRI PDFF was evaluated. By using leave-one-out cross validation, two quantitative US multivariable models were evaluated: a classifier to differentiate participants with NAFLD versus participants without NAFLD and a fat fraction estimator. Classifier performance was summarized by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the precision-recall curve. Fat fraction estimator performance was evaluated by correlation, linearity, and bias. Results Included were 102 participants (mean age, 52 years ± 13 [standard deviation]; 53 women), 78 with NAFLD (MRI PDFF ≥ 5%). A two-variable classifier yielded a cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.82, 0.96) and an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.93, 0.99). The cross-validated fat fraction predicted by a two-variable fat fraction estimator was correlated with MRI PDFF (Spearman ρ = 0.82 [P < .001]; Pearson r = 0.76 [P < .001]). The mean bias was 0.02% (P = .97), and 95% limits of agreement were ±12.0%. The predicted fat fraction was linear with MRI PDFF (R ² = 0.63; slope, 0.69; intercept, 4.3%) for MRI PDFF of 34% or less. Conclusion A multivariable quantitative US approach yielded excellent correlation with MRI proton density fat fraction for hepatic steatosis assessment in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Liver fibrosis is a histological hallmark of most chronic liver diseases, which can progress to cirrhosis and liver failure, and predisposes to hepatocellular carcinoma. Accurate diagnosis of liver fibrosis is necessary for prognosis, risk stratification, and treatment decision-making. Liver biopsy, the reference standard for assessing liver fibrosis, is invasive, costly, and impractical for surveillance and treatment response monitoring. Elastography offers a noninvasive, objective, and quantitative alternative to liver biopsy. This article discusses the need for noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis and reviews the comparative advantages and limitations of ultrasound and magnetic resonance elastography techniques with respect to their basic concepts, acquisition, processing, and diagnostic performance. Variations in clinical contexts of use and common pitfalls associated with each technique are considered. In addition, current challenges and future directions to improve the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of elastography techniques are discussed. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:25-42.

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of US shear wave elastography (SWE) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) for classifying fibrosis stage in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Methods

Patients from a prospective single-center cohort with clinical liver biopsy for known or suspected NAFLD underwent contemporaneous SWE and MRE. AUCs for classifying biopsy-determined liver fibrosis stages ≥ 1, ≥ 2, ≥ 3, and = 4, and their respective performance parameters at cutoffs providing ≥ 90% sensitivity or specificity were compared between SWE and MRE.

Results

In total, 100 patients (mean age, 51.8 ± 12.9 years; 46% males; mean BMI 31.6 ± 4.7 kg/m²) with fibrosis stage distribution (stage 0/1/2/3/4) of 43, 36, 5, 10, and 6%, respectively, were included. AUCs (and 95% CIs) for SWE and MRE were 0.65 (0.54-0.76) and 0.81 (0.72-0.89), 0.81 (0.71-0.91) and 0.94 (0.89-1.00), 0.85 (0.74-0.96) and 0.95 (0.89-1.00), and 0.91 (0.79-1.00) and 0.92 (0.83-1.00), for detecting fibrosis stage ≥ 1, ≥ 2, ≥ 3, and = 4, respectively. The differences were significant for detecting fibrosis stage ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 (p < 0.01) but not otherwise. At ≥ 90% sensitivity cutoff, MRE yielded higher specificity than SWE at diagnosing fibrosis stage ≥ 1, ≥ 2, and ≥ 3. At ≥ 90% specificity cutoff, MRE yielded higher sensitivity than SWE at diagnosing fibrosis stage ≥ 1 and ≥ 2.

Conclusions

In adults with NAFLD, MRE was more accurate than SWE in diagnosing stage ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 fibrosis, but not stage ≥ 3 or 4 fibrosis.

Key points

• For detecting any fibrosis or mild fibrosis, MR elastography was significantly more accurate than shear wave elastography. • For detecting advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, MRE and SWE did not differ significantly in accuracy. • For excluding advanced fibrosis and potentially ruling out the need for biopsy, SWE and MRE did not differ significantly in negative predictive value. • Neither SWE nor MRE had sufficiently high positive predictive value to rule in advanced fibrosis.