Assessment of liver fibrosis with liver and spleen magnetic resonance elastography, serum markers in chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND

The accurate assessment of liver fibrosis is essential for patients with chronic liver disease. A liver biopsy is an invasive procedure that has many potential defects and complications. Therefore, noninvasive assessment techniques are of considerable value for clinical diagnosis. Liver and spleen magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and serum markers have been proposed for quantitative and noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis. This study aims to compare the diagnostic performance of liver and spleen stiffness measured by MRE, fibrosis index based on the 4 factors (FIB-4), aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI), and their combined models for staging hepatic fibrosis.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty patients with chronic liver disease underwent MRE scans. Liver and spleen stiffness were measured by the MRE stiffness maps. Serum markers were collected to calculate FIB-4 and APRI. Liver biopsies were used to identify pathologic grading. Spearman's rank correlation analysis evaluated the correlation between the parameters and fibrosis stages. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis evaluated the performance of the four individual parameters, a liver and spleen stiffness combined model, and an all-parameters combined model in assessing liver fibrosis.

RESULTS

Liver stiffness, spleen stiffness, FIB-4, and APRI were all correlated with fibrosis stage (=0.87, 0.64, 0.65, and 0.51, respectively, all P<0.001). Among the 4 individual diagnostic markers, liver stiffness showed the highest values in staging F1-4, F2-4, F3-4 and F4 (AUC =0.89, 0. 97, 0.95, and 0.95, all P<0.001). The AUCs of the liver and spleen stiffness combined model in the F1-4, F2-4, F3-4, and F4 staging groups were 0.89, 0.97, 0.95, and 0.96, respectively (all P<0.001). The corresponding AUCs of the all-parameters combined model were 0.90, 0.97, 0.95, and 0.96 (all P<0.001). The AUCs of the liver and spleen stiffness combined model were significantly higher than those of APRI, FIB-4 in the F2-4, F3-4, and F4 staging groups (all P<0.05). Both combined models were not significantly different from liver stiffness in staging liver fibrosis (all P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Liver stiffness measured with MRE had better diagnostic performance than spleen stiffness, APRI, and FIB-4 for fibrosis staging. The combined models did not significantly improve the diagnostic value compared with liver stiffness in staging fibrosis.