Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of liver cirrhosis by imaging modalities, including CT, MRI and US, compared to results obtained from histopathological diagnoses of resected specimens. Materials and Methods: CT, MRI and US examinations of 142 patients with chronic liver disease who underwent surgery for complicated hepatocellular carcinoma (<3 cm in diameter) in 10 institutions were blindly reviewed in a multicenter study by three radiologists experienced in CT, MRI and US. The images were evaluated for five imaging parameters (irregular or nodular liver surface, blunt liver edge, liver parenchymal abnormalities, liver morphological changes and manifestations of portal hypertension) using a severity scale. The diagnostic imaging impression score was also calculated. Patients were histologically classified into chronic hepatitis (CH; n = 54), liver cirrhosis (LC; n = 71) and pre-cirrhosis (P-LC; n = 17) by three pathologists, independently, who reviewed the resected liver specimens. The results of the three imaging methods were compared to those from histological diagnoses, and a multivariate analysis (stepwise forward logistic regression analysis) was performed to identify independent predictive signs of cirrhosis. The diagnostic efficacies for LC and early cirrhosis were also compared among CT, MRI and US using a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: The differences in the five imaging parameters evaluated by CT, MRI and US between LC and CH were statistically significant (p < 0.001) except for the manifestations of portal hypertension on US. Irregular or nodular surface, blunt edge or morphological changes in the liver were selected as the best predictive signs for cirrhosis on US whereas liver parenchymal abnormalities, manifestations of portal hypertension and morphological changes in the liver were the best predictive signs on MRI and CT by multivariate analysis. The predictive diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity in discriminating LC from CH based on the best predictive signs were 71.9, 77.1 and 67.6% by CT; 67.9, 67.5 and 68.3% by MRI, and 66.0, 38.4 (lower than CT and MRI, p =0.001) and 88.8% (higher than CT and MRI, p =0.001)by US. According to the imaging impression scoring system, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were 67.0, 84.3 and 52.9% by CT; 70.3, 86.7 and 53.9% by MRI, and 64.0, 52.4 (lower than CT and MRI, p =0.0001) and 73.5% (higher than CT and MRI, p < 0.003) by US. ROC analysis showed that MRI and CT were slightly superior to US in the diagnosis of LC but no statistically significant difference was found between them. For the pathological diagnosis of P-LC, cirrhosis was diagnosed in 59.5, 46.7 and 41.7% of the P-LC cases by US, CT and MRI, respectively, with no significant difference among these methods. Conclusion: US, CT and MRI had different independent predictive signs for the diagnosis of LC. MRI and CT were slightly superior to US in predicting cirrhosis, especially regarding sensitivity. Noninvasive imaging techniques play an important role in the diagnosis of cirrhosis, especially in the evaluation of P-LC.

Keywords:
CT, Diagnostic accuracy, Diagnostic imaging, Imaging modalities, Liver cirrhosis, MRI, Multicenter study, Ultrasonography, Receiver-operating characteristic analysis
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
2008
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.