Jump to comment:

• Non-invasive evaluation of hepatic fibrosis using magnetic resonance and ultrasound techniques
  Jeremy F L Cobbold
  Published on: 16 March 2006

• Published on: 16 March 2006

  Non-invasive evaluation of hepatic fibrosis using magnetic resonance and ultrasound techniques

  • Jeremy F L Cobbold, Clinical Research Fellow
  • Other Contributors:
    • Marzena Wylezinska, Cliona Cunningham, Mary E. Crossey, Howard C. Thomas, I. Jane Cox, Nayna Patel, and Simon D. Taylor-Robinson.

  Dear Editor,

  In his recent Gut commentary, Pinzani discusses approaches to non- invasive evaluation of liver fibrosis and addresses some of the methods currently under investigation.(1) We agree that liver histology is a surrogate end-point and Pinzani emphasises the need for longitudinal studies based on hard clinical endpoints. However, he states "At present, CT and MR can indicate the presence of cirrhosis with...

  Show More

  Dear Editor,

  In his recent Gut commentary, Pinzani discusses approaches to non- invasive evaluation of liver fibrosis and addresses some of the methods currently under investigation.(1) We agree that liver histology is a surrogate end-point and Pinzani emphasises the need for longitudinal studies based on hard clinical endpoints. However, he states "At present, CT and MR can indicate the presence of cirrhosis with high specificity but with very low sensitivity". In reply, we wish to counter this statement and would like to emphasise data from emerging technologies, including magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), ultrashort echo time (UTE) MR imaging (MRI) and microbubble ultrasound.

  For example, we have used in vivo 31P MRS to characterise hepatic fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C (CHC) infection (2). The phosphomonoester to phosphodiester (PME/PDE) ratio provided an index of cell membrane turnover and was found to correlate closely with disease severity assessed by liver histology (Ishak system). A PME/PDE ratio ≥0.3 provided a sensitivity and specificity of 82% and 81% respectively for the diagnosis of cirrhosis, comparable to many indirect serological markers.(1) There was a monotonic increase in PME/PDE ratio with increasing disease activity and statistically significant differences between mild hepatitis, moderate/severe hepatitis and cirrhosis.(2) We also demonstrated the potential utility of UTE MRI (3) and showed the relaxation time, T2*, was significantly different between controls and patients with cirrhosis. Functionally-decompensated liver disease (Child's grade C) differed significantly from functionally-compensated liver disease (Child's A/B). Significant differences in diffusion-weighting MRI indices between patients with cirrhosis and normal volunteers have also been reported.(4)

  Pinzani highlighted the controversy surrounding usage of Doppler- ultrasonography (US) parameters. The study he cited of Doppler-US indexes, in conjunction with clinical signs and biochemical measures, should be interpreted with caution, since the diagnostic accuracy of Doppler-US variables on an intention to diagnose basis was 87%, based on a protocol in which three variables were assessed in a step-wise manner.(5) However, in contrast, our analysis of Doppler-US in assessment of CHC fibrosis demonstrated no significant difference between Doppler indexes with increasing severity of liver disease.(6)

  It should be noted that US microbubble contrast agents have also been employed to evaluate liver fibrosis, through hepatic vein transit time (HVTT) measurements.(7;8) HVTT decreases with increasing severity of liver disease, due to associated circulatory changes, which include arterialisation of the hepatic sinusoidal bed, the presence of intrahepatic and intrapulmonary shunting and the hyperdynamic circulation present in patients with cirrhosis.(7) An HVTT of less than 24s was 100% sensitive and 96% specific for the diagnosis of cirrhosis.(7;9) In a cohort of 85 CHC patients, HVTT demonstrated 100% sensitivity and 80% specificity for cirrhosis, and 95% sensitivity and 86% specificity for differentiation of mild hepatitis from more severe liver disease.(8) There was also a significant difference between moderate/severe hepatitis and these groups. Such a clear difference between Ishak grades of disease severity may, perhaps, inform treatment decisions.

  For a non-invasive biomarker of liver disease to be employed in a clinical setting, its place in clinical practice must be appraised. In the context of CHC, a role in the decision to start antiviral therapy and in monitoring of treatment response would be important. Biomarkers may also have a role in the stratification of patients with cirrhosis according to risk of clinical outcomes, such as variceal bleeding and the development of hepatocellular carcinoma, as has been suggested for transient elastography by Foucher and colleagues.(10) While it is ideal to find a single biomarker, a profile of tests embracing different modalities, including imaging and serological markers is more realistic and will probably add value to clinical management algorithms.

  Reference List

  (1) Pinzani M. Non-invasive evaluation of hepatic fibrosis: don't count your chickens before they're hatched. Gut 2006;55(3):310-2.

  (2) Lim AK, Patel N, Hamilton G et al. The relationship of in vivo 31P MR spectroscopy to histology in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2003;37(4):788-94.

  (3) Chappell KE, Patel N, Gatehouse PD et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the liver with ultrashort TE (UTE) pulse sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003;18(6):709-13.

  (4) Aube C, Racineux PX, Lebigot J et al. [Diagnosis and quantification of hepatic fibrosis with diffusion weighted MR imaging: preliminary results]. J Radiol 2004;85(3):301-6.

  (5) Aube C, Winkfield B, Oberti F et al. New Doppler ultrasound signs improve the non-invasive diagnosis of cirrhosis or severe liver fibrosis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;16(8):743-51.

  (6) Lim AK, Patel N, Eckersley RJ et al. Can Doppler sonography grade the severity of hepatitis C-related liver disease? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184(6):1848-53.

  (7) Albrecht T, Blomley MJ, Cosgrove DO et al. Non-invasive diagnosis of hepatic cirrhosis by transit-time analysis of an ultrasound contrast agent. Lancet 1999;353(9164):1579-83.

  (8) Lim AK, Taylor-Robinson SD, Patel N et al. Hepatic vein transit times using a microbubble agent can predict disease severity non-invasively in patients with hepatitis C. Gut 2005;54(1):128-33.

  (9) Albrecht T, Blomley MJ, Cosgrove DO et al. Transit-time studies with levovist in patients with and without hepatic cirrhosis: a promising new diagnostic tool. Eur Radiol 1999;9 Suppl 3:S377-S381.

  (10) Foucher J, Chanteloup E, Vergniol J et al. Diagnosis of cirrhosis by transient elastography (FibroScan): a prospective study. Gut 2006;55(3):403-8.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top