Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 101 - 107 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 İndeks Tarihi: 12-10-2021
Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates
Öz: Aim: The presence of hepatosteatosis (HS) in the donor has negative effects on the results of liver transplantation (LT). Therefore, the detection ofdonor HS is vital during the pre-transplant period. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of liver biopsy and radiological methods in thedetection of HS in live liver donor candidates.Materials and Methods: Two hundred twenty-six healthy individuals who were admitted to Demiroğlu Bilim University as donor candidates for LTwere included in the study. Demographic, histopathological, laboratory and imaging findings of the donors were retrospectively reviewed. Computedtomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the donors were retrospectively reevaluated and liver fat measurements wererecorded.Results: 39% (88) of the patients were female and 61% (138) were male. In the study population, the mean age was 34.3±8.7 years, the meanweight was 78.0±12.6 kg, the mean height was 169.1±9.6 cm, and the mean body mass index was 27.2±4.0. 42% of donors had <5% HS, and 58%of donors had >5% HS in liver biopsy. Both CT and MRI showed significant correlations with biopsy in HS detection (p<0.05).Conclusion: In our study, it was found that MRI correlated with biopsy as much as CT and could be used easily in the detection of HS. The use ofMRI in liver donors may be more appropriate for donor health prior to transplantation.
Anahtar Kelime: Canlı Karaciğer Donör Adaylarında Hepatosteatozun Saptanmasında Biyopsi, Bilgisayarlı Tomografi ve Manyetik Rezonans Görüntülemenin Karşılaştırılması
Öz: Amaç: Karaciğer donöründe hepatosteatoz (HS) varlığı, karaciğer transplantasyonu sonuçları üzerinde olumsuz etkilere sahiptir. Bu nedenle, donörde HS’nin tespiti, nakil öncesi dönemde hayati önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, canlı karaciğer donör adaylarında HS’nin saptanmasında karaciğer biyopsisi ve radyolojik yöntemlerin etkinliğini karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Demiroğlu Bilim Üniversitesi’ne karaciğer transplantasyonu için donör adayı olarak kabul edilen 226 sağlıklı birey çalışmaya dahil edildi. Donörlerin demografik, histopatolojik, laboratuvar ve görüntüleme bulguları retrospektif olarak incelendi. Donörlerin bilgisayarlı tomografi (BT) ve manyetik rezonans görüntüleme (MRG) taramaları geriye dönük olarak yeniden değerlendirildi ve karaciğer yağ ölçümleri kaydedildi. Bulgular: Hastaların %39’u (88) kadın, %61’i (138) erkekti. Çalışma popülasyonunda ortalama yaş 34,3±8,7 yıl, ortalama ağırlık 78,0±12,6 kg, ortalama boy 169,1±9,6 cm ve ortalama vücut kitle indeksi 27,2±4,0 idi. Karaciğer biyopsisinde donörlerin %42’sinde <%5 HS vardı ve donörlerin %58’inde >%5 HS vardı. Hem BT hem de MRG, HS saptamada biyopsi ile anlamlı korelasyon gösterdi (p<0,05). Sonuç: Çalışmamızda MRG’nin BT kadar biyopsi ile ilişkili olduğu ve HS’nin saptanmasında rahatlıkla kullanılabileceği bulunmuştur. Karaciğer donörlerinde MRG kullanımı, iyonizan radyasyon içermemesinden dolayı nakil öncesi donör için daha uygun bir yöntem olabilir.
Anahtar Kelime: Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- 1. Selzner M, Clavien PA. Fatty liver in liver transplantation and surgery. Semin Liver Dis. 2001;21:105-13.
- 2. Brandhagen D, Fidler J, Rosen C. Evaluation of the donor liver for living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2003;9(10 Suppl 2):16-28.
- 3. Imber CJ, St Peter SD, Handa A, Friend PJ. Hepatic steatosis and its relationship to transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2002;8:415-23.
- 4. Iwasaki M, Takada Y, Hayashi M, Minamiguchi S, Haga H, Maetani Y, et al. Noninvasive evaluation of graft steatosis in living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2004;78:1501-5.
- 5. Rastogi R, Gupta S, Garg B, Vohra S, Wadhawan M, Rastogi H. Comparative accuracy of CT, dual-echo MRI and MR spectroscopy for preoperative liver fat quantification in living related liver donors. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2016;26:5-14.
- 6. Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S. Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:495- 500.
- 7. Schwenzer NF, Springer F, Schraml C, Stefan N, Machann J, Schick F. Noninvasive assessment and quantification of liver steatosis by ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance. J Hepatol. 2009;51:433- 45.
- 8. Graif M, Yanuka M, Baraz M, Blank A, Moshkovitz M, Kessler A, et al. Quantitative estimation of attenuation in ultrasound video images: correlation with histology in diffuse liver disease. Invest Radiol. 2000;35:319-24.
- 9. Park SH, Kim PN, Kim KW, Lee SW, Yoon SE, Park SW, et al. Macrovesicular hepatic steatosis in living liver donors: use of CT for quantitative and qualitative assessment. Radiology. 2006;239:105-12.
- 10. Lee SW, Park SH, Kim KW, Choi EK, Shin YM, Kim PN, et al. Unenhanced CT for assessment of macrovesicular hepatic steatosis in living liver donors: comparison of visual grading with liver attenuation index. Radiology. 2007;244:479-85.
- 11. Zheng D, Tian W, Zheng Z, Gu J, Guo Z, He X. Accuracy of computed tomography for detecting hepatic steatosis in donors for liver transplantation: A meta-analysis. Clin Transplant. 2017;31.
- 12. Rogier J, Roullet S, Cornélis F, Biais M, Quinart A, Revel P, et al. Noninvasive assessment of macrovesicular liver steatosis in cadaveric donors based on computed tomography liver-to-spleen attenuation ratio. Liver Transpl. 2015;21:690-5.
- 13. Kramer H, Pickhardt PJ, Kliewer MA, Hernando D, Chen GH, Zagzebski JA, et al. Accuracy of Liver Fat Quantification With Advanced CT, MRI, and Ultrasound Techniques: Prospective Comparison With MR Spectroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:92-100.
- 14. Chiang HJ, Lin LH, Li CW, Lin CC, Chiang HW, Huang TL, et al. Magnetic resonance fat quantification in living donor liver transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2014;46:666-8.
- 15. Limanond P, Raman SS, Lassman C, Sayre J, Ghobrial RM, Busuttil RW, et al. Macrovesicular hepatic steatosis in living related liver donors: correlation between CT and histologic findings. Radiology. 2004;230:276-80.
- 16. Gangadhar K, Chintapalli KN, Cortez G, Niar SV. MRI evaluation of fatty liver in day to day practice: Quantitative and qualitative methods. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2014;45:619-26.
- 17. Kawamitsu H, Kaji Y, Ohara T, Sugimura K. Feasibility of quantitative intrahepatic lipid imaging applied to the magnetic resonance dual gradient echo sequence. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2003;2:47-50.
- 18. Borra RJ, Salo S, Dean K, Lautamäki R, Nuutila P, Komu M, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: rapid evaluation of liver fat content with in-phase and out-of-phase MR imaging. Radiology. 2009;250:130-6.
- 19. Zheng D, Guo Z, Schroder PM, Zheng Z, Lu Y, Gu J, et al. Accuracy of MR Imaging and MR Spectroscopy for Detection and Quantification of Hepatic Steatosis in Living Liver Donors: A Meta-Analysis. Radiology. 2017;282:92-102.
- 20. Raptis DA, Fischer MA, Graf R, Nanz D, Weber A, Moritz W, et al. MRI: the new reference standard in quantifying hepatic steatosis? Gut. 2012;61:117-27.
- 21. Reeder SB, Cruite I, Hamilton G, Sirlin CB. Quantitative Assessment of Liver Fat with Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Spectroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34:729-49.
- 22. Cheng YF, Chen CL, Huang TL, Chen TY, Lee TY, Chen YS, et al. Single imaging modality evaluation of living donors in liver transplantation: magnetic resonance imaging. Transplantation. 2001;72:1527-33.
- 23. Lee SS, Park SH, Kim HJ, Kim SY, Kim MY, Kim DY, et al. Non-invasive assessment of hepatic steatosis: prospective comparison of the accuracy of imaging examinations. J Hepatol. 2010;52:579-85.
- 24. Gallegos-Orozco JF, Silva AC, Batheja MJ, Chang YH, Hansen KL, Lam- Himlin D, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography can discriminate normal vs. abnormal liver biopsy in candidates for live liver donation. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:795-802.
- 25. Reeder SB, Sirlin CB. Quantification of liver fat with magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2010;18:337-57.
- 26. Reeder SB, Robson PM, Yu H, Shimakawa A, Hines CD, McKenzie CA, et al. Quantification of hepatic steatosis with MRI: the effects of accurate fat spectral modeling. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;29:1332-9.
- 27. Yokoo T, Bydder M, Hamilton G, Middleton MS, Gamst AC, Wolfson T, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: diagnostic and fat-grading accuracy of low-flip-angle multiecho gradient-recalled-echo MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology. 2009;251:67-76.
- 28. Kim H, Taksali SE, Dufour S, Befroy D, Goodman TR, Petersen KF, et al. Comparative MR study of hepatic fat quantification using single-voxel proton spectroscopy, two-point dixon and three-point IDEAL. Magn Reson Med. 2008;59:521-7.
- 29. Idilman IS, Aniktar H, Idilman R, Kabacam G, Savas B, Elhan A, et al. Hepatic steatosis: quantification by proton density fat fraction with MR imaging versus liver biopsy. Radiology. 2013;267:767-75.
- 30. Gu J, Liu S, Du S, Zhang Q, Xiao J, Dong Q, et al. Diagnostic value of MRI-PDFF for hepatic steatosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2019;29:3564-73.
| APA | Koyuncu Sokmen B, Şahin T, Oral A, koçak e (2021). Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates. , 101 - 107. 10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 |
| Chicago | Koyuncu Sokmen Bedriye,Şahin Tolga,Oral Alihan,koçak erdem Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates. (2021): 101 - 107. 10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 |
| MLA | Koyuncu Sokmen Bedriye,Şahin Tolga,Oral Alihan,koçak erdem Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates. , 2021, ss.101 - 107. 10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 |
| AMA | Koyuncu Sokmen B,Şahin T,Oral A,koçak e Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates. . 2021; 101 - 107. 10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 |
| Vancouver | Koyuncu Sokmen B,Şahin T,Oral A,koçak e Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates. . 2021; 101 - 107. 10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 |
| IEEE | Koyuncu Sokmen B,Şahin T,Oral A,koçak e "Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates." , ss.101 - 107, 2021. 10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 |
| ISNAD | Koyuncu Sokmen, Bedriye vd. "Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates". (2021), 101-107. https://doi.org/10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 |
| APA | Koyuncu Sokmen B, Şahin T, Oral A, koçak e (2021). Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates. Namık Kemal Tıp Dergisi, 9(2), 101 - 107. 10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 |
| Chicago | Koyuncu Sokmen Bedriye,Şahin Tolga,Oral Alihan,koçak erdem Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates. Namık Kemal Tıp Dergisi 9, no.2 (2021): 101 - 107. 10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 |
| MLA | Koyuncu Sokmen Bedriye,Şahin Tolga,Oral Alihan,koçak erdem Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates. Namık Kemal Tıp Dergisi, vol.9, no.2, 2021, ss.101 - 107. 10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 |
| AMA | Koyuncu Sokmen B,Şahin T,Oral A,koçak e Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates. Namık Kemal Tıp Dergisi. 2021; 9(2): 101 - 107. 10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 |
| Vancouver | Koyuncu Sokmen B,Şahin T,Oral A,koçak e Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates. Namık Kemal Tıp Dergisi. 2021; 9(2): 101 - 107. 10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 |
| IEEE | Koyuncu Sokmen B,Şahin T,Oral A,koçak e "Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates." Namık Kemal Tıp Dergisi, 9, ss.101 - 107, 2021. 10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 |
| ISNAD | Koyuncu Sokmen, Bedriye vd. "Comparison of Biopsy, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Hepatosteatosis in Live Liver Donor Candidates". Namık Kemal Tıp Dergisi 9/2 (2021), 101-107. https://doi.org/10.4274/nkmj.galenos.2021.46855 |
