Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Elastography and Gadoxetate Disodium–Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Evaluation of Hepatic Fibrosis

OBJECTIVESThe objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and gadoxetate disodium–enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the staging of hepatic fibrosis (HF) in patients with liver diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODSThis retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board, and the informed consent was waived. One hundred and sixty-eight patients with chronic liver disease or suspected focal hepatic lesions underwent MRE and gadoxetate disodium–enhanced MRI at 1.5 T. Liver stiffness values were measured on quantitative shear-stiffness maps. The contrast enhancement index (CEI) was calculated as SIpost / SIpre, where SIpost and SIpre are, respectively, the liver-to-muscle signal intensity (SI) ratio on hepatobiliary phase images and on unenhanced images. The diagnostic performance of MRE and CEI for staging HF was compared using the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis on the basis of the histopathologic analysis of HF. RESULTSThe liver stiffness values measured on MRE (r = 0.802; P < 0.0001) were more strongly correlated with the HF stage than with the CEI (r = −0.378; P < 0.0001). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of the liver stiffness values were significantly larger than those of CEI were for discriminating all stages of HF (P < 0.001 for ≥F1, ≥F2, ≥F3, and ≥F4). Magnetic resonance elastography showed higher sensitivity and specificity for predicting HF ≥F1 (91% and 87%), ≥F2 (87% and 91%), ≥F3 (80% and 89%), and F4 (81% and 85%) compared with CEI (46% and 85%, 46% and 82%, 63% and 68%, and 76% and 65%, respectively). CONCLUSIONSMagnetic resonance elastography was superior to the gadoxetate disodium–enhancement MRI for HF staging.