Prospective Comparison of Liver Stiffness Measurements between Two Point Shear Wave Elastography Methods: Virtual Touch Quantification and Elastography Point Quantification.
10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.750
- Author:
Hyunsuk YOO
1
;
Jeong Min LEE
;
Jeong Hee YOON
;
Dong Ho LEE
;
Won CHANG
;
Joon Koo HAN
Author Information
1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul 03080, Korea. jmsh@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Liver fibrosis;
Liver stiffness;
Ultrasound elastography;
Shear wave elastography
- MeSH:
Elasticity Imaging Techniques*;
Humans;
Liver Cirrhosis;
Liver Diseases;
Liver*;
Methods*;
Prospective Studies*
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology
2016;17(5):750-757
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare technical success rate and reliable measurements of virtual touch quantification (VTQ) elastography and elastography point quantification (ElastPQ), and to correlate liver stiffness (LS) measurements obtained by the two elastography techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study included 85 patients, 80 of whom were previously diagnosed with chronic liver disease. The technical success rate and reliable measurements of the two kinds of point shear wave elastography (pSWE) techniques were compared by χ2 analysis. LS values measured using the two techniques were compared and correlated via Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Spearman correlation coefficient, and 95% Bland-Altman limit of agreement. The intraobserver reproducibility of ElastPQ was determined by 95% Bland-Altman limit of agreement and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The two pSWE techniques showed similar technical success rate (98.8% for VTQ vs. 95.3% for ElastPQ, p = 0.823) and reliable LS measurements (95.3% for VTQ vs. 90.6% for ElastPQ, p = 0.509). The mean LS measurements obtained by VTQ (1.71 ± 0.47 m/s) and ElastPQ (1.66 ± 0.41 m/s) were not significantly different (p = 0.209). The LS measurements obtained by the two techniques showed strong correlation (r = 0.820); in addition, the 95% limit of agreement of the two methods was 27.5% of the mean. Finally, the ICC of repeat ElastPQ measurements was 0.991. CONCLUSION: Virtual touch quantification and ElastPQ showed similar technical success rate and reliable measurements, with strongly correlated LS measurements. However, the two methods are not interchangeable due to the large limit of agreement.
