Point Shear Wave Elastography for Grading Liver Fibrosis: Can the Number of Measurements Be Reduced?

WFUMB Guideline/Guidance on Liver Multiparametric Ultrasound: Part 1. Update to 2018 Guidelines on Liver Ultrasound Elastography

The World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (WFUMB) endorsed the development of this document on multiparametric ultrasound. Part 1 is an update to the WFUMB Liver Elastography Guidelines Update released in 2018 and provides new evidence on the role of ultrasound elastography in chronic liver disease. The recommendations in this update were made and graded using the Oxford classification, including level of evidence (LoE), grade of recommendation (GoR) and proportion of agreement (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine [OCEBM] 2009). The guidelines are clinically oriented, and the role of shear wave elastography in both fibrosis staging and prognostication in different etiologies of liver disease is discussed, highlighting advantages and limitations. A comprehensive section is devoted to the assessment of portal hypertension, with specific recommendations for the interpretation of liver and spleen stiffness measurements in this setting.

Comparison of liver stiffness measurements by a 2D-shear wave technique and transient elastography: results from a European prospective multi-centre study

OBJECTIVES

To compare liver stiffness measurement (LSM) provided by Canon 2D-shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) and transient elastography (TE), the latter being the reference method.

METHODS

Prospective study conducted in four European centres from 2015 to 2016 including patients with various chronic liver diseases who had LSMs with both 2D-SWE and TE on the same day. Median of 10 valid measurements (in kPa) was used for comparison using paired t test, Pearson correlation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot. The ability of 2D-SWE to stratify patient according to recognised LSM-TE thresholds was assessed by ROC curve analysis.

RESULTS

Six hundred forty patients were scanned, where 593 (92.7%), 572 (89.4%) and 537 (83.9%) had reliable LSMs by TE, 2D-SWE and both combined, respectively. In the latter (n = 537, 310 [57.7%] male, mean 55.3 ± 14.8 years), median LSM-TE and LSM-2D-SWE had a mean of 10.1 ± 9.4 kPa (range 2.4-75) and 9.1 ± 6.1 kPa (range 3.6-55.7) (paired t test: p < 0.001), respectively. These were significantly correlated (Pearson r = 0.932, p < 0.001, ICC 0.850 (0.825-0.872), bias 0.99 ± 4.33 kPa [95% limits of agreement - 9.48 to + 7.49] with proportional error towards higher LSM values). LSM-2D-SWE values significantly increased with TE categories (ANOVA: p < 0.001). AUROCs ranged from 0.935 ± 0.010 (95% CI 0.910-0.954) to 0.973 ± 0.009 (95% CI 0.955-0.985), resulting in correct classification of 390/537 (73%) patients. Three 2D-SWE measurements were sufficient for reliable LSMs.

CONCLUSION

LSM using 2D-SWE correlates well with TE. It tends to underestimate higher stages of liver fibrosis but correctly classifies the majority of patients. It may be used in TE-derived algorithms to manage patients.

KEY POINTS

• Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by 2D-shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) and transient elastography (TE) are strongly correlated. • 2D-SWE shows proportionately lower LSM values compared to TE, particularly with the higher LSM range. • Three individual measurements by 2D-SWE are sufficient to assess LSM reliably.