Abstract:
En
|
Text:
En
|
PDF:
En
SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation of fibrosis stages in cases of chronic hepatitis by comparing shear wave elastography and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. METHODS: A total of 46 chronic hepatitis patients with an age range of 20-50 years were classified into three groups based on their fibrosis stages. Comparison group 1: the presence of fibrosis (S0 and S1≤); comparison group 2: the presence of significant fibrosis (≤S2 and S3≤); and comparison group 3: the presence of cirrhosis (≤S4 and S6). Shear wave velocities were measured by acoustic radiation force impulse elastography. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was performed on a 3.0 Tesla MRI device. RESULTS: In comparison group 1 (S0 and S1≤), the area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity of acoustic radiation force impulse values were 0.784, 87, and 60%, respectively, while these values were 0.718, 80, and 66%, respectively, for apparent diffusion coefficient . In comparison group 2 (≤S2 and S3≤), the area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity of acoustic radiation force impulse values were 0.917, 80, and 86%, respectively, and the apparent diffusion coefficient values were 0.778, 90, and 66%, respectively. In comparison group 3, the area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity of acoustic radiation force impulse values were 0.977, 100, and 95%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the apparent diffusion coefficient values of the cases in the three groups (p=0.132). CONCLUSION: Noninvasive methods are gaining importance day by day for staging hepatic fibrosis. Acoustic radiation force impulse elastography was evaluated as a more reliable examination than diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in revealing the presence of fibrosis, determining significant fibrosis, and diagnosing cirrhosis. OBJECTIVE diffusionweighted weighted METHODS 4 2050 20 50 20-5 S0 S (S S1≤ S1 S1≤) ≤S2 S2 (≤S S3≤ S3 S3≤) 3 ≤S4 S4 S6. S6 S6) Diffusionweighted Diffusion 30 0 3. device RESULTS S1≤, , curve sensitivity 0784 784 0.784 87 60 60% respectively 0718 718 0.718 80 66 66% S3≤, 0917 917 0.917 86 86% 0778 778 0.778 90 0977 977 0.977 100 95 95% p=0.132. p0132 p p=0.132 132 (p=0.132) CONCLUSION 205 5 20- ≤S 078 78 0.78 8 6 071 71 0.71 091 91 0.91 077 77 0.77 9 097 97 0.97 10 p013 p=0.13 13 (p=0.132 07 7 0.7 09 0.9 p01 p=0.1 (p=0.13 0. p0 p=0. (p=0.1 p=0 (p=0. p= (p=0 (p= (p