Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 21, 2019; 25(11): 1307-1326
Published online Mar 21, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i11.1307
Table 1 Imaging modalities for diagnosing nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
TestDescriptionAccuracyAdvantagesDisadvantagesGuideline recommendation
UltrasoundHyperechoic texture or a bright liverAUROC 0.93, Sn 85%, Sp 94% for diagnosis of steatosis[33]Cheap; No radiation; Available; Easy to performLow sensitivity in individuals with steatosis < 20% or BMI > 40 kg/m2; Observer-dependency; Influenced by fibrosis or iron overloadThe first-line diagnostic test for diagnosing moderate and severe steatosis[32]
Computed tomographyMeasurement of liver steatosis with attenuation values of liver and spleenAUROC 0.99, Sn 100%, Sp 82% for diagnosis of steatosis > 30%[29]Visualize the whole liver; Higher applicability; Quantify moderate-severe steatosisLow sensitivity for light-moderate steatosis; Radiation exposureNA
CAPMeasurement of liver steatosis with ultrasound attenuation by FibroscanAUROC 0.82, Sn 69%, Sp 82% for diagnosis of any steatosis[44]Immediate assessment; Can be used in ambulatory clinic setting; Measure LSM simultaneouslyOperator-dependency; Limited sensitivity; High failure rates in obesity patient; Low accuracy for quantifying steatosis; Uncertain cut-off valuesThe role of CAP for steatosis assessment is inclusive, more future studies are needed to define the role of CAP[32]
Magnetic resonance based techniquesQuantitative measurement of steatosis over the entire liver by adding parameter to MRI scannersMRI-PDFF: AUROC 0.99, Sn 96%, Sp 100% for diagnosis of any steatosis[49] MRS: Sn 80%, Sp 80% for diagnosing steatosis ≥ 5%[58]Not affected by obesity; Quantify assess steatosis over the entire liver; Lower sampling variabilityExpensive; Time consuming; Device- and operator-dependency; Not suitable for patients with implantable devicesIt is excellent to quantify steatosis, but the high price limits its application[32]