Li H, Chen TW, Li ZL, Zhang XM, Li CJ, Chen XL, Chen GW, Hu JN, Ye YQ. Albumin and magnetic resonance imaging-liver volume to identify hepatitis B-related cirrhosis and esophageal varices. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(3): 988-996 [PMID: PMC4299354 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i3.988]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Tian-Wu Chen, MD, Sichuan Key Laboratory of Medical Imaging, and Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, 63 Wenhua Road, Shunqing District, Nanchong 637000, Sichuan Province, China. chentw@aliyun.com
Research Domain of This Article
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
Article-Type of This Article
Prospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Table 4 Volume parameters of each liver lobe in determining the presence and Child-Pugh class of liver cirrhosis, and predicting the presence of esophageal varices
Parameters
Cut-off
Differentiations
AUC
Sensitivity
Specificity
RV (mm3)
692.3
No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis
0.816
70.6%
75%
508.9
Class A vs C
0.900
90.3%
84.5%
522.2
Class B vs C
0.803
70.0%
88%
579.45
No varices vs varices
0.780
71.4%
70.0%
LMV (mm3)
201.3
No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis
0.754
70.6%
77.0%
181.1
Class A vs B
0.728
68.0%
71.0%
155.4
Class A vs C
0.751
82.1%
75.0%
LLV (mm3)
233.2
Class A vs B
0.761
74.4%
73.1%
224.9
Class A vs C
0.792
82.1%
75.0%
CV (mm3)
23.8
No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis
0.756
69.0%
65.0%
25.1
Class A vs C
0.806
85.7%
69.0%
RV/ALB
19.9
Class A vs C
0.801
68.8%
79.6%
20.46
No varices vs varices
0.890
80.0%
83.5%
LLV/ALB
0.9
No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis
0.763
70.6%
71.0%
8.3
Class A vs C
0.752
68.8%
65.5%
7.5
Class B vs C
0.900
93.8%
81.5%
CV/ALB
0.6
No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis
0.860
82.0%
83.0%
0.825
No varices vs varices
0.673
64.0%
67.0%
Table 5 Volume parameters of liver lobes for best identifying the presence and Child-Pugh class of liver cirrhosis, and predicting the presence of esophageal varices
Parameter
Cut-off
Differentiations
Sensitivity
Specificity
CV/ALB
0.6
No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis
82.0%
83.00%
RV (mm3)
508.9
Class A vs C
90.3%
84.5%
LLV/ALB
7.5
Class B vs C
93.8%
81.5%
LLV (mm3)
233.2
Class A vs B
74.4%
73.1%
RV/ALB (mm3)
20.46
No varices vs varices
80.0%
83.5%
Citation: Li H, Chen TW, Li ZL, Zhang XM, Li CJ, Chen XL, Chen GW, Hu JN, Ye YQ. Albumin and magnetic resonance imaging-liver volume to identify hepatitis B-related cirrhosis and esophageal varices. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(3): 988-996