Diagnostic Advances
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. Apr 28, 2017; 23(16): 2832-2840
Published online Apr 28, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i16.2832
Table 1 Summary of the technical features of the various elastographic techinques
TechniquePhysical characteristic measuredExcitation method
Strain elastography/UEIStrainManual compression (operator pressure, cardiovascular pulse, breathing movements)
ARFI imagingStrainAcoustic radiation force impulse
Shear wave elastographyShear wave speedAcoustic radiation force impulse
Point-shear wave speed measurement
Shear wave speed imaging
Transient elastographyShear wave speedControlled external vibration
Table 2 Summary of the feasibility studies on elastography in animal models
Ref.SubjectsResults
Kim et al[11], 2008Animal model (rats)TechniqueStrain difference of normal colon vs affected left colon P < 0.0002
6 Left-sided chronic colitides (from TNBS)Strain elastography (UEI)
5 controlsComparisonSignificant correlation between Young’s modulus and strain r = 0.67, P < 0.0005
Direct mechanical measurement, Histology
Stidham et al[10], 2011Animal model (TNBS rats)TechniqueStrain values:
5 acute colitidesStrain elastography (UEI)controls vs acute inflammation P = 0.015,
5 chronic fibrosisComparisoncontrols vs chronic fibrosis P = 0.001,
5 controlsHistologyacute inflammation vs chronic fibrosis P = 0.037
Strain ratio:
acute inflammation vs chronic fibrosis P = 0.030
Dillman et al[45], 2013Animal modelTechniqueSW velocity ratio:
6 acute colitidesShear wave elastography (Shear wave speed imaging)AUROC curve for differentiating fibrosis from inflammation 0.971
8 chronic colitides/fibrosis
3 controlsComparison
Histology
Table 3 Studies assessing the utility of elastography in intestinal diseases
Ref.SubjectsOutcomes
Stidham et al[10], 20117 CD patients with stricturing diseaseTechniqueStrain values:
Strain elastography (UEI)Correlation with Young’s modulus r = -0.81
ComparisonSignificant difference between stenotic tissue and unaffected proximal tissue P = 0.0008
Direct mechanical measurement, Histology
Dillman et al[46], 201417 Human intestinal surgical specimens (from subjects with known or suspected IBD)TechniqueDifference in SW speed between low and high fibrosis
Shear wave elastography (point SW speed measurement and SW speed imaging)With point SW speed measurement, P = 0.004, AUROC = 0.91
ComparisonWith SW speed imaging P = 0.049 AUROC = 0.77
HistologyNo difference in mean SW speed between low and high inflammation
Havre et al[50], 2014Human intestinal surgical specimensTechniqueUEI able to discriminate between adenoma and adenocarcinoma/CD, not between adenocarcinoma and CD
Strain elastography (UEI)
16 CDComparisonReproducibility:
18 adenocarcinomaHistologySR: intraobserver correlation rho = 0.47-0.82
4 adenomasVisual categorical score: interobserver agreement k = 0.38
VAS: interobserver correlation Pearson’s r = 0.55, P = 0.002
Baumgart et al[47], 201510 CD patients elected for surgeryTechniqueHigher strain values in affected vs unaffected bowel (P < 0.001)
Strain elastography (UEI)
ComparisonGood ICC among pre-, intra- and post-operative strain measurements (0.830 in affected segments)
Direct mechanical measurement,
HistologyAssociation between strain measurements and
internal muscularis mucosae and muscularis propria width (P = 0.044 and 0.012)
histologic fibrosis score (P < 0.001)
Fraquelli et al[49], 201523 CD patients elected for surgeryTechniqueInterrater agreement: color scale (ICC 0.90) and SR (ICC 0.78)
Strain elastography (UEI)
20 CD controlsComparisonCorrelation between SR and severity of bowel fibrosis P < 0.0001 but not with inflammation scores
Histology
AUROC curve for prediction of severe fibrosis 0.917 (95%CI: 0.788-1.000)
Fufezan et al[48], 201514 pediatric CD patients (48 bowel segments)TechniqueCorrelation between:
Strain elastography (UEI)UEI “inflammatory type” and complications
ComparisonUEI “inflammatory” and “fibrotic” type and CRP
US signs and Clinical DataUEI “inflammatory type” and ESR
UEI and bowel wall thickness and stratification