Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print February 16, 2006, 10.1148/radiol.2391050361
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2391050361v1
239/1/105    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Park, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by Cho, E. Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Park, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by Cho, E. Y.
(Radiology 2006;239:105-112.)
© RSNA, 2006

Gastrointestinal Imaging

Macrovesicular Hepatic Steatosis in Living Liver Donors: Use of CT for Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment1

Seong Ho Park, MD, Pyo Nyun Kim, MD, Kyoung Won Kim, MD, Sang Won Lee, MD, Seong Eon Yoon, MD, Sung Won Park, MD, Hyun Kwon Ha, MD, Moon-Gyu Lee, MD, Shin Hwang, MD, Sung-Gyu Lee, MD, Eun Sil Yu, MD and Eun Yoon Cho, MD

1 From the Department of Radiology (S.H.P., P.N.K., K.W.K., S.W.L., S.E.Y., H.K.H., M.G.L.), Division of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Department of Surgery (S.H., S.G.L.), and Department of Diagnostic Pathology (E.S.Y.), University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 388-1 Poongnap-Dong, Songpa-Gu, 138-040 Seoul, Korea; Department of Radiology, Eulji University School of Medicine, Eulji Hospital, Seoul, Korea (S.W.P.); and Department of Pathology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea (E.Y.C.). Received March 2, 2005; revision requested April 27; revision received May 16; accepted June 13; final version accepted July 5. Address correspondence to P.N.K. (e-mail: pnkim{at}amc.seoul.kr).


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
 References
 
Purpose: To determine prospectively the diagnostic performance of unenhanced computed tomography (CT) in the assessment of macrovesicular steatosis in potential donors for living donor liver transplantation by using same-day biopsy as a reference standard.

Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. A total of 154 candidates, including 104 men (mean age, 30.2 years ± 10.3 [standard deviation]) and 50 women (mean age, 31.8 years ± 11.2), underwent same-day unenhanced CT and ultrasonography-guided liver biopsy. Histologic degree of macrovesicular steatosis was determined. Three liver attenuation indices were derived: liver-to-spleen attenuation ratio (CTL/S), difference between hepatic and splenic attenuation (CTL–S), and blood-free hepatic parenchymal attenuation (CTLP). Regression equations were used to quantitatively estimate the degree of macrovesicular steatosis. Limits of agreement between estimated macrovesicular steatosis and the reference standard were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were used to determine the performance of each index for qualitative diagnosis of macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater. The cutoff value that provided a balance between sensitivity and specificity and the highest cutoff value that yielded 100% specificity were determined.

Results: Limits of agreement were –14% to 14% for CTL/S and CTL–S and –13% to 13% for CTLP. Performance in diagnosing macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater was not significantly different among indices (P > .05). Cutoff values of 0.9, –7, and 58 were determined for CTL/S, CTL–S, and CTLP, respectively, and provided a balance between sensitivity and specificity. Cutoff values of 0.8, –9, and 42 were determined for CTL/S, CTL–S, and CTLP, respectively, and yielded 100% specificity for all indices, with corresponding sensitivities of 82%, 82%, and 73% for CTL/S, CTL–S, and CTLP, respectively.

Conclusion: Diagnostic performance of unenhanced CT for quantitative assessment of macrovesicular steatosis is not clinically acceptable. Unenhanced CT, however, provides high performance in qualitative diagnosis of macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater.

© RSNA, 2006


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
 References
 
Hepatic steatosis is one of the important factors that determines the outcome of liver transplantation (1–3). Microvesicular steatosis in donor livers is less important than macrovesicular steatosis and is generally not considered a risk factor for liver transplantation (4–6), although convincing clinical data are still lacking and there are some controversies (7–9). The degree of macrovesicular steatosis is known to be critical in liver transplantation (3,6,10,11). Donor livers with severe (ie, >60%) macrovesicular steatosis are universally rejected for transplantation (3,6). In cadaveric donor livers, moderate (30%–60%) macrovesicular steatosis may be acceptable for transplantation unless there are other risk factors, such as poor medical status of the recipient, long cold ischemia time, emergency situations, and retransplantation (6). Moderate macrovesicular steatosis, however, is an absolute contraindication for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in most institutions (7,12). In LDLT, donor safety must be considered along with the outcome of transplantation. Because hepatic steatosis increases the risk of postoperative complications after liver resection, only perfect or almost perfect livers can be used in LDLT (7). Previously, the use of donor livers with mild (<30%) macrovesicular steatosis was suggested as safe for LDLT (13).

Liver biopsy is used as the standard method for quantitative assessment of the degree of hepatic steatosis in donor candidates (3). Although liver biopsy is known to be a safe procedure with a low complication rate in healthy living donors (14,15), it is still an invasive procedure that may cause morbidity (16). It has been suggested that unenhanced computed tomography (CT) might be useful in the noninvasive quantification of the degree of hepatic steatosis in experimental and in vivo human studies (17–19). To our knowledge, only a few reports have been published regarding the role of CT for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis in potential LDLT donors (12,20,21). In one report, researchers suggested that unenhanced CT might preclude liver biopsy in only a small percentage of liver donor candidates who have an unacceptable degree of macrovesicular steatosis (12). This study, however, had a small sample size and a wide range of time (ie, up to 4 weeks) between liver biopsy and CT (12). Therefore, the purpose of our study was to determine prospectively the diagnostic performance of unenhanced CT in the assessment of macrovesicular steatosis in potential donors for LDLT by using same-day biopsy as the reference standard.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
 References
 
This study was approved by the institutional review board of Asan Medical Center, and all subjects gave written informed consent.

Study Population
Between August and December 2004, 158 consecutive potential donors for LDLT were enrolled in our prospective study. Ultrasonography (US)-guided liver biopsy was performed after CT on the same day unless there were any abnormal findings other than fatty liver on CT images that might preclude liver donation. Four donor candidates were excluded from liver biopsy because of diffuse intrahepatic bile duct dilatation (n = 1), numerous tiny cystlike lesions in the liver that suggested biliary hamartoma (n = 1), and uncharacterized focal low attenuation lesions in the liver (n = 2). The remaining 154 donor candidates included 104 men (mean age, 30.2 years ± 10.3 [standard deviation]) and 50 women (mean age, 31.8 years ± 11.2).

CT Scanning
In all donor candidates, CT was performed with a multi–detector row helical scanner (Lightspeed 16; GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis). In addition to contrast material–enhanced CT of the liver, which was used to obtain hepatic CT angiograms, unenhanced CT was performed to acquire transverse images through the liver during a single breath hold. Scanning and reconstruction parameters for unenhanced CT images were as follows: beam collimation, 8 x 2.5 mm; table speed, 27 mm per rotation; beam pitch, 1.35; gantry rotation time, 0.6 second; 120 kVp; 150 mAs; section thickness, 5 mm; and reconstruction interval, 5 mm. CT images were reviewed on a picture archiving and communication system workstation (PetaVision; Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea) by a radiologist (K.W.K., with 8 years of experience) who was blinded to histologic findings.

For each candidate, three different liver attenuation indices were obtained by using the unenhanced CT images. The first attenuation index—the liver-to-spleen attenuation ratio (CTL/S)—was calculated as L/S, where L is the hepatic attenuation and S is the splenic attenuation. The second attenuation index—the difference between the hepatic and splenic attenuation (CTL–S)—was calculated as L – S. The third attenuation index—the blood-free hepatic parenchymal attenuation (CTLP)—was calculated as [L – 0.3(0.75P + 0.25A)]/0.7, where P is the portal venous blood attenuation and A is hepatic arterial blood attenuation.

Calculations for CTLP were derived as follows: Although the regions of interest (ROIs) that were used for measurement of hepatic attenuation were placed with care to exclude macroscopic hepatic vessels, because of the rich sinusoids in the liver, in vivo hepatic attenuation represents a combination of both hepatic parenchyma and blood within the sinusoids. The liver contains about 12% of the total blood volume (22), and about 25%–30% of the hepatic volume in vivo is accounted for by blood (23). We therefore assumed that L = (0.7 · CTLP) + (0.3 · hepatic blood attenuation). Because the portal vein provides approximately 75% of the blood flow to the liver and the hepatic artery provides the other 25% (24), we calculated the hepatic blood attenuation as 0.75P + 0.25A.

To obtain the three indices, the hepatic attenuation was measured by averaging the Hounsfield units of three ROIs. Each ROI formed a 1.5 x 1.5-cm square, and the ROIs were placed at three different sites in the right hepatic lobe approximately between hepatic segments V, VI, VII, and VIII, which were defined according to the Couinaud system (Fig 1a). The locations of the ROIs were chosen to match the biopsy sites as closely as possible. Each ROI was placed with special care so as to exclude macroscopic hepatic vessels, and contrast-enhanced CT images were used to more precisely identify the locations of hepatic vessels.


Figure 1
View larger version (101K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 1a: Images obtained in 18-year-old male LDLT donor candidate. (a) Unenhanced transverse CT image shows 1.5 x 1.5-cm ROI (white square) that is devoid of macroscopic vessels; ROI is placed approximately between hepatic segments V, VI, VII, and VIII. (b) Intercostal US image shows needle biopsy site that is devoid of macroscopic vessels; biopsy site is approximately between hepatic segments V, VI, VII, and VIII. Biopsy needle is noted as an echogenic line (arrowheads).

 
Portal venous blood attenuation and hepatic arterial blood attenuation were measured by averaging the three Hounsfield units of the main portal vein on three consecutive images and by averaging the three Hounsfield units of the aorta at the level of the celiac axis on three consecutive images. For both measurements, the largest possible ROI that included the vessel lumen was used. Splenic attenuation was obtained by averaging the three Hounsfield units at three different sections (ie, at each section in the upper third, middle third, and lower third of the spleen). For each measurement, a 1.5 x 1.5-cm ROI was used.

US-guided Needle Biopsy and Histologic Analysis
Five board-certified radiologists, two of whom were authors (S.H.P., S.E.Y.), performed US-guided liver biopsy by using a freehand technique; each of the five radiologists had performed at least 100 US-guided liver biopsies. Biopsy was performed with an 18-gauge needle (Stericut 18G coaxial; TSK Laboratory, Tochigi, Japan). In all subjects, biopsy specimens were obtained twice at two different sites in the right hepatic lobe; these sites were located approximately between hepatic segments V, VI, VII, and VIII (Fig 1b). Biopsy sites were devoid of macroscopic vessels and were approximately 1 cm apart. Each biopsy specimen was approximately 1.5 cm in length. An experienced liver pathologist (E.S.Y., with 20 years of experience) who was blinded to the radiologic findings reviewed the histologic findings. The slides for histologic review were prepared with hematoxylin-eosin staining. The degree of macrovesicular and microvesicular steatosis was quantified by using a scale that was based on percentages (ie, the amount of liver parenchyma that was replaced by macrovesicular and microvesicular steatotic droplets). For our study, the degree of hepatic steatosis at histologic analysis was used as the reference standard.


Figure 1
View larger version (99K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 1b: Images obtained in 18-year-old male LDLT donor candidate. (a) Unenhanced transverse CT image shows 1.5 x 1.5-cm ROI (white square) that is devoid of macroscopic vessels; ROI is placed approximately between hepatic segments V, VI, VII, and VIII. (b) Intercostal US image shows needle biopsy site that is devoid of macroscopic vessels; biopsy site is approximately between hepatic segments V, VI, VII, and VIII. Biopsy needle is noted as an echogenic line (arrowheads).

 
Data and Statistical Analysis
Linear regression analyses were performed between the degree of macrovesicular steatosis at histologic analysis and CTL/S, CTL–S, and CTLP to obtain regression equations and to quantitatively estimate the percentage of macrovesicular steatosis by using each attenuation index. The limits of agreement between the degrees of macrovesicular steatosis at histologic analysis and those estimated with the regression equations were calculated for each attenuation index (25).

To determine and compare the performance of CTL/S, CTL–S, and CTLP for the qualitative distinction of macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater (ie, the unacceptability limit for donation) and macrovesicular steatosis of less than 30%, we performed a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The area under the ROC curves and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and compared among the three attenuation indices (26,27). For CTL/S, CTL–S, and CTLP, the cutoff values (ie, values less than or equal to the cutoff values used to indicate positivity for macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater) that provided a balance between sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater (ie, minimal false-negative and false-positive results) were determined by selecting the coordinate that was nearest to the left upper corner (ie, [0, 1]) on each ROC curve. The sensitivities and specificities at these cutoff levels were compared among the three indices by using the McNemar test. The corresponding positive predictive and negative predictive values for each index were also calculated.

For CTL/S, CTL–S, and CTLP, the highest cutoff value that yielded 100% specificity for the diagnosis of macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater was determined. Sensitivities, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values at each of these cutoff points were calculated, and the sensitivities were compared among the three indices by using the McNemar test. Because both macrovesicular steatosis and microvesicular steatosis may influence hepatic attenuation at CT, the distribution of the degree of microvesicular steatosis for each degree of macrovesicular steatosis and the linear correlation between the degree of microvesicular steatosis and the degree of macrovesicular steatosis were assessed to help estimate the confounding effect of microvesicular steatosis on hepatic attenuation. The degree of microvesicular steatosis was also compared between subjects with macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater and those with macrovesicular steatosis of less than 30% by using the Mann-Whitney U test. A P value of .05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.

For statistical analyses involving three pairwise comparisons, a P value less than .017 for each pairwise comparison was used to indicate a statistically significant difference and to account for an increase in {alpha} error. Statistical analyses were performed by using two commercially available software programs (SPSS 11.5 for Windows, SPSS, Chicago, Ill, and MedCalc 7.4, MedCalc Software, Mariakerke, Belgium).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
 References
 
Histologic Analysis
In the 154 donor candidates, the degree of macrovesicular steatosis at histologic analysis ranged from 0% to 60% (mean, 7% ± 11; median, 3%). Of these candidates, 143 (93%) had macrovesicular steatosis of less than 30%, and 11 (7%) had macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater. The degree of microvesicular steatosis at histologic analysis ranged from 0% to 45% (mean, 8% ± 10; median, 5%), and its distribution for each degree of macrovesicular steatosis is shown in the scatter plot (Fig 2). The degree of microvesicular steatosis was positively correlated with the degree of macrovesicular steatosis (r = 0.689, P < .001). The degree of microvesicular steatosis was significantly higher in the 11 subjects with macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater (mean, 28% ± 11; median, 30%) than in the 143 subjects with macrovesicular steatosis of less than 30% (mean, 6% ± 8; median, 3%) (P < .001).


Figure 2
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 2: Scatterplot demonstrates the relationship between the degree of macrovesicular steatosis and the degree of microvesicular steatosis at histologic analysis. The degree of microvesicular steatosis shows positive correlation with the degree of macrovesicular steatosis (r = 0.689, P < .001).

 
CT and Histologic Analysis
The results of linear regression analysis between the degree of macrovesicular steatosis at histologic examination and CTL/S, CTL–S, and CTLP are presented in scatter plots (Fig 3). The linear regression equations that were used to quantitatively estimate the degree of macrovesicular steatosis were (–54.616 · CTL/S) + 68.337 for CTL/S (r = 0.777, P < .001), (–1.021 · CTL–S) + 13.815 for CTL–S (r = 0.811, P < .001), and (–0.691 · CTLP) + 55.649 for CTLP (r = 0.812, P < .001). The limits of agreement between the degrees of macrovesicular steatosis at histologic analysis and those estimated with the regression equations were –14% to 14% for CTL/S and CTL–S and –13% to 13% for CTLP.


Figure 3
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 3a: Scatterplots demonstrate the results of linear regression between the degree of macrovesicular steatosis at histologic analysis and (a) CTL/S, (b) CTL–S, and (c) CTLP. For each scatterplot, the best-fit line (ie, the graph of the linear regression equation) is shown as a solid line. The curves above and below the best-fit line represent the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 3b: Scatterplots demonstrate the results of linear regression between the degree of macrovesicular steatosis at histologic analysis and (a) CTL/S, (b) CTL–S, and (c) CTLP. For each scatterplot, the best-fit line (ie, the graph of the linear regression equation) is shown as a solid line. The curves above and below the best-fit line represent the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 3c: Scatterplots demonstrate the results of linear regression between the degree of macrovesicular steatosis at histologic analysis and (a) CTL/S, (b) CTL–S, and (c) CTLP. For each scatterplot, the best-fit line (ie, the graph of the linear regression equation) is shown as a solid line. The curves above and below the best-fit line represent the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval.

 
The area under the ROC curve for the diagnosis of macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater was 0.991 (95% confidence interval: 0.960, 0.999) for CTL/S, 0.991 (95% confidence interval: 0.960, 0.999) for CTL–S, and 0.995 (95% confidence interval: 0.966, 0.999) for CTLP,. This resulted in no statistically significant difference among the three attenuation indices (P = .898 for CTL/S vs CTL–S, P = .428 for CTL/S vs CTLP, and P = .382 for CTL–S vs CTLP). The cutoff value that provided a balance between sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater was 0.9 for CTL/S, –7 for CTL–S, and 58 for CTLP. At these cutoff levels (Table), sensitivity (P > .99) and specificity (P = .125 for CTL/S vs CTL–S, P = .500 for CTL/S vs CTLP, and P = .031 for CTL–S vs CTLP) were not significantly different among the three indices; however, a comparison between the specificity of CTL–S (99% [142 of 143]) and that of CTLP (95% [136 of 143]) showed borderline significance (P = .031).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, and Negative Predictive Value for the Diagnosis of Macrovesicular Steatosis of 30% or Greater

 
The highest cutoff values that yielded 100% specificity for the diagnosis of macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater were 0.8 for CTL/S, –9 for CTL–S, and 42 for CTLP. With these cutoff values, CTL/S and CTL–S were used to correctly diagnose nine (82%) of 11 cases of macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater, whereas CTLP was used to detect eight (73%) of 11 cases. Thus, one case of macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater that was correctly diagnosed with CTL/S and CTL–S was missed with CTLP. The sensitivities were not significantly different among the three attenuation indices (P > .99).


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
 References
 
Despite good correlation between CTL/S, CTL–S, and CTLP and the degree of macrovesicular steatosis at histologic analysis, the limits of agreement between the degree of macrovesicular steatosis at histologic analysis and those estimated with CTL/S, CTL–S, and CTLP were too large (ie, –13% to 13% or –14% to 14%). Therefore, we do not believe that the three attenuation indices are acceptable for clinical use in the quantitative estimation of macrovesicular steatosis in LDLT donor candidates. In a previous study, researchers showed results that were similar to ours, but despite obtaining a higher correlation (r = 0.92) for the difference between hepatic and splenic attenuation (CTL–S in our study) and the histologic degree of macrovesicular steatosis, the absolute difference between the degrees of macrovesicular steatosis at histologic analysis and those estimated with unenhanced CT was large (12). On the other hand, regarding the qualitative distinction between macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater and macrovesicular steatosis of less than 30%, all three indices showed high diagnostic performance and no significant difference. The cutoff values that provided a balance between sensitivity and specificity (ie, 0.9, –7, and 58 for CTL/S, CTL–S, and CTLP, respectively) also provided high sensitivities and specificities. When the cutoff levels were lowered to yield 100% specificity in the diagnosis of macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater (ie, 0.8, –9, and 42 for CTL/S, CTL–S, and CTLP, respectively), the corresponding sensitivities remained moderately high, ranging from 73% to 82%.

In our study population, the number of cases decreased as the degree of macrovesicular steatosis increased; therefore, the majority of negative cases (ie, cases with macrovesicular steatosis of less than 30%) were distributed closer to 0% than to 30%. We believe that this distribution characteristic rendered the distinction between macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater and macrovesicular steatosis of less than 30% more clear-cut when compared with negative cases, which were more evenly distributed throughout the 0%–30% range. Therefore, high diagnostic performance, especially specificity, was partly attributed to the skewed distribution of the cases for each degree of macrovesicular steatosis in our study population. Such a distribution characteristic, however, is probably the nature of the LDLT donor candidate population, as is seen in other studies (12,20). Thus, we believe that our results are pertinent to the clinical situation.

Despite the high diagnostic performance of unenhanced CT for the qualitative assessment of macrovesicular steatosis, we do not think that determining the appropriateness of a potential hepatic donor based solely on unenhanced CT findings without liver biopsy is appropriate. As seen in our results and in those of other studies (12), the accuracy of quantitative estimation with CT is limited.

Occasionally, pathologic abnormalities of the hepatic parenchyma that preclude liver donation may go undetected at clinical examination, laboratory testing, and imaging (3,12,15). In a small number of cases, iron overload can increase hepatic attenuation, which may lead to the masking or underestimation of hepatic steatosis at CT (12,28). Our results, however, suggest that unenhanced CT may be useful in selecting LDLT candidates with moderate to severe macrovesicular steatosis who are unacceptable for liver donation regardless of other factors, thereby preventing unnecessary liver biopsy and the possible health risks and costs of biopsy in unacceptable donor candidates.

If we were to use unenhanced CT to screen out donor candidates with macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater, putting more emphasis on the shortage of liver donors than on the adverse effects of unnecessary biopsy, adopting strict criteria to minimize false-positive results (and thus not excluding eligible donor candidates) would be reasonable. Also, because of the low prevalence of moderate to severe macrovesicular steatosis in a potential living donor population, as seen in our study population (7%) and in that of others (6.8%) (20), a small decrease in specificity would produce a relatively large number of false-positive results and lead to a relatively large decrease in positive predictive value—that is, a decrease in the positive predictive value of CTL/S from 100% to 67% would be seen when specificity decreases from 100% to 97% and a decrease in the positive predictive value of CTLP from 100% to 61% would be seen when specificity decreases from 100% to 95%. Therefore, using 0.8, –9, and 42 as cutoff values for CTL/S, CTL–S, and CTLP, respectively, in the diagnosis of macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater would be more appropriate than adopting cutoff values of 0.9, –7, and 58 for CTL/S, CTL–S, and CTLP, respectively.

In general, our results coincided with those of a few previous studies (12,20). In a previous study (12), by using a CTL–S value of less than –10 to diagnose moderate to severe macrovesicular steatosis, researchers correctly diagnosed four of four donor livers with macrovesicular steatosis of greater than 30% and 38 of 38 donor livers with macrovesicular steatosis of less than 30%. A cutoff value of 1.1 was proposed for CTL/S to diagnose macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater, which provided a balance between sensitivity (83% [15 of 18]) and specificity (82% [202 of 248]) (20).

In our study, analysis was focused on the degree of macrovesicular steatosis and hepatic attenuation. Microvesicular steatosis, however, may also cause a decrease in hepatic attenuation at CT. After considering the positive correlation between the degree of macrovesicular steatosis and the degree of microvesicular steatosis in our study population (r = 0.689), it was presumed that the decrease in hepatic attenuation seen in cases with a higher degree of macrovesicular steatosis was partly attributed to an increase in microvesicular steatosis. In fact, the 11 subjects with macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater had a significantly higher degree of microvesicular steatosis than the 143 subjects with macrovesicular steatosis of less than 30%. The additional hepatic attenuation difference that was caused by differences in the degree of microvesicular steatosis might also help discriminate between these groups by using unenhanced CT.

Results for the strength of correlation between the degree of macrovesicular steatosis and hepatic attenuation indices, optimal cutoff values for each attenuation index in the diagnosis of macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater, and the diagnostic performance of the indices may change a little according to the distribution of microvesicular steatosis for each degree of macrovesicular steatosis. This might explain some of the small differences between our results and those of previous studies, although this is conjecture because the degree of microvesicular steatosis was not addressed in previous studies (12,20).

This study has limitations. First, although we chose macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater as the criterion for unacceptable living donors, the importance of hepatic steatosis in LDLT has not yet been clearly determined, and the acceptable ranges may vary according to institutions (7,13,29). Second, compared with the 143 negative cases (ie, cases with macrovesicular steatosis of less than 30%), only 11 positive cases (ie, cases with macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater) were noted. Third, at needle biopsy, only a small portion of the liver was obtained; therefore, sampling errors could have occurred because fatty changes are sometimes unevenly distributed in the hepatic parenchyma (30) and because needle biopsy may not be an ideal reference standard. At present, however, needle biopsy appears to be the most reasonable and practical method for objective quantification of hepatic steatosis (9). To improve the comparison between biopsy and CT, we tried to match the biopsy sites and the locations of the ROIs at CT as closely as possible. Fourth, histologic analysis on hemosiderin deposits was not performed.

In conclusion, the accuracy of unenhanced CT in the quantitative assessment of macrovesicular steatosis is not clinically acceptable. Unenhanced CT, however, provides high performance in the qualitative diagnosis of macrovesicular steatosis of 30% or greater and, therefore, will be helpful in avoiding unnecessary liver biopsy in those donor candidates with an unacceptable degree of macrovesicular steatosis.


   ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
References
 


   FOOTNOTES
 

Abbreviations: LDLT = living donor liver transplantation • ROC = receiver operating characteristic • ROI = region of interest

See also Science to Practice in this issue.

Author contributions: Guarantors of integrity of entire study, S.H.P., P.N.K.; study concepts/study design or data acquisition or data analysis/interpretation, all authors; manuscript drafting or manuscript revision for important intellectual content, all authors; manuscript final version approval, all authors; literature research, S.H.P., P.N.K., S.W.P., M.G.L., S.H., S.G.L., E.Y.C.; clinical studies, S.H.P., K.W.K., S.W.L., S.E.Y., S.H., E.S.Y.; statistical analysis, S.H.P.; and manuscript editing, S.H.P., P.N.K., H.K.H., S.G.L.

Authors stated no financial relationship to disclose.


   References
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
 References
 

  1. Ploeg RJ, D'Alessandro AM, Knechtle SJ, et al. Risk factors for primary dysfunction after liver transplantation: a multivariate analysis. Transplantation 1993;55:807–813.[Medline]
  2. D'Alessandro AM, Kalayoglu M, Sollinger HW, et al. The predictive value of donor liver biopsies for the development of primary nonfunction after orthotopic liver transplantation. Transplantation 1991;51:157–163.[Medline]
  3. Chen YS, Cheng YF, De Villa VH, et al. Evaluation of living liver donors. Transplantation 2003;75 (suppl 3):S16–S19.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Urena MA, Ruiz-Delgado FC, Gonzalez EM, et al. Assessing risk of the use of livers with macro and microsteatosis in a liver transplant program. Transplant Proc 1998;30:3288–3291.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Fishbein TM, Fiel MI, Emre S, et al. Use of livers with microvesicular fat safely expands the donor pool. Transplantation 1997;64:248–251.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Urena MA, Moreno Gonzalez E, Romero CJ, Ruiz-Delgado FC, Moreno Sanz C. An approach to the rational use of steatotic donor livers in liver transplantation. Hepatogastroenterology 1999;46:1164–1173.[Medline]
  7. McCormack L, Clavien PA. Understanding the meaning of fat in the liver. Liver Transpl 2005;11:137–139.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Yoong KF, Gunson BK, Neil DA, et al. Impact of donor liver microvesicular steatosis on the outcome of liver retransplantation. Transplant Proc 1999;31:550–551.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Imber CJ, St Peter SD, Lopez I, Guiver L, Friend PJ. Current practice regarding the use of fatty livers: a trans-Atlantic survey. Liver Transpl 2002;8:545–549.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Zamboni F, Franchello A, David E, et al. Effect of macrovescicular steatosis and other donor and recipient characteristics on the outcome of liver transplantation. Clin Transplant 2001;15:53–57.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Salizzoni M, Franchello A, Zamboni F, et al. Marginal grafts: finding the correct treatment for fatty livers. Transpl Int 2003;16:486–493.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Limanond P, Raman SS, Lassman C, et al. Macrovesicular hepatic steatosis in living related liver donors: correlation between CT and histologic findings. Radiology 2004;230:276–280.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Cho JY, Suh KS, Kwon CH, et al. The hepatic regeneration power of mild steatotic grafts is not impaired in living-donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2005;11:210–217.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Hwang S, Lee SG, Jang SJ, et al. The effect of donor weight reduction on hepatic steatosis for living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2004;10:721–725.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Ryan CK, Johnson LA, Germin BI, Marcos A. One hundred consecutive hepatic biopsies in the workup of living donors for right lobe liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2002;8:1114–1122.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Buscarini L, Fornari F, Bolondi L, et al. Ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of focal liver lesions: techniques, diagnostic accuracy and complications—a retrospective study on 2091 biopsies. J Hepatol 1990;11:344–348.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Kawata R, Sakata K, Kunieda T, Saji S, Doi H, Nozawa Y. Quantitative evaluation of fatty liver by computed tomography in rabbits. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;142:741–746.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Wang B, Gao Z, Zou Q, Li L. Quantitative diagnosis of fatty liver with dual-energy CT: an experimental study in rabbits. Acta Radiol 2003;44:92–97.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Ricci C, Longo R, Gioulis E, et al. Noninvasive in vivo quantitative assessment of fat content in human liver. J Hepatol 1997;27:108–113.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Iwasaki M, Takada Y, Hayashi M, et al. Noninvasive evaluation of graft steatosis in living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 2004;78:1501–1505.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Hayashi M, Fujii K, Kiuchi T, et al. Effects of fatty infiltration of the graft on the outcome of living-related liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 1999;31:403.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Kjekshus H, Risoe C, Scholz T, Smiseth OA. Regulation of hepatic vascular volume: contributions from active and passive mechanisms during catecholamine and sodium nitroprusside infusion. Circulation 1997;96:4415–4423.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Ganong WF. Circulation through special regions. In: Ganong WF, ed. Review of medical physiology. 9th ed. Stamford, Conn: Appleton & Lange, 1999; 596.
  24. D'Angelica M, Fong Y. The liver. In: Townsend CM, Beauchamp RD, Evers BM, Mattox KL, eds. Textbook of surgery. 17th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier Saunders, 2004; 1528.
  25. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical method for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–310.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29–36.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method comparing the areas under receiver operator characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983;148:839–843.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Mendler MH, Bouillet P, Le Sidaner A, et al. Dual-energy CT in the diagnosis and quantification of fatty liver: limited clinical value in comparison to ultrasound scan and single-energy CT, with special reference to iron overload. J Hepatol 1998;28:785–794.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Soejima Y, Shimada M, Suehiro T, et al. Use of steatotic graft in living-donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 2003;76:344–348.[Medline]
  30. Wai CT, Tan LH, Kaur M, Da Costa M, Quak SH, Tan KC. Pitfalls in interpreting liver biopsy results: the story of the blind men and the elephant. Liver Transpl 2002;8:1200–1201.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
R. Nomura, Y. Ishizaki, K. Suzuki, and S. Kawasaki
Development of Hepatic Steatosis After Pancreatoduodenectomy
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2007; 189(6): 1484 - 1488.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
A. Nickkholgh, J. Weitz, J. Encke, P. Sauer, A. Mehrabi, M. W. Buchler, J. Schmidt, and P. Schemmer
Utilization of extended donor criteria in liver transplantation: a comprehensive review of the literature
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., September 1, 2007; 22(suppl_8): viii29 - viii36.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. W. Lee, S. H. Park, K. W. Kim, E. K. Choi, Y. M. Shin, P. N. Kim, K. H. Lee, E. S. Yu, S. Hwang, and S.-G. Lee
Unenhanced CT for Assessment of Macrovesicular Hepatic Steatosis in Living Liver Donors: Comparison of Visual Grading with Liver Attenuation Index
Radiology, August 1, 2007; 244(2): 479 - 485.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
A. K. Choudhary, L. F. Donnelly, J. M. Racadio, and J. L. Strife
Diseases Associated with Childhood Obesity
Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2007; 188(4): 1118 - 1130.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
G. Brancatelli
Science to Practice: Should Biopsy Be Performed in Potential Liver Donors When Unenhanced CT Shows an Unacceptable Degree of Steatosis for Transplantation?
Radiology, April 1, 2006; 239(1): 1 - 2.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2391050361v1
239/1/105    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Park, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by Cho, E. Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Park, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by Cho, E. Y.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE