Shear wave elastography with a new reliability indicator

Sign In

  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Journal of Ultrasonography
  4. Publication Articles
  5. Article

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Journal of Ultrasonography

Polish Ultrasound Society (Polskie Towarzystwo Ultrasonograficzne)

Subject: Medicine

GET ALERTS

ISSN: 2084-8404
eISSN: 2451-070X

DESCRIPTION

Article Metrics
4
Reader(s)
10
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Archive
Volume 20 (2020)
Volume 19 (2019)
Volume 18 (2018)
Volume 17 (2017)
Volume 16 (2016)
Volume 15 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 66 (October 2016) > List of articles

Shear wave elastography with a new reliability indicator

Christoph F. Dietrich * / Yi Dong

Keywords : guideline, recommendation, liver, liver stiffness measurement, healthy

Citation Information : Journal of Ultrasonography. Volume 16, Issue 66, Pages 281-287, DOI: https://doi.org/10.15557/JoU.2016.0028

License : (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

Received Date : 04-April-2016 / Accepted: 28-April-2016 / Published Online: 07-September-2016

  • ARTICLE
  • FIGURES & TABLES
  • REFERENCES
  • EXTRA FILES
  • COMMENTS

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Non-invasive methods for liver stiffness assessment have been introduced over recent years. Of these, two main methods for estimating liver fibrosis using ultrasound elastography have become established in clinical practice: shear wave elastography and quasi-static or strain elastography. Shear waves are waves with a motion perpendicular (lateral) to the direction of the generating force. Shear waves travel relatively slowly (between 1 and 10 m/s). The stiffness of the liver tissue can be assessed based on shear wave velocity (the stiffness increases with the speed). The European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology has published Guidelines and Recommendations that describe these technologies and provide recommendations for their clinical use. Most of the data available to date has been published using the Fibroscan (Echosens, France), point shear wave speed measurement using an acoustic radiation force impulse (Siemens, Germany) and 2D shear wave elastography using the Aixplorer (SuperSonic Imagine, France). More recently, also other manufacturers have introduced shear wave elastography technology into the market. A comparison of data obtained using different techniques for shear wave propagation and velocity measurement is of key interest for future studies, recommendations and guidelines. Here, we present a recently introduced shear wave elastography technology from Hitachi and discuss its reproducibility and comparability to the already established technologies.

W ostatnich latach pojawiły się nowe nieinwazyjne metody oceny sztywności wątroby. Dwie główne spośród tych metod znalazły zastosowanie w praktyce klinicznej do elastosonograficznej oceny włóknienia wątroby: elastografia fali poprzecznej oraz elastografia quasi-statyczna/ odkształceń względnych. Fale poprzeczne to fale o ruchu prostopadłym (lateralnym) do kierunku siły wzbudzającej. Fale poprzeczne przemieszczają się stosunkowo wolno (od 1 do 10 m/s). Sztywność tkanki wątroby można oceniać na podstawie szybkości fali poprzecznej (sztywność wzrasta proporcjonalnie do szybkości). Europejska Federacja Towarzystw Ultrasonograficznych w Medycynie i Biologii (The European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology) wydała wytyczne zawierające opis tych technologii oraz zalecenia dotyczące ich klinicznego stosowania. Dotychczas większość dostępnych danych uzyskiwano z wykorzystaniem aparatury FibroScan (Echosens, Francja), punktowego pomiaru szybkości fali poprzecznej przy użyciu silnego impulsu akustycznego (Siemens, Niemcy) oraz elastografii fali poprzecznej z zastosowaniem aparatu Aixplorer (SuperSonic Imagine, Francja). W ostatnim czasie również inni producenci wprowadzili na rynek technologię elastografii fali poprzecznej. Porównanie danych uzyskanych z zastosowaniem różnych nietechnik propagacji fali poprzecznej oraz pomiaru jej szybkości ma kluczowe znaczenie dla przyszłych badań, zaleceń oraz wytycznych. W niniejszej pracy przedstawiono niedawno wprowadzoną technologię elastografii fali poprzecznej (Hitachi) oraz omówiono jej powtarzalność i porównywalność względem dotychczas stosowanych technologii.

Graphical ABSTRACT

Full Text XML PDF Share

Introduction

Many different non-invasive methods for liver stiffness (LS) assessment have been introduced over recent years. Of these, two main methods for estimating liver fibrosis using ultrasound elastography have become established in clinical practice: shear wave elastography (SWE) and quasi-static or strain elastography (SE)(1–3). The European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) has published Guidelines and Recommendations that describe these technologies and provide recommendations for their clinical use(2, 3). In summary, shear waves are generated when a directional force is applied to a tissue, causing shear deformation. Shear waves are rapidly attenuated by tissues, and they travel at a much slower rate (between 1 and 10 m/s), and thus can be easily detected by longitudinal ultrasonic waves. They are not supported by liquids of low viscosity(1). The stiffness of the liver tissue can be assessed based on shear wave velocity (the stiffness increases with the speed). A comparison of data obtained using different techniques for shear wave propagation and velocity measurement is of key interest for future studies, recommendations and guidelines. Most of the data available to date has been published using the Fibroscan (Echosens, France)(4–8), point shear wave speed measurement using an acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) (Siemens, Germany)(9–11) and 2D SWE using the Aixplorer (SuperSonic Imagine, France)(12, 13). More recently, other manufacturers such as GE, Philips and Toshiba have introduced SWE technology into the market(14). Here, we present a recently introduced SWE technology from Hitachi and discuss its reproducibility and comparability to already established technologies.

Shear wave measurement technology

Shear wave measurement (SWM) technology using the ARFI principle with a convex probe for the examination of the liver was recently introduced by Hitachi. It enables quantitative evaluation of shear wave velocity and adds a reliability indicator to each shear wave velocity measurement, providing a measured indication of the appropriateness of the measurement(15). The aim of this report is to describe the principles of SWM and the contribution of the reliability indicator to the diagnostic performance.

Method

Shear Wave Measurement uses an ARFI (the push pulse) to generate shear waves in a small region of interest (ROI) in the liver, followed by longitudinal ultrasound tracking pulses that measure the speed of propagation of these shear waves. The SWM transmit/receive sequence is shown in Fig. 1. Push pulses are transmitted in one direction to generate shear waves; tracking pulses are alternately transmitted and received in two different directions to detect the speed of shear wave propagation. For each ‘push-track’ sequence, the shear wave velocity (Vs) is measured at multiple depths in the ROI and the sequence is automatically repeated, so the propagation speed is measured several times in a short period of time. This is followed by a probe cooling time, when the entire wave transmission is stopped. SWM conforms to standard regulations applicable to diagnostic ultrasound systems, related to power output measurements and probe surface heating.

Fig. 1

SWM transmit/receive sequence

10.15557_JoU.2016.0028-g001.jpg

Reliability Indicator, V s N

It is common to display just one median V s value for the data measured inside the ROI in point shear wave speed measurement methods. However, it can be difficult to assess whether a measurement is appropriate or not from the V s value alone. Disturbances can result from body motion, respiratory movement of the patient, unsteady handling of the transducer by the examiner, etc. In addition, the movement of the microvasculature due to cardiac motion or vascular flow can make echo signals fluctuate over time in the parenchyma of the liver. Even when the standard deviation is displayed, it can be difficult to distinguish if the variation is due to tissue structure or measurement error. The SWM technique is designed to detect phase fluctuations caused by blood flow and micro-vibrations to overcome this problem, and as a result, the shear wave velocity (Vs) can be calculated with high accuracy.

The reliability indicator is calculated for each set of V s values acquired from multiple Push-Track sequences and multiple V s measurements at different depths inside the ROI for each measurement sequence. Values are rejected from the V s set using three defined criteria, and the ratio of the remaining V s values (Vs after rejection /total number of Vs) is defined as Vs efficacy rate, and displayed as a percentage (the V s N value). Median V s and interquartile range (IQR) are calculated from the histogram of each V s set after rejection (Fig. 2). The three rejection conditions are illustrated in Fig. 3.

Fig. 2

SWM measurement. The region of interest and the histogram are displayed. The display item [unit] and description are shown as well

10.15557_JoU.2016.0028-g002.jpg
Fig. 3

Schematic diagram of rejection conditions. Negative Vs (1): Vs takes a negative value when the peak of track 2 is detected at an earlier time than the peak of track 1 due to, for example, disturbed shear waves. Shear waves in this case are not correctly detected and thus the value is rejected. Vs is outside of a defined range (2): A certain range of Vs values is defined depending on the organs and tissues being examined. If Vs values are beyond that range, the value is regarded as a detection error of the shear wave speed and rejected. Phase fluctuation detected at a particular depth (3): As described earlier, phase fluctuations due to blood vessels and blood flow are different from shear waves and rejected as a detection error

10.15557_JoU.2016.0028-g003.jpg

Reliability of SWM

SWM accuracy was evaluated using seven phantoms of different stiffness (with range of shear wave propagation velocities between 1.19 and 3.79 m/secs). The measured SWM V s values were compared with stiffness values obtained with the mechanical tester INSTRON Model 2519 (Illinois Tool Works Inc., USA). For each phantom, 10 different probe positions were selected and at each measuring position, average Vs, coefficient of variation (%CV; standard deviation / average) showing measurement reproducibility, and accuracy level (ΔV s %) showing the difference compared with the mechanical tester were acquired. The measurements were taken at depths of 20, 40 and 60 mm. The measurement re-producibility (%CV) was between 3 and 16% and measurement accuracy level (ΔV s ) within ±15%. No significant difference in V s values were observed depending on the depth. Furthermore, V s N remained over 80% for the phantoms up to 3 m/sec of stiffness, indicating that the measurements are reproducible. On the other hand, with the stiffest phantom, when the shear wave speed was on the border of the defined range, the V s N dropped to between 25 to 60%, showing that the measurement reliability decreased. The above analysis and a clinical study by Yada et al.(16) have demonstrated that the measurement reliability can be evaluated quantitatively in a clinical setting using VsN.

Initial clinical experience

Our first and preliminary results show that data can be reliably measured in 92% of subjects, with failures mainly related to obesity. So far, all healthy subjects showed values below 7.1 kPa (Fig. 4) and patients with liver cirrhosis had values above 13.8 kPa. This corresponded well with other equipment used (S2000 [Siemens], Logiq E9 [GE] and Aixplorer [Supersonic]). Patients with intermediate fibrosis had values between 5.1–14.4 kPa. Lower values were obtained in patients with a lower degree of fibrosis, however, a significant overlap was observed as the same is also seen using other equipment, including Fibroscan(4, 8, 10). Future comparative studies are needed to confirm the results.

Fig. 4

A healthy subject. Series of images showing the reliability of data (A–E)

10.15557_JoU.2016.0028-g004.jpg

Discussion

Two main elastography methods using ultrasound elastography have become established in clinical practice: quasi-static or strain elastography (SE)(2, 3) for the examination of the liver(9), pancreas(3, 17, 18), lymph nodes(19–27), anorectum(28, 29), thyroid(3, 25, 30–34), and other organs and SWE mainly for non-invasive liver stiffness assessment(3, 35, 36). Ultrasound-based SWE techniques are available for quantitative elastography measurements in clinical practice, including vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), shear-wave point quantification and 2D (3D) SWE techniques(35, 37, 38). Different techniques have been thoroughly evaluated and the methods are described in detail in the EFSUMB guidelines on elastography(2, 3). Here, we were first to describe that shear wave measurement technology enables quantitative evaluation of shear wave velocity and adds a reliability indicator to each shear wave velocity measurement.

Conclusion

The recently introduced SWE technology from Hitachi allows quantitative evaluation of shear wave velocity and adds a reliability indicator to each shear wave velocity measurement. Future studies should investigate the comparability of the new SWE technology from Hitachi to the already established SWE technologies. Open questions include the comparability and reproducibility between the different manufacturers with respect to normal SWE values and the cut off values for liver cirrhosis as well as the different stages of fibrosis.

Conflict of interest

Christoph F. Dietrich reports to be an advisory board member for Hitachi Medical Systems and received speaker honoraria. Yi Dong does not report any conflict of interest.

References


  1. Cui XW,Friedrich-Rust M,De Molo C,Ignee A,Schreiber-Dietrich D,Dietrich CF,Liver elastography, comments on EFSUMB elastography guidelines 2013 World J Gastroenterol 2013 19 6329 6347
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  2. Bamber J,Cosgrove D,Dietrich CF,Fromageau J,Bojunga J,Calliada F,EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 1: Basic principles and technology Ultraschall Med 2013 34 169 184
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  3. Cosgrove D,Piscaglia F,Bamber J,Bojunga J,Correas JM,Gilja OH,EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 2: Clinical applications Ultraschall Med 2013 34 238 253
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  4. Castéra L,Vergniol J,Foucher J,Le Bail B,Chanteloup E,Haaser M,Prospective comparison of transient elastography, Fibrotest, APRI, and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C Gastroenterology 2005 128 343 350
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  5. Durango E,Dietrich C,Seitz HK,Kunz CU,Pomier-Layrargues GT,Duarte-Rojo A,Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients Hepat Med 2013 5 43 52
    [PUBMED]
  6. Poynard T,Vergniol J,Ngo Y,Foucher J,Munteanu M,Merrouche W,Staging chronic hepatitis C in seven categories using fibrosis biomarker (FibroTestTM) and transient elastography (FibroScan®) J Hepatol 2014 60 706 714
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  7. Poynard T,Vergniol J,Ngo Y,Foucher J,Thibault V,Munteanu M,Merrouche W,Staging chronic hepatitis B into seven categories, defining inactive carriers and assessing treatment impact using a fibrosis biomarker (FibroTest®) and elastography (FibroScan®) J Hepatol 2014 61 994 1003
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  8. Zhang W,Wang L,Wang L,Li G,Huang A,Yin P,Liver stiffness measurement, better than APRI, Fibroindex, Fib-4, and NBI gastroscopy, predicts portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis Cell Biochem Biophys 2015 71 865 873
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  9. Friedrich-Rust M,Wunder K,Kriener S,Sotoudeh F,Richter S,Bojunga J,Liver fibrosis in viral hepatitis: noninvasive assessment with acoustic radiation force impulse imaging versus transient elastography Radiology 2009 252 595 604
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  10. Friedrich-Rust M,Nierhoff J,Lupsor M,Sporea I,Fierbinteanu-Braticevici C,Strobel D,Performance of Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse imaging for the staging of liver fibrosis: a pooled metaanalysis J Viral Hepat 2012 19 e212 e219
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  11. Friedrich-Rust M,Romen D,Vermehren J,Kriener S,Sadet D,Herrmann E,Acoustic radiation force impulse-imaging and transient elastography for non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis and steatosis in NAFLD Eur J Radiol 2012 81 e325 e331
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  12. Franchi-Abella S,Corno L,Gonzales E,Antoni G,Fabre M,Ducot B,Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of supersonic shear-wave elastography for the assessment of liver stiffness and liver fibrosis in children: a pilot study of 96 patients Radiology 2016 278 554 562
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  13. Thiele M,Detlefsen S,Sevelsted Møller L,Madsen BS,Fuglsang Hansen J,Fialla AD,Transient and 2-dimensional shear-wave elastography provide comparable assessment of alcoholic liver fibrosis and cirrhosis Gastroenterology 2016 150 123 133
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  14. Piscaglia F,Salvatore V,Mulazzani L,Cantisani V,Schiavone C,Ultrasound shear wave elastography for liver disease. A critical appraisal of the many actors on the stage Ultraschall Med 2016 37 1 5
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  15. Sonoyama T,Murayama N,Inoue N,Development of shear wave measurement with a reliability indicator Medix 2015 63 40 44
  16. Yada N,Sakurai T,Minami T,Arizumi T,Takita M,Hagiwara S,A newly developed shear wave elastography modality: with a unique reliability index Oncology 2015 89 suppl. 2 53 59
    [CROSSREF]
  17. Hirche TO,Ignee A,Barreiros AP,Schreiber-Dietrich D,Jungblut S,Ott M,Indications and limitations of endoscopic ultrasound elastography for evaluation of focal pancreatic lesions Endoscopy 2008 40 910 917
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  18. Dietrich CF,Hirche TO,Ott M,Ignee A,Real-time tissue elastography in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis Endoscopy 2009 41 718 720
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  19. Cui XW,Hocke M,Jenssen C,Ignee A,Klein S,Schreiber-Dietrich D,Conventional ultrasound for lymph node evaluation, update 2013 Z Gastroenterol 2014 52 212 221
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  20. Cui XW,Chang JM,Kan QC,Chiorean L,Ignee A,Dietrich CF,Endoscopic ultrasound elastography: current status and future perspectives World J Gastroenterol 2015 21 13212 13224
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  21. Dietrich CF,Jenssen C,Arcidiacono PG,Cui XW,Giovannini M,Hocke M,Endoscopic ultrasound: elastographic lymph node evaluation Endosc Ultrasound 2015 4 176 190
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  22. Janssen J,Dietrich CF,Will U,Greiner L,Endosonographic elastography in the diagnosis of mediastinal lymph nodes Endoscopy 2007 39 952 957
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  23. Dietrich CF,Ponnudurai R,Bachmann Nielsen M,Is there a need for new imaging methods for lymph node evaluation? Ultraschall Med 2012 33 411 414
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  24. Cui XW,Jenssen C,Saftoiu A,Ignee A,Dietrich CF,New ultrasound techniques for lymph node evaluation World J Gastroenterol 2013 19 4850 4860
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  25. Dietrich CF,Săftoiu A,Jenssen C,Real time elastography endoscopic ultrasound (RTE-EUS), a comprehensive review Eur J Radiol 2014 83 405 414
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  26. Chiorean L,Barr RG,Braden B,Jenssen C,Cui XW,Hocke M,Transcutaneous ultrasound: elastographic lymph node evaluation. Current clinical applications and literature review Ultrasound Med Biol 2016 42 16 30
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  27. Dietrich CF,Hocke M,Jenssen C,Ultrasound for abdominal lymphadenopathy Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2013 138 1001 1018
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  28. Allgayer H,Ignee A,Zipse S,Crispin A,Dietrich CF,Endorectal ultrasound and real-time elastography in patients with fecal incontinence following anorectal surgery: a prospective comparison evaluating short- and long-term outcomes in irradiated and non-irradiated patients Z Gastroenterol 2012 50 1281 1286
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  29. Allgayer H,Ignee A,Dietrich CF,Endosonographic elastography of the anal sphincter in patients with fecal incontinence Scand J Gastroenterol 2010 45 30 38
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  30. Bojunga J,Dauth N,Berner C,Meyer G,Holzer K,Voelkl L,Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging for differentiation of thyroid nodules PLoS One 2012 7 e42735
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  31. Friedrich-Rust M,Romenski O,Meyer G,Dauth N,Holzer K,Grünwald F,Acoustic radiation force impulse-imaging for the evaluation of the thyroid gland: a limited patient feasibility study Ultrasonics 2012 52 69 74
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  32. Friedrich-Rust M,Vorlaender C,Dietrich CF,Kratzer W,Blank W,Schuler A,Evaluation of strain elastography for differentiation of thyroid nodules: results of a prospective DEGUM multicenter study Ultraschall Med 2016 37 262 270
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  33. Dietrich CF,Bojunga J,Ultrasound of the thyroid Laryngorhinootologie 2016 95 87 104
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  34. Dietrich CF,Bojunga J,Ultrasound of the thyroid Z Gastroenterol 2015 53 208 225
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  35. Ferraioli G,Filice C,Castera L,Choi BI,Sporea I,Wilson SR,WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 3: liver Ultrasound Med Biol 2015 41 1161 1179
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  36. Cui XW,Pirri C,Ignee A,De Molo C,Hirche TO,Schreiber-Dietrich DG,Measurement of shear wave velocity using acoustic radiation force impulse imaging is not hampered by previous use of ultrasound contrast agents Z Gastroenterol 2014 52 649 653
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  37. Barr RG,Nakashima K,Amy D,Cosgrove D,Farrokh A,Schafer F,WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 2: breast Ultrasound Med Biol 2015 41 1148 1160
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  38. Shiina T,Nightingale KR,Palmeri ML,Hall TJ,Bamber JC,Barr RG,WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 1: basic principles and terminology Ultrasound Med Biol 2015 41 1126 1147
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
XML PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

Fig. 1

SWM transmit/receive sequence

Full Size   |   Slide (.pptx)

Fig. 2

SWM measurement. The region of interest and the histogram are displayed. The display item [unit] and description are shown as well

Full Size   |   Slide (.pptx)

Fig. 3

Schematic diagram of rejection conditions. Negative Vs (1): Vs takes a negative value when the peak of track 2 is detected at an earlier time than the peak of track 1 due to, for example, disturbed shear waves. Shear waves in this case are not correctly detected and thus the value is rejected. Vs is outside of a defined range (2): A certain range of Vs values is defined depending on the organs and tissues being examined. If Vs values are beyond that range, the value is regarded as a detection error of the shear wave speed and rejected. Phase fluctuation detected at a particular depth (3): As described earlier, phase fluctuations due to blood vessels and blood flow are different from shear waves and rejected as a detection error

Full Size   |   Slide (.pptx)

Fig. 4

A healthy subject. Series of images showing the reliability of data (A–E)

Full Size   |   Slide (.pptx)

REFERENCES

  1. Cui XW,Friedrich-Rust M,De Molo C,Ignee A,Schreiber-Dietrich D,Dietrich CF,Liver elastography, comments on EFSUMB elastography guidelines 2013 World J Gastroenterol 2013 19 6329 6347
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  2. Bamber J,Cosgrove D,Dietrich CF,Fromageau J,Bojunga J,Calliada F,EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 1: Basic principles and technology Ultraschall Med 2013 34 169 184
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  3. Cosgrove D,Piscaglia F,Bamber J,Bojunga J,Correas JM,Gilja OH,EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 2: Clinical applications Ultraschall Med 2013 34 238 253
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  4. Castéra L,Vergniol J,Foucher J,Le Bail B,Chanteloup E,Haaser M,Prospective comparison of transient elastography, Fibrotest, APRI, and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C Gastroenterology 2005 128 343 350
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  5. Durango E,Dietrich C,Seitz HK,Kunz CU,Pomier-Layrargues GT,Duarte-Rojo A,Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients Hepat Med 2013 5 43 52
    [PUBMED]
  6. Poynard T,Vergniol J,Ngo Y,Foucher J,Munteanu M,Merrouche W,Staging chronic hepatitis C in seven categories using fibrosis biomarker (FibroTestTM) and transient elastography (FibroScan®) J Hepatol 2014 60 706 714
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  7. Poynard T,Vergniol J,Ngo Y,Foucher J,Thibault V,Munteanu M,Merrouche W,Staging chronic hepatitis B into seven categories, defining inactive carriers and assessing treatment impact using a fibrosis biomarker (FibroTest®) and elastography (FibroScan®) J Hepatol 2014 61 994 1003
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  8. Zhang W,Wang L,Wang L,Li G,Huang A,Yin P,Liver stiffness measurement, better than APRI, Fibroindex, Fib-4, and NBI gastroscopy, predicts portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis Cell Biochem Biophys 2015 71 865 873
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  9. Friedrich-Rust M,Wunder K,Kriener S,Sotoudeh F,Richter S,Bojunga J,Liver fibrosis in viral hepatitis: noninvasive assessment with acoustic radiation force impulse imaging versus transient elastography Radiology 2009 252 595 604
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  10. Friedrich-Rust M,Nierhoff J,Lupsor M,Sporea I,Fierbinteanu-Braticevici C,Strobel D,Performance of Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse imaging for the staging of liver fibrosis: a pooled metaanalysis J Viral Hepat 2012 19 e212 e219
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  11. Friedrich-Rust M,Romen D,Vermehren J,Kriener S,Sadet D,Herrmann E,Acoustic radiation force impulse-imaging and transient elastography for non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis and steatosis in NAFLD Eur J Radiol 2012 81 e325 e331
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  12. Franchi-Abella S,Corno L,Gonzales E,Antoni G,Fabre M,Ducot B,Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of supersonic shear-wave elastography for the assessment of liver stiffness and liver fibrosis in children: a pilot study of 96 patients Radiology 2016 278 554 562
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  13. Thiele M,Detlefsen S,Sevelsted Møller L,Madsen BS,Fuglsang Hansen J,Fialla AD,Transient and 2-dimensional shear-wave elastography provide comparable assessment of alcoholic liver fibrosis and cirrhosis Gastroenterology 2016 150 123 133
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  14. Piscaglia F,Salvatore V,Mulazzani L,Cantisani V,Schiavone C,Ultrasound shear wave elastography for liver disease. A critical appraisal of the many actors on the stage Ultraschall Med 2016 37 1 5
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  15. Sonoyama T,Murayama N,Inoue N,Development of shear wave measurement with a reliability indicator Medix 2015 63 40 44
  16. Yada N,Sakurai T,Minami T,Arizumi T,Takita M,Hagiwara S,A newly developed shear wave elastography modality: with a unique reliability index Oncology 2015 89 suppl. 2 53 59
    [CROSSREF]
  17. Hirche TO,Ignee A,Barreiros AP,Schreiber-Dietrich D,Jungblut S,Ott M,Indications and limitations of endoscopic ultrasound elastography for evaluation of focal pancreatic lesions Endoscopy 2008 40 910 917
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  18. Dietrich CF,Hirche TO,Ott M,Ignee A,Real-time tissue elastography in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis Endoscopy 2009 41 718 720
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  19. Cui XW,Hocke M,Jenssen C,Ignee A,Klein S,Schreiber-Dietrich D,Conventional ultrasound for lymph node evaluation, update 2013 Z Gastroenterol 2014 52 212 221
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  20. Cui XW,Chang JM,Kan QC,Chiorean L,Ignee A,Dietrich CF,Endoscopic ultrasound elastography: current status and future perspectives World J Gastroenterol 2015 21 13212 13224
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  21. Dietrich CF,Jenssen C,Arcidiacono PG,Cui XW,Giovannini M,Hocke M,Endoscopic ultrasound: elastographic lymph node evaluation Endosc Ultrasound 2015 4 176 190
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  22. Janssen J,Dietrich CF,Will U,Greiner L,Endosonographic elastography in the diagnosis of mediastinal lymph nodes Endoscopy 2007 39 952 957
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  23. Dietrich CF,Ponnudurai R,Bachmann Nielsen M,Is there a need for new imaging methods for lymph node evaluation? Ultraschall Med 2012 33 411 414
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  24. Cui XW,Jenssen C,Saftoiu A,Ignee A,Dietrich CF,New ultrasound techniques for lymph node evaluation World J Gastroenterol 2013 19 4850 4860
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  25. Dietrich CF,Săftoiu A,Jenssen C,Real time elastography endoscopic ultrasound (RTE-EUS), a comprehensive review Eur J Radiol 2014 83 405 414
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  26. Chiorean L,Barr RG,Braden B,Jenssen C,Cui XW,Hocke M,Transcutaneous ultrasound: elastographic lymph node evaluation. Current clinical applications and literature review Ultrasound Med Biol 2016 42 16 30
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  27. Dietrich CF,Hocke M,Jenssen C,Ultrasound for abdominal lymphadenopathy Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2013 138 1001 1018
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  28. Allgayer H,Ignee A,Zipse S,Crispin A,Dietrich CF,Endorectal ultrasound and real-time elastography in patients with fecal incontinence following anorectal surgery: a prospective comparison evaluating short- and long-term outcomes in irradiated and non-irradiated patients Z Gastroenterol 2012 50 1281 1286
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  29. Allgayer H,Ignee A,Dietrich CF,Endosonographic elastography of the anal sphincter in patients with fecal incontinence Scand J Gastroenterol 2010 45 30 38
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  30. Bojunga J,Dauth N,Berner C,Meyer G,Holzer K,Voelkl L,Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging for differentiation of thyroid nodules PLoS One 2012 7 e42735
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  31. Friedrich-Rust M,Romenski O,Meyer G,Dauth N,Holzer K,Grünwald F,Acoustic radiation force impulse-imaging for the evaluation of the thyroid gland: a limited patient feasibility study Ultrasonics 2012 52 69 74
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  32. Friedrich-Rust M,Vorlaender C,Dietrich CF,Kratzer W,Blank W,Schuler A,Evaluation of strain elastography for differentiation of thyroid nodules: results of a prospective DEGUM multicenter study Ultraschall Med 2016 37 262 270
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  33. Dietrich CF,Bojunga J,Ultrasound of the thyroid Laryngorhinootologie 2016 95 87 104
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  34. Dietrich CF,Bojunga J,Ultrasound of the thyroid Z Gastroenterol 2015 53 208 225
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  35. Ferraioli G,Filice C,Castera L,Choi BI,Sporea I,Wilson SR,WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 3: liver Ultrasound Med Biol 2015 41 1161 1179
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  36. Cui XW,Pirri C,Ignee A,De Molo C,Hirche TO,Schreiber-Dietrich DG,Measurement of shear wave velocity using acoustic radiation force impulse imaging is not hampered by previous use of ultrasound contrast agents Z Gastroenterol 2014 52 649 653
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  37. Barr RG,Nakashima K,Amy D,Cosgrove D,Farrokh A,Schafer F,WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 2: breast Ultrasound Med Biol 2015 41 1148 1160
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]
  38. Shiina T,Nightingale KR,Palmeri ML,Hall TJ,Bamber JC,Barr RG,WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 1: basic principles and terminology Ultrasound Med Biol 2015 41 1126 1147
    [PUBMED] [CROSSREF]

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS