1. Marked difference in liver fat measured by histology vs. magnetic resonance-proton density fat fraction: A meta-analysis
- Author
-
Qadri, Sami, Vartiainen, Emilia, Lahelma, Mari, Porthan, Kimmo, Tang, An, Idilman, Ilkay S, Runge, Jurgen H, Juuti, Anne, Penttilä, Anne K, Dabek, Juhani, Lehtimäki, Tiina E, Seppänen, Wenla, Arola, Johanna, Arkkila, Perttu, Stoker, Jaap, Karcaaltincaba, Musturay, Pavlides, Michael, Loomba, Rohit, Sirlin, Claude B, Tukiainen, Taru, and Yki-Järvinen, Hannele
- Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences ,Clinical Sciences ,Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis ,Liver Disease ,Digestive Diseases ,Oral and gastrointestinal ,Fatty liver ,Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease ,Magnetic resonance imaging ,Magnetic resonance spectroscopy ,Biopsy ,Histology ,Hepatocytes ,Pathologists ,Triglycerides ,Transcriptome ,Systematic review ,Meta-analysis ,Clinical sciences - Abstract
Background & aimsPathologists quantify liver steatosis as the fraction of lipid droplet-containing hepatocytes out of all hepatocytes, whereas the magnetic resonance-determined proton density fat fraction (PDFF) reflects the tissue triacylglycerol concentration. We investigated the linearity, agreement, and correspondence thresholds between histological steatosis and PDFF across the full clinical spectrum of liver fat content associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.MethodsUsing individual patient-level measurements, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing histological steatosis with PDFF determined by magnetic resonance spectroscopy or imaging in adults with suspected non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Linearity was assessed by meta-analysis of correlation coefficients and by linear mixed modelling of pooled data, agreement by Bland-Altman analysis, and thresholds by receiver operating characteristic analysis. To explain observed differences between the methods, we used RNA-seq to determine the fraction of hepatocytes in human liver biopsies.ResultsEligible studies numbered 9 (N = 597). The relationship between PDFF and histology was predominantly linear (r = 0.85 [95% CI, 0.80-0.89]), and their values approximately coincided at 5% steatosis. Above 5% and towards higher levels of steatosis, absolute values of the methods diverged markedly, with histology exceeding PDFF by up to 3.4-fold. On average, 100% histological steatosis corresponded to a PDFF of 33.0% (29.5-36.7%). Targeting at a specificity of 90%, optimal PDFF thresholds to predict histological steatosis grades were ≥5.75% for ≥S1, ≥15.50% for ≥S2, and ≥21.35% for S3. Hepatocytes comprised 58 ± 5% of liver cells, which may partly explain the lower values of PDFF vs. histology.ConclusionsHistological steatosis and PDFF have non-perfect linearity and fundamentally different scales of measurement. Liver fat values obtained using these methods may be rendered comparable by conversion equations or threshold values.Impact and implicationsMagnetic resonance-proton density fat fraction (PDFF) is increasingly being used to measure liver fat in place of the invasive liver biopsy. Understanding the relationship between PDFF and histological steatosis fraction is important for preventing misjudgement of clinical status or treatment effects in patient care. Our analysis revealed that histological steatosis fraction is often significantly higher than PDFF, and their association varies across the spectrum of fatty liver severity. These findings are particularly important for physicians and clinical researchers, who may use these data to interpret PDFF measurements in the context of histologically evaluated liver fat content.
- Published
- 2024