Repeatability of shear wave elastography in liver fibrosis phantoms-Evaluation of five different systems

PLoS One. 2018 Jan 2;13(1):e0189671. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189671. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

This study aimed to assess and validate the repeatability and agreement of quantitative elastography of novel shear wave methods on four individual tissue-mimicking liver fibrosis phantoms with different known Young's modulus. We used GE Logiq E9 2D-SWE, Philips iU22 ARFI (pSWE), Samsung TS80A SWE (pSWE), Hitachi Ascendus (SWM) and Transient Elastography (TE). Two individual investigators performed all measurements non-continued and in parallel. The methods were evaluated for inter- and intraobserver variability by intraclass correlation, coefficient of variation and limits of agreement using the median elastography value. All systems used in this study provided high repeatability in quantitative measurements in a liver fibrosis phantom and excellent inter- and intraclass correlations. All four elastography platforms showed excellent intra-and interobserver agreement (interclass correlation 0.981-1.000 and intraclass correlation 0.987-1.000) and no significant difference in mean elasticity measurements for all systems, except for TE on phantom 4. All four liver fibrosis phantoms could be differentiated by quantitative elastography, by all platforms (p<0.001). In the Bland-Altman analysis the differences in measurements were larger for the phantoms with higher Young's modulus. All platforms had a coefficient of variation in the range 0.00-0.21 for all four phantoms, equivalent to low variance and high repeatability.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Elasticity Imaging Techniques / methods*
  • Humans
  • Liver Cirrhosis / diagnostic imaging*
  • Observer Variation
  • Phantoms, Imaging*
  • Reproducibility of Results

Grants and funding

The expenses for this study were covered by Haukeland University Hospital and University of Bergen. Samsung provided an ultrasound scanner free of charge. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.