Fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Noninvasive assessment using computed tomography volumetry

Table 1 Computed tomography parameters

CT scanner	4-slice MDCT			64- or 256- or 320- slice MDCT
No. of patients	4	2	5	5	2	10	4	6
Contrast material (mgI/mL)	370	300	370	370	370	370	300	370
Contrast material dose	100 mL	100 mL	600 mgI/kg	100 mL	100 mL	600 mgI/kg	100 mL	600 mgI/kg
Injection rate	2.5 mL/s	2.5 mL/s	20 s1	3 mL/s	2.5 mL/s	30 s1	2.5 mL/s	20 s1
Portal phase delay (s)	70	70	55	70	70	60	60	70
Tube voltage (kVp)	120	120	120	120	120	120	120	120
Tube current (mAs)	300	300	300	Auto	Auto	Auto	Auto	Auto
Reconstruction thickenss (mm)	5	3	3	5	3	1	5	2

¹Injection at a variable rate with a fixed duration. MDCT: Multidetector CT; CT: Computed tomography.

Table 2 Correlation between liver volume and fibrosis stage

Parameter	F0 (n = 11)	F1 (n = 5)	F2 (n = 1)	F3 (n = 9)	F4 (n = 12)	r	P value
Total volume (cm3)	1252.3 ± 155.1	1280.4 ± 240.0	1235.8	1364.5 ± 320.0	1030.2 ± 366.1	-0.193	NS
LLS (%)	18.3 ± 1.9	22.1 ± 3.9	21.5	25.3 ± 8.8	26.5 ± 8.8	0.465	0.003
LMS (%)	12.6 ± 1.7	12.0 ± 3.7	16.2	11.3 ± 2.8	11.1 ± 3.5	-0.248	NS
Caudate lobe (%)	3.0 ± 1.2	3.7 ± 0.8	3.2	5.3 ± 1.0	9.3 ± 4.1	0.815	< 0.001
RL (%)	66.1 ± 2.2	62.1 ± 5.6	59.1	58.0 ± 10.4	52.7 ± 10.5	-0.563	< 0.001

Continuous data are mean ± SD. LLS: Left lateral segment; LMS: Left medial segment; RL: Right lobe.

Table 3 Receiver operating characteristic analysis of the diagnostic performance of volume percentage of caudate lobe for hepatic fibrosis

	F0 vs ≥ F1	≤ F1 vs ≥ F2	≤ F2 vs ≥ F3	≤ F3 vs F4
Az value	0.896	0.929	0.955	0.923
Cutoff value	3.957	4.789	4.789	5.834
Sensitivity (%)	88.9	81.8	85.7	83.3
Specificity (%)	90.9	93.8	94.1	88.4
Accuracy (%)	89.4	86.8	89.4	86.8
PPV (%)	96.0	94.7	94.7	76.9
NPV (%)	76.9	78.9	84.2	92.0

PPV: Positive predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value.