Many pathological processes cause marked changes in the mechanical properties of tissue. MR elastography (MRE) is a noninvasive MRI based technique for quantitatively assessing the mechanical properties of tissues in vivo. MRE is performed by using a vibration source to generate low frequency mechanical waves in tissue, imaging the propagating waves using a phase contrast MRI technique, and then processing the wave information to generate quantitative images showing mechanical properties such as tissue stiffness. Since its first description in 1995, published studies have explored many potential clinical applications including brain, thyroid, lung, heart, breast, and skeletal muscle imaging. However, the best‐documented application to emerge has been the use of MRE to assess liver disease. Multiple studies have demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between MRE‐measured hepatic stiffness and the stage of fibrosis at histology. The emerging literature indicates that MRE can serve as a safer, less expensive, and potentially more accurate alternative to invasive liver biopsy which is currently the gold standard for diagnosis and staging of liver fibrosis. This review describes the basic principles, technique of performing a liver MRE, analysis and calculation of stiffness, clinical applications, limitations, and potential future applications. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013;37:544–555.

If confirmed with future prospective studies, MR elastography could be used to distinguish between those individuals with simple steatosis and steatohepatitis who may be candidates for early interv... PurposeTo investigate the diagnostic accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]) of magnetic resonance (MR) elastography for the early detection of nonalcoholic steato...

To develop a method for measuring liver stiffness with magnetic resonance (MR) elastography and to prospectively test this technique in healthy volunteers and patients with liver fibrosis. This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by an institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from each subject. First, to determine the feasibility of applying shear waves to the liver, a pneumatic acoustic wave generator was developed and tested by using a tissue-simulating gel phantom with ribs on one side and without ribs on the other. The effect of interposed ribs on stiffness measurements was tested. Then, liver stiffness was measured with MR elastography in 12 healthy volunteers (eight men, four women; mean age, 26.7 years; age range, 19-39 years) by using the subcostal approach and the transcostal approach and in 12 patients with chronic liver disease (six men, six women; mean age, 50.5 years; age range, 36-60 years) by using the transcostal approach. Various statistical analyses were performed to assess all measurements. Ex vivo, interposed ribs reduced shear wave amplitude but did not hinder stiffness measurements. In volunteers, the transcostal approach surprisingly yielded better shear waves in the liver than did the subcostal approach. The mean liver shear stiffness was significantly lower in volunteers (mean, 2.0 kPa +/- 0.3 [standard deviation]) than it was in patients with liver fibrosis (mean, 5.6 kPa +/- 5.0; median, 3.7 kPa; range, 2.7-19.2 kPa; P < .001). MR elastography of the liver is feasible and shows promise as a quantitative method for noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis.

Ezetimibe inhibits intestinal cholesterol absorption and lowers low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol. Uncontrolled studies have suggested that it reduces liver fat as estimated by ultrasound in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Therefore, we aimed to examine the efficacy of ezetimibe versus placebo in reducing liver fat by the magnetic resonance imaging‐derived proton density‐fat fraction (MRI‐PDFF) and liver histology in patients with biopsy‐proven NASH. In this randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial, 50 patients with biopsy‐proven NASH were randomized to either ezetimibe 10 mg orally daily or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in liver fat as measured by MRI‐PDFF in colocalized regions of interest within each of the nine liver segments. Novel assessment by two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional magnetic resonance elastography was also performed. Ezetimibe was not significantly better than placebo at reducing liver fat as measured by MRI‐PDFF (mean difference between the ezetimibe and placebo arms ‐1.3%, P = 0.4). Compared to baseline, however, end‐of‐treatment MRI‐PDFF was significantly lower in the ezetimibe arm (15%‐11.6%, P < 0.016) but not in the placebo arm (18.5%‐16.4%, P = 0.15). There were no significant differences in histologic response rates, serum alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels, or longitudinal changes in two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional magnetic resonance elastography‐derived liver stiffness between the ezetimibe and placebo arms. Compared to histologic nonresponders (25/35), histologic responders (10/35) had a significantly greater reduction in MRI‐PDFF (‐4.35 ± 4.9% versus ‐0.30 ± 4.1%, P < 0.019). Conclusions: Ezetimibe did not significantly reduce liver fat in NASH. This trial demonstrates the application of colocalization of MRI‐PDFF‐derived fat maps and magnetic resonance elastography‐derived stiffness maps of the liver before and after treatment to noninvasively assess treatment response in NASH. (Hepatology 2015;61:1239–1250)