. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jan 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Mar 12;51(1):25–42. doi: 10.1002/jmri.26716

Table 3.

Prospective, head-to-head comparisons of VCTE, pSWE, or 2D SWE versus 2D MRE for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis (stage ≥ 2), advanced fibrosis (stage ≥ 3), and cirrhosis (stage 4), with histopathology as the reference standard.

Study	Population	No. of Patients	Comparison	Success (%)	AUROC for liver fibrosis stage:			Any significant differences, p<0.05
Study	Population	No. of Patients	Comparison	Success (%)	≥ 2	≥ 3	4	Any significant differences, p<0.05

Studies directly comparing VCTE and 2D MRE
Chen et al., 2017	Mixed	111	VCTE	81%	0.91	0.87	0.92	2D MRE higher rate of success and reliability than VCTE
Chen et al., 2017	Mixed	111	2D MRE	96%	0.93	0.92	0.95	2D MRE higher rate of success and reliability than VCTE
Park et al., 2017	NAFLD	104	VCTE	93%	0.86	0.80	0.69	2D MRE more accurate at diagnosing stage ≥ 1 than VCTE (0.82 vs. 0.67)
Park et al., 2017	NAFLD	104	2D MRE	100%	0.89	0.87	0.87
Imajo et al., 2016	NAFLD	142	VCTE	89%	0.82	0.88	0.92	2D MRE more accurate at diagnosing stage ≥ 2 than VCTE
Imajo et al., 2016	NAFLD	142	2D MRE	100%	0.89	0.89	0.97	2D MRE more accurate at diagnosing stage ≥ 2 than VCTE
Studies directly comparing pSWE and 2D MRE
Chou, Chen, Wu, Lin, & Chen, 2017	HCC (mixed etiology)	82	pSWE	100%	0.81	0.86	0.86	2D MRE more accurate at diagnosing stage ≥ 2, ≥ 3, and 4 than pSWE
Chou, Chen, Wu, Lin, & Chen, 2017	HCC (mixed etiology)	82	2D MRE	98%	0.93	0.96	0.99
Cui et al., 2016	NAFLD	125	pSWE	98%	0.85	0.90	0.86	2D MRE more accurate at diagnosing stage ≥ 1 than pSWE
Cui et al., 2016	NAFLD	125	2D MRE	99%	0.89	0.93	0.88	2D MRE more accurate at diagnosing stage ≥ 1 than pSWE

VCTE Vibration-controlled transient elastography, pSWE point shear wave elastography, 2D SWE two-dimensional shear wave elastography, 2D MRE two-dimensional magnetic resonance elastography, NAFLD nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, HCC hepatocellular carcinoma.