Prospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. Jan 21, 2015; 21(3): 988-996
Published online Jan 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i3.988
Table 1 Interobserver variability of each liver lobe volume parameter between two observers’ measurements in cirrhotic patients with hepatitis B
Liver lobe volume parametersMean coefficient of variation (range) ≤ 10% (n)> 10% (n)
RV7.5% (2%-14%)5912
LMV8.6% (3%-15%)6110
LLV8.2% (3%-13%)638
CV6.0% (2%-11%)692
RV/ALB5.5% (1%-11%)701
LMV/ALB6.4% (1%-10%)710
LLV/ALB6.2% (2%-10%)710
CV/ALB4.0% (2%-9%)710
Table 2 Main clinical data of the healthy volunteers and patients with cirrhosis in different Child-Pugh classes
No cirrhosisChild-Pugh class of cirrhosis
(n = 21)Class A (n = 27)Class B (n = 28)Class C (n = 16)
Gender (M/F)12/912/1513/1511/5
Age56.23 ± 13.0259.43 ± 12.9354.57 ± 12.5953.56 ± 16.13
Body weight (kg)65.42 ± 5.3460.53 ± 3.2057.61 ± 2.0555.33 ± 1.53
BMI (kg/m2)23.15 ± 0.5422.42 ± 0.4521.25 ± 0.3119.41 ± 0.24
RV (mm3)806.45 ± 198.891649.60 ± 123.46586.98 ± 137.283470.58 ± 46.034
LMV (mm3)234.29 ± 70.341193.23 ± 47.052161.27 ± 43.04147.47 ± 83.754
LLV (mm3)215.51 ± 133.63279.60 ± 95.332218.69 ± 35.47208.49 ± 36.174
CV (mm3)20.28 ± 9.35134.36 ± 10.4629.15 ± 12.2322.41 ± 10.944
ALB (g/L)45.27 ± 3.4637.82 ± 4.0733.24 ± 2.5626.76 ± 3.23
RV/ALB17.59 ± 4.3116.98 ± 3.0318.61 ± 4.1220.45 ± 3.554
LMV/ALB5.52 ± 1.735.16 ± 1.395.15 ± 1.456.43 ± 3.81
LLV/ALB5.14 ± 3.4117.29 ± 2.957.08 ± 1.2639.19 ± 1.404
CV/ALB0.48 ± 0.2410.87 ± 0.280.95 ± 0.430.96 ± 0.45
Table 3 Comparison of liver lobe volume parameters between patients with and without esophageal varices
ParametersEsophageal varices
No (n = 46)Yes (n = 25)
RV (mm3)687.85 ± 175.731534.87 ± 85.86
LMV (mm3)190.01 ± 63.70167.18 ± 66.70
LLV (mm3)544.26 ± 98.74216.05 ± 39.04
CV (mm3)27.52 ± 12.8327.61 ± 8.54
RV/ALB16.98 ± 3.36121.26 ± 3.01
LMV/ALB5.26 ± 1.685.96 ± 2.96
LLV/ALB6.91 ± 2.777.78 ± 1.92
CV/ALB0.78 ± 0.4110.97 ± 0.31
Table 4 Volume parameters of each liver lobe in determining the presence and Child-Pugh class of liver cirrhosis, and predicting the presence of esophageal varices
ParametersCut-offDifferentiationsAUCSensitivitySpecificity
RV (mm3)692.3No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis0.81670.6%75%
508.9Class A vs C0.90090.3%84.5%
522.2Class B vs C0.80370.0%88%
579.45No varices vs varices0.78071.4%70.0%
LMV (mm3)201.3No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis0.75470.6%77.0%
181.1Class A vs B0.72868.0%71.0%
155.4Class A vs C0.75182.1%75.0%
LLV (mm3)233.2Class A vs B0.76174.4%73.1%
224.9Class A vs C0.79282.1%75.0%
CV (mm3)23.8No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis0.75669.0%65.0%
25.1Class A vs C0.80685.7%69.0%
RV/ALB19.9Class A vs C0.80168.8%79.6%
20.46No varices vs varices0.89080.0%83.5%
LLV/ALB0.9No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis0.76370.6%71.0%
8.3Class A vs C0.75268.8%65.5%
7.5Class B vs C0.90093.8%81.5%
CV/ALB0.6No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis0.86082.0%83.0%
0.825No varices vs varices0.67364.0%67.0%
Table 5 Volume parameters of liver lobes for best identifying the presence and Child-Pugh class of liver cirrhosis, and predicting the presence of esophageal varices
ParameterCut-offDifferentiationsSensitivitySpecificity
CV/ALB0.6No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis82.0%83.00%
RV (mm3)508.9Class A vs C90.3%84.5%
LLV/ALB7.5Class B vs C93.8%81.5%
LLV (mm3)233.2Class A vs B74.4%73.1%
RV/ALB (mm3)20.46No varices vs varices80.0%83.5%