Evaluation of Hepatic Steatosis Grades with Thermoacoustic Imaging in a Rabbit Model

doi:10.37015/AUDT.2025.240074

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective: Simple hepatic steatosis can no longer be ignored as a "benign finding", and the management and evaluation of the clinical interventions depend on the degree of hepatic steatosis. Here, we aimed to investigate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of thermoacoustic imaging (TAI) for assessing hepatic steatosis grades in a rabbit model.

Methods: High-fat diet was used for the rabbits. To collect various degrees of hepatic steatosis, the diet duration was different (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 weeks). An in-vivo liver TAI imaging system was developed. At the end of the feed point, rabbits underwent the TAI and laparotomy for liver histopathology.

Results: We performed TAI and histopathologic examinations for 33 rabbits developing none (n = 4), mild (n = 16), moderate (n = 6), and severe (n = 7) steatosis with/without hepatic fibrosis. A strong correlation was found between the thermoacoustic fat coefficient (TAFC) derived from TAI and liver fat percentage (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.865; P < 0.001). Besides, TAFC showed significant differences between the consecutive grades of steatosis. TAI potentially provided a good diagnostic performance, with 83% sensitivity and 100% specificity for mild steatosis, 92% sensitivity and 95% specificity for moderated steatosis, and 100% sensitivity and 92% specificity for severe steatosis. The fibrosis stage did not significantly affect the TAFC.

Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that TAI is a promising way to evaluate hepatic steatosis grades.

Key words: Hepatic steatosis grade; Thermoacoustic imaging

Xiang Hongjin, Huang Lin, Zheng Zhu, Li Jiawu, Qiu Tingting, Wu Zhenru, Shi Yujun, Jiang Huabei, Ling Wenwu, Luo Yan. Evaluation of Hepatic Steatosis Grades with Thermoacoustic Imaging in a Rabbit Model. Advanced Ultrasound in Diagnosis and Therapy, 2025, 9(2): 171-180.

Figures/Tables 10

Figure 1

Figure 2

Table 1

Table 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Table 3

Figure 6

Figure 7

References 30

[1]	Powell EE, Wong VWS, Rinella M. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Lancet 2021;397:2212-2224.
[2]	Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, Charlton M, Cusi K, Rinella M, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2018;67:328-357.
[3]	Simon TG, Roelstraete B, Khalili H, Hagström H, Ludvigsson JF. Mortality in biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: results from a nationwide cohort. Gut 2021;70:1375-1382.
[4]	Tamaki N, Ajmera V, Loomba R. Non-invasive methods for imaging hepatic steatosis and their clinical importance in NAFLD. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2022;18:55-66.
[5]	Tilg H, Targher G. NAFLD-related mortality: simple hepatic steatosis is not as 'benign' as thought. Gut 2021;70:1212-1213.
[6]	Suliman I, Abdelgelil N, Kassamali F, Hassanein TI. The effects of hepatic steatosis on the natural history of HBV infection. Clin Liver Dis 2019;23:433-450.
[7]	Gordon A, McLean CA, Pedersen JS, Bailey MJ, Roberts SK. Hepatic steatosis in chronic hepatitis B and C: Predictors, distribution and effect on fibrosis. J Hepatol 2005;43:38-44.
[8]	Bedossa P, the FLIP Pathology Consortium. Utility and appropriateness of the fatty liver inhibition of progression (FLIP) algorithm and steatosis, activity, and fibrosis (SAF) score in the evaluation of biopsies of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2014;60:565-575.
[9]	Leoni S, Tovoli F, Napoli L, Serio I, Ferri S, Bolondi L. Current guidelines for the management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A systematic review with comparative analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2018;24:3361-3373.
[10]	Ferraioli G, Berzigotti A, Barr RG, Choi BI, Cui XW, Dong Y, et al. Quantification of liver fat content with ultrasound: a WFUMB position paper. Ultrasound Med Biol 2021;47:2803-2820.
[11]	Starekova J, Hernando D, Pickhardt PJ, Reeder SB. Quantification of liver fat content with CT and MRI: state of the art. Radiology 2021;301:250-262.
[12]	Zhang L, Qin H, Zeng F, Wu Z, Wu L, Zhao S, et al. A stimulated liquid-gas phase transition nanoprobe dedicated to enhance the microwave thermoacoustic imaging contrast of breast tumors. Nanoscale 2020;12:16034-16040.
[13]	Li J, Wang B, Zhang D, Li C, Zhu Y, Zou Y, et al. A preclinical system prototype for focused microwave breast hyperthermia guided by compressive thermoacoustic tomography. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2021;68:2289-2300.
[14]	Yan A, Lin L, Liu C, Shi J, Na S, Wang LV. Microwave-induced thermoacoustic tomography through an adult human skull. Med Phys 2019;46:1793-1797.
[15]	Chi Z, Zhao Y, Yang J, Li T, Zhang G, Jiang H. Thermoacoustic tomography of in vivo human finger joints. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2019;66:1598-1608.
[16]	Kruger RA, Miller KD, Reynolds HE, Kiser WL, Reinecke DR, Kruger GA. Breast cancer in vivo: contrast enhancement with thermoacoustic CT at 434 MHz—feasibility study. Radiology 2000;216:279-283.
[17]	C G.Compilation of the dielectric properties of body tissues at RF and microwave frequencies. Texas: Air Force materiel command Brooks Air Force Base 1996.
[18]	Van Herck M, Vonghia L, Francque S. Animal models of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-a starter's guide. Nutrients 2017;9:1072.
[19]	Xiang H, Zheng Z, Huang L, Qiu T, Luo Y, Jiang H. In vivo liver thermoacoustic imaging and demonstration based on localization wire. Med Phys 2021;48:1608-1615.
[20]	IEEE-SA Standards Board. IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. IEEE Std C95.1-2005 (Revision of IEEE Std C95.1-1991) 2006;pp1-238.
[21]	Chen YS, Yoon SJ, Frey W, Dockery M, Emelianov S.Dynamic contrast-enhanced photoacoustic imaging using photothermal stimuli-responsive composite nanomodulators. Nat Commun 2017;8:15782.
[22]	Davis MI, Chute DF, Chung RT, Sise ME.When and how can nephrologists treat hepatitis C virus infection in dialysis patients? Semin Dial 2018;31:26-36.
[23]	Luo Y, Abiri P, Zhang S, Chang CC, Kaboodrangi AH, Li R, et al. Non-invasive electrical impedance tomography for multi-scale detection of liver fat content. Theranostics 2018;8:1636-1647.
[24]	Bohte AE, van Werven JR, Bipat S, Stoker J.The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and 1H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2011;21:87-97.
[25]	Wang HW, Chai N, Wang P, Hu S, Dou W, Umulis D, et al. Label-free bond-selective imaging by listening to vibrationally excited molecules. Phys Rev Lett 2011;106:238106.
[26]	Xu G, Meng ZX, Lin JD, Yuan J, Carson PL, Joshi B, et al. The functional pitch of an organ: quantification of tissue texture with photoacoustic spectrum analysis. Radiology 2014;271:248-254.
[27]	Chang CC, Huang ZY, Shih SF, Luo Y, Ko A, Cui Q, et al. Electrical impedance tomography for non-invasive identification of fatty liver infiltrate in overweight individuals. Sci Rep 2021;11:19859.
[28]	Caussy C, Reeder SB, Sirlin CB, Loomba R. Noninvasive, quantitative assessment of liver fat by MRI-PDFF as an endpoint in NASH trials. Hepatology 2018;68:763-772.
[29]	Lee DH, Lee JY, Lee KB, Han JK. Evaluation of hepatic steatosis by using acoustic structure quantification us in a rat model: comparison with pathologic examination and MR spectroscopy. Radiology 2017;285:445-453.
[30]	Mercep E, Dean-Ben XL, Razansky D. Combined pulse-echo ultrasound and multispectral optoacoustic tomography with a multi-segment detector array. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2017;36:2129-2137.

Parameter	Hepatic steatosis^b
Parameter	S0	S1	S2	S3
Number	4	16	6	7
mean/max (×10^-3)^a	2.21 (1.95-2.32)	2.52 (2.25-2.86)	3.74 (3.31-4.49)	5.18 (4.91-5.95)
mean/std (×10^-2)^a	2.62 (2.36-2.99)	2.63 (2.32-3.16)	3.68 (3.23-4.49)	5.18 (4.84-5.39)

Rabbit No.	Fat percentage (%)	Steatosis^a	Ballooning^a	Lobular inflammation^a	Fibrosis^a
1	0.00	0	0	0	0
2	0.00	0	0	0	0
3	4.00	0	0	0	0
4	4.77	0	0	0	0
5	13.43	1	2	0	0
6	16.45	1	0	0	0
7	18.04	1	0	0	1
8	20.00	1	1	0	0
9	20.00	1	2	1	2
10	21.32	1	0	0	1
11	22.55	1	1	0	2
12	24.00	1	2	0	0
13	25.00	1	0	0	0
14	25.20	1	2	1	1
15	27.34	1	1	1	2
16	28.95	1	0	0	1
17	30.00	1	1	0	1
18	30.00	1	2	0	1
19	30.51	1	0	0	0
20	33.00	1	2	2	3
21	35.00	2	1	0	1
22	36.40	2	0	2	1
23	43.00	2	1	0	0
24	50.00	2	2	1	4
25	60.00	2	2	0	1
26	60.00	2	1	1	3
27	68.00	3	2	1	4
28	70.00	3	1	0	1
29	79.00	3	2	2	2
30	80.00	3	1	0	0
31	80.00	3	1	1	4
32	80.00	3	2	2	2
33	90.00	3	1	2	0

Aim	Cutoff	AUC^a	Sen (%)^b	Spe (%)^b	PPV (%)^b	NPV (%)^b
mean/max
≥ S1	2.33×10^-3	0.905 (0.791, 1.000)	83 (24/29)	100 (4/4)	100 (24/24)	44 (4/9)
≥ S2	3.40×10^-3	0.981 (0.945, 1.000)	92 (12/13)	95 (19/20)	92 (12/13)	95 (19/20)
≥ S3	3.99×10^-3	0.989 (0.961, 1.000)	100 (7/7)	92 (24/26)	78 (7/9)	100 (24/24)
mean/std
≥ S1	3.10×10^-2	0.724 (0.532, 0.916)	55 (16/29)	100 (4/4)	100 (16/16)	24 (4/17)
≥ S2	3.23×10^-2	0.969 (0.916, 1.000)	92 (12/13)	85 (17/20)	80 (12/15)	94 (17/18)
≥ S3	3.96×10^-2	0.989 (0.961, 1.000)	100 (7/7)	92 (24/26)	78 (7/9)	100 (24/24)