Gastrointestinal Imaging

Macrovesicular Hepatic Steatosis in Living Related Liver Donors: Correlation between CT and Histologic Findings

PURPOSE: To assess degree of macrovesicular steatosis with unenhanced computed tomography (CT) and correlate it with histologic findings in potential donors for living related liver transplantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two candidates underwent unenhanced CT within 4 weeks of core liver biopsy. An experienced liver pathologist, blinded to both CT and surgical findings, retrospectively reviewed biopsy specimens and determined degree of macrovesicular steatosis. A radiologist blinded to histologic grading calculated mean hepatic attenuation in each donor liver by averaging 25 region-of-interest (ROI) measurements on five sections (five ROIs per section). Mean splenic attenuation was calculated with three separate ROI measurements. Liver attenuation index (LAI) was derived and defined as the difference between mean hepatic and mean splenic attenuation. Body mass index (BMI) was determined for each patient. Linear regression analysis was used to correlate degree of macrovesicular steatosis with both LAI and BMI.

RESULTS: LAI correctly predicted degree of macrovesicular steatosis in 38 (90%) of 42 cases. In four of four livers, LAI below −10 HU correlated with greater than 30% macrovesicular steatosis (unacceptable for liver transplantation). In nine of 11 livers, LAI was between −10 and 5 HU and correctly predicted 6%–30% steatosis (relative contraindication). In two of 11 cases, LAI overestimated degree of hepatic steatosis. LAI above 5 HU correctly predicted 0%–5% steatosis in 25 of 27 livers. In two of 27 cases, parenchymal hemosiderin deposition led to an increase in LAI into the normal range, despite mild histologically confirmed steatosis. Degree of histologic macrovesicular steatosis correlated well with LAI (r = 0.92) and marginally with BMI (r = 0.45). Of 27 potential donors with normal livers at CT and acceptable LAI levels, four (15%) were deemed poor donor candidates because core biopsy revealed subtle hepatic necrosis and nonspecific hepatitis.

CONCLUSION: Although unenhanced CT quantifies the degree of macrovesicular steatosis relatively well, it may preclude a liver biopsy only in a small percentage of potential donors with low LAI (unacceptable degree of steatosis). Core liver biopsy is still necessary in the majority of donors with normal LAI to identify those with both fatty liver and coexistent hemosiderin deposition or radiologically occult diffuse liver diseases.

© RSNA, 2004


  • 1 Renz JF, Busuttil R. Adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation: a critical analysis. Semin Liver Dis 2000; 20:411-424.
  • 2 Inomata Y, Uemoto S, Asonuma K, Egawa H. Right lobe graft in living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 2000; 69:258-264.
  • 3 Marcos A, Fisher RA, Ham JM, et al. Selection and outcome of living donors for adult to adult right lobe transplantation. Transplantation 2000; 69:2410-2415.
  • 4 Selzner M, Clavien PA. Fatty liver in liver transplantation and surgery. Semin Liver Dis 2001; 21:105-113.
  • 5 Cheng YF, Chen CL, Lai CY, et al. Assessment of donor fatty livers for liver transplantation. Transplantation 2001; 71:1221-1225.
  • 6 Urena MA, Ruiz-Delgado FC, Gonzalez EM, et al. Assessing risk of the use of livers with macro and microsteatosis in a liver transplant program. Transplant Proc 1998; 30:3288-3291.
  • 7 Ploeg RJ, D’Alessandro AM, Knechtle SJ, et al. Risk factors for primary dysfunction after liver transplantation: a multivariate analysis. Transplantation 1993; 55:807-813.
  • 8 Hayashi M, Fujii K, Kiuchi T, et al. Effects of fatty infiltration of the graft on the outcome of living-related liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 1999; 31:403.
  • 9 Strasberg SM, Howard TK, Molmenti EP, Hertl M. Selecting the donor liver: risk factors for poor function after orthotopic liver transplantation. Hepatology 1994; 20:829-838.
  • 10 Yoong KF, Gunson BK, Neil DA, et al. Impact of donor liver microvesicular steatosis on the outcome of liver retransplantation. Transplant Proc 1999; 31:550-551.
  • 11 Buscarini L, Fornari F, Bolondi L, et al. Ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of focal liver lesions: techniques, diagnostic accuracy and complications—a retrospective study on 2091 biopsies. J Hepatol 1990; 11:344-348.
  • 12 Guo Z, Kurtycz DF, Salem R, De Las Casas LE, Caya JG, Hoerl HD. Radiologically guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the liver: retrospective study of 119 cases evaluating diagnostic effectiveness and clinical complications. Diagn Cytopathol 2002; 26:283-289.
  • 13 Fernandez MP, Murphy FB. Hepatic biopsies and fluid drainages. Radiol Clin North Am 1991; 29:1311-1328.
  • 14 Madden RE. Complications of needle biopsy of the liver. Arch Surg 1961; 83:778-781.
  • 15 Perrault J, McGill DB, Ott BJ, Taylor WF. Liver biopsy: complications in 1000 inpatients and outpatients. Gastroenterology 1978; 74:103-106.
  • 16 Piekarski J, Goldberg HI, Royal SA, Axel L, Moss AA. Difference between liver and spleen CT numbers in the normal adult: its usefulness in predicting the presence of diffuse liver disease. Radiology 1980; 137:727-729.
  • 17 Raptopoulos V, Karellas A, Bernstein J, Reale FR, Constantinou C, Zawacki JK. Value of dual-energy CT in differentiating focal fatty infiltration of the liver from low-density masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991; 157:721-725.
  • 18 Kamel IR, Kruskal JB, Raptopoulos V. Imaging for right lobe living donor liver transplantation. Semin Liver Dis 2001; 21:271-282.
  • 19 Rinella ME, Alonso E, Rao S, et al. Body mass index as a predictor of hepatic steatosis in living liver donors. Liver Transpl 2001; 7:409-414.

Article History

Published in print: Jan 2004