Back to Authors

Lewis, Sara

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4713-6453

Mayo Clinic

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Citations 4

Multiparametric MRI for Diagnosing Clinically Significant Portal Hypertension and Predicting Liver Decompensation
Bhuiyan, Enamul , Geahchan, Amine , Altınmakas, Emre , Abboud, Ghadi , Pavuluri, Swathi, Ehman, Richard L. , Lewis, Sara , Bansal, Meena B. , Thung, Swan N. , Schiano, Thomas D. , Taouli, Bachir, Bhuiyan, Enamul , Kennedy, Paul , Ehman, Richard , Ozkaya, Efe , Bane, Octavia , Hectors, Stefanie J. C. G. , Pavuluri, Swathi, Yin, Meng , Fischman, Aaron M. , Taouli, Bachir

Liver International | September 27, 2025 | Volume: 45 | Issue: 11 | Pages: No page available

10.1111/liv.70368 Get It

ABSTRACT Background and Aims Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH; hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) ≥ 10 mmHg) is a severe complication of chronic liver disease, with increased risk of variceal bleeding and liver decompensation (at HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg). This study evaluated the performance of multiparametric (mp)MRI for diagnosing CSPH and predicting liver decompensation, compared to ultrasound‐based shear wave elastography (SWE) and blood tests. Methods In this prospective single‐centre study (2018–2022), 59 patients (M 30, mean age 52.7 years) underwent mpMRI and HVPG measurement, with an average interval of 32 ± 31 days. The mpMRI protocol included 2D/3D MR elastography (MRE), T 1 /proprietary iron‐compensated T 1 (cT 1 )/T 1ρ mapping, gadoxetate‐enhanced dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI (DCE‐MRI) of the liver and spleen, SWE and blood tests. Statistical analyses included Mann–Whitney U tests, ROC analysis, logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models. Results CSPH was present in 13 patients (22%). Several MRI parameters showed high diagnostic performance for CSPH (AUC ≥ 0.8), with spleen stiffness‐2D MRE (AUC 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78–0.98) and liver uptake on DCE‐MRI (AUC 0.83, 95% CI 0.70–0.96) performing best, while SWE had AUCs of 0.63 (95% CI 0.45–0.81) for liver and 0.67 (95% CI 0.44–0.89) for spleen. Combining spleen stiffness‐2D MRE and liver uptake achieved an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.86–1.00) for diagnosing CSPH. For predicting decompensation, spleen stiffness‐3D MRE and liver uptake rate had AUCs of 0.83 (95% CI 0.68–0.99) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.70–0.95), respectively, outperforming SWE. Conclusions Spleen stiffness measured with MRE combined with gadoxetate liver uptake (measured with DCE‐MRI) can diagnose CSPH and predict liver decompensation, with superior performance compared to SWE. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03436550
Biparametric vs Multiparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis
Ng, Alexander , Asif, Aqua , Gómez‐Gómez, Enrique , Budäus, Lars, Barrett, Tristan , Radtke, Jan Philipp , Kesch, Claudia, Pham, Tho, Tewari, Ash , Cabello, M.A. Rodríguez , Mynderse, Lance A. , Borghi, Marcelo, Boesen, Lars , Singh, Paras B. , Renard‐Penna, Raphaële , Leow, Jeffrey J. , Pecoraro, Martina , Giannarini, Gianluca , Perlis, Nathan , López-Ruiz, Daniel, Rossiter, Marimo , Khetrapal, Pramit , Chan, Vinson Wai‐Shun , Haider, Aiman , Clarke, Caroline S. , Dickinson, Louise , Mitra, Anita, Margolis, Daniel J. A., Takwoingi, Yemisi , Emberton, Mark , Allen, Clare, Moore, Caroline M. , Kasivisvanathan, Veeru , Collaborators, PRIME Study Group, Briganti, Alberto , Evangelista, Alex, Freeman, Alex , Kirkham, Alex, Zlotta, Alexandre R. , Grey, Alistair, Ryan, Andrew, Borrelli, Antonella , Andrews, Antonette, Finelli, Antonio , Sancho, Arturo Platas, Baring, Ashley, Roy, Ashoke, Issa, Balqiisa, Israël, Bas , González, Carolina Aulló, English, Caroline, Zuiani, Chiara , Amate, Cristina, Yong, Daniel , Rozze, Davide, Lomas, Derek J. , Cannoletta, Donato , Chang, Eileen Wang, Chun, Felix, Zussino, Gaia , Antoch, Gerald , Gandaglia, Giorgio, Sauter, Guido , Thevarajah, Harini, Sorrell, Harriet, McBain, Hazel, Reis, Henning , Pita, Hernando Ríos , Potyka, Ingrid , Collavino, Jeanlou, Koshy, Jincy, Weng, Jing Yi , Withington, John, Egmond, Joke van, Piper, Jon, O’Brien, Jonathan , Rosa, José Valero, Sanz, Juan Luis , Quesada, Juan Mesa, Jannusch, Kai , Corr, Kateri , Haines, Kenneth, Umutlu, Lale , Quarta, Leonardo, Casarotto, Letizia, Gimeno, Linda , Moretti, Lucas, Laschena, Ludovica , Drewes, Lukas, Ostos, Manuel Sanchez, Peris, M., Volpacchio, Mariano , Prentice, Mark, Graefen, Markus , Soligo, Matteo, Boschheidgen, Matthias , Singhera, M., Wenzel, Mike, Fatterpekar, Monali, Al‐Nader, Mulham , Kachanov, Mykyta , Shaida, Nadeem , Muirhead, Nicola , Vasdev, Nikhil , Sanmugalingam, Nimalan , Nørgaard, Nis , Vicente, Pete, Incze, Peter , Ryan, Philip, Rouvier, Philippe , Mead, Phoebe, Mozer, Pierre, Viana, Públio César Cavalcante , Jiménez, Rafael E. , Novotta, Réka, Huang, Richard, O’Sullivan, Richard, Jepsen, Rikke Karlin , Frese, Robert, Clow, Rosemary, Al‐Monajjed, Rouvier , Lewis, Sara , Cashman, Sophia, Pizzolitto, Stefano, Lelie, S., Lindner, Sydney, Al‐Hammouri, Tarek , Sánchez, Teresa González, Reid, Thomas, McClure, Timothy, Maurer, Tobias , Peruzzi, Valeria, Tan, Wei Phin, Nahas, William Carlos, Chong, Yew Lam, Agarwal, Ridhi , Panebianco, Valeria , Girometti, Rossano , Ghai, Sangeet , COBELLI, Francesco DE , Pham, Tho, Taneja, Samir S. , Hu, Jim C. , Dias, Adriano Basso , Falkenbach, Fabian , Kastner, Christof , Schimmöller, Lars , Nathan, Arjun , Punwani, Shonit , Brew‐Graves, Chris , Brembilla, Giorgio , Margolis, Daniel , Giganti, Francesco , Collaborators, PRIME Study Group, Crestani, Alessandro , Sciarra, Alessandro , Evangelista, Alex, Kirkham, Alex P. S. , Grey, Alistair, Blanca, Ana , Bjartell, Anders , Tong, Angela , Warren, Anne Y. , Ciardi, Antonio , Rannikko, Antti , Stabile, Armando , Villers, Arnauld A. , Issa, Balqiisa, Hadaschik, Boris Alexander , English, Caroline L, Lee, Chau Hung , Caris, Christien T.M. , Stempel, Conrad von , Rozze, Davide, Messina, Emanuele , Chun, Felix, Gandaglia, Giorgio, Robert, G. , Caglič, Iztok , Theysohn, Jens Matthias , Grummet, Jeremy , Koshy, Jincy, Wilkinson, John, Withington, John, Egmond, Joke van, Deeks, Jonathan J , O'Brien, Jonathan, Quesada, Juan Mesa, Quarta, Leonardo , Orecchia, Luca , Moretti, Lucas, Rooij, Maarten de , Bicchetti, Marco , Gatti, Marco , Peris, María de los Desamparados Esteban, Roethke, Matthias Claudius , Monte, Maurizio Del, Wenzel, Mike, Takahashi, Naoki , Fleshner, Neil , Albers, Peter , Mead, Phoebe, Visschere, Pieter De , Huang, Richard, Shah, Syed Ahmar , Sanchez, Teresa González, Bathala, Tharakeswara K , Kwast, Theodorus van der , Reid, Thomas, Løgager, Vibeke , Prabhu, Vinay , Wagaskar, Vinayak Gorakhnath , Tan, Wei Phin, Nahas, William Carlos, Witjes, Wim P.J. , Chong, Yew Lam

JAMA | September 10, 2025 | Volume: 334 | Issue: 13 | Pages: 1170

10.1001/jama.2025.13722 Get It

Importance Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without prostate biopsy, has become the standard of care for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer. Resource capacity limits widespread adoption. Biparametric MRI, which omits the gadolinium contrast sequence, is a shorter and cheaper alternative offering time-saving capacity gains for health systems globally. Objective To assess whether biparametric MRI is noninferior to multiparametric MRI for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants A prospective, multicenter, within-patient, noninferiority trial of biopsy-naive men from 22 centers (12 countries) with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (elevated prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level and/or abnormal digital rectal examination findings) from April 2022 to September 2023, with the last follow-up conducted on December 3, 2024. Interventions Participants underwent multiparametric MRI, comprising T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast–enhanced (DCE) sequences. Radiologists reported abbreviated biparametric MRI first (T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted), blinded to the DCE sequence. After unblinding, radiologists reported the full multiparametric MRI. Patients underwent a targeted biopsy with or without systematic biopsy if either biparametric MRI or multiparametric MRI was suggestive of clinically significant prostate cancer. Main outcomes and measures The primary outcome was the proportion of men with clinically significant prostate cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men with clinically insignificant cancer. The noninferiority margin was 5%. Results Of 555 men recruited, 490 were included for primary outcome analysis. Median age was 65 (IQR, 59-70) years and median PSA level was 5.6 (IQR, 4.4-8.0) ng/mL. The proportion of patients with abnormal digital rectal examination findings was 12.7%. Biparametric MRI was noninferior to multiparametric MRI, detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in 143 of 490 men (29.2%), compared with 145 of 490 men (29.6%) (difference, −0.4 [95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4] percentage points; P = .50). Biparametric MRI detected clinically insignificant cancer in 45 of 490 men (9.2%), compared with 47 of 490 men (9.6%) with the use of multiparametric MRI (difference, −0.4 [95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4] percentage points). Central quality control demonstrated that 99% of scans were of adequate diagnostic quality. Conclusion and relevance In men with suspected prostate cancer, provided image quality is adequate, an abbreviated biparametric MRI scan, with or without targeted biopsy, could become the new standard of care for prostate cancer diagnosis. With approximately 4 million prostate MRIs performed globally annually, adopting biparametric MRI could substantially increase scanner throughput and reduce costs worldwide. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04571840
Contemporary and Emerging MRI Strategies for Assessing Kidney Allograft Complications: Arterial Stenosis and Parenchymal Injury, From the AJR Special Series on Imaging of Fibrosis
Lewis, Sara , Lim, Ruth , Carney, Benjamin W. , Shah, Amar , Shah, Amar S , Bane, Octavia , Fananapazir, Ghaneh

American Journal of Roentgenology | June 20, 2023 | Volume: 222 | Issue: 3 | Pages: No page available

10.2214/ajr.23.29418 Get It

Renal MRI: From Nephron to NMR Signal
Bane, Octavia , Seeliger, Erdmann , Cox, Eleanor , Stabinska, Julia , Bechler, Eric , Lewis, Sara , Francis, Sue, Sigmund, Eric E. , Sigmund, Eric , Hickson, LaTonya J. , Francis, Sue, Niendorf, Thoralf

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging | May 27, 2023 | Volume: 58 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 1660-1679

10.1002/jmri.28828 Get It

Renal diseases pose a significant socio‐economic burden on healthcare systems. The development of better diagnostics and prognostics is well‐recognized as a key strategy to resolve these challenges. Central to these developments are MRI biomarkers, due to their potential for monitoring of early pathophysiological changes, renal disease progression or treatment effects. The surge in renal MRI involves major cross‐domain initiatives, large clinical studies, and educational programs. In parallel with these translational efforts, the need for greater (patho)physiological specificity remains, to enable engagement with clinical nephrologists and increase the associated health impact. The ISMRM 2022 Member Initiated Symposium (MIS) on renal MRI spotlighted this issue with the goal of inspiring more solutions from the ISMRM community. This work is a summary of the MIS presentations devoted to: 1) educating imaging scientists and clinicians on renal (patho)physiology and demands from clinical nephrologists, 2) elucidating the connection of MRI parameters with renal physiology, 3) presenting the current state of leading MR surrogates in assessing renal structure and functions as well as their next generation of innovation, and 4) describing the potential of these imaging markers for providing clinically meaningful renal characterization to guide or supplement clinical decision making. We hope to continue momentum of recent years and introduce new entrants to the development process, connecting (patho)physiology with (bio)physics, and conceiving new clinical applications. We envision this process to benefit from cross‐disciplinary collaboration and analogous efforts in other body organs, but also to maximally leverage the unique opportunities of renal physiology.Level of Evidence1Technical Efficacy Stage2