Bio

Boards, Advisory Committees, Professional Organizations


  • Member, Radiological Society of North America (2018 - Present)
  • Member, American College of Radiology (2017 - Present)

Professional Education


  • Doctor of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University (2013)

Stanford Advisors


Publications

All Publications


  • Quantitative ultrasound approaches for diagnosis and monitoring hepatic steatosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Theranostics Pirmoazen, A. M., Khurana, A., El Kaffas, A., Kamaya, A. 2020; 10 (9): 4277–89

    Abstract

    Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is a major global health concern with increasing prevalence, associated with obesity and metabolic syndrome. Recently, quantitative ultrasound-based imaging techniques have dramatically improved the ability of ultrasound to detect and quantify hepatic steatosis. These newer ultrasound techniques possess many inherent advantages similar to conventional ultrasound such as universal availability, real-time capability, and relatively low cost along with quantitative rather than a qualitative assessment of liver fat. In addition, quantitative ultrasound-based imaging techniques are less operator dependent than traditional ultrasound. Here we review several different emerging quantitative ultrasound-based approaches used for detection and quantification of hepatic steatosis in patients at risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. We also briefly summarize other clinically available imaging modalities for evaluating hepatic steatosis such as MRI, CT, and serum analysis.

    View details for DOI 10.7150/thno.40249

    View details for PubMedID 32226553

    View details for PubMedCentralID PMC7086372

  • ACR Ultrasound Liver Reporting and Data System: Multicenter Assessment of Clinical Performance at 1 Year. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR Millet, J. D., Kamaya, A., Choi, H. H., Dahiya, N., Murphy, P. M., Naveed, M. Z., O'Boyle, M., Parra, L. A., Perez, M., Pirmoazen, A., Rodgers, S. K., Wasnik, A. P., Maturen, K. E. 2019

    Abstract

    The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of the ACR's Ultrasound Liver Reporting and Data System (US LI-RADS™) for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients at high risk for HCC.In this retrospective, multicenter study, 2,050 patients at high risk for HCC (1,078 men and 972 women; mean age, 57.7 years) at five sites in the United States had undergone screening liver ultrasound from January 2017 to February 2018, and US LI-RADS observation categories and visualization scores were assigned on a clinical basis. Ultrasound reports and patient records were retrospectively reviewed and follow-up imaging studies and/or pathologic reports recorded. Descriptive statistics were generated, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the relationship of clinical and reader-based predictors of limited visualization. Diagnostic performance data were calculated in the subset of patients with confirmatory testing.The most common indications for HCC screening were cirrhosis (n = 1,054 [51.4%]), noncirrhotic hepatitis B virus (n = 555 [27.1%]), and noncirrhotic hepatitis C virus (n = 234 [11.4%]). US LI-RADS observation categories assigned were US-1 (negative) in 90.4% (n = 1,854), US-2 (subthreshold) in 4.6% (n = 95), and US-3 (positive) in 4.9% (n = 101). Visualization scores were A (no or minimal limitations) in 76.8% (n = 1,575), B (moderate limitations) in 18.9% (n = 388), and C (severe limitations) in 4.2% (n = 87). Confirmatory tests including multiphase contrast-enhanced CT or MRI (n = 331) or histopathology (n = 18) were available for 349 patients (17.0%). The sensitivity of US LI-RADS in this subset of patients was 82.4%, specificity was 74.2%, positive predictive value was 35.3%, and negative predictive value was 96.1%.Approximately 90% of US LI-RADS screening examinations were negative, 5% subthreshold, and 5% positive. Visualization scores were diagnostically acceptable in the vast majority (>95%) of examinations. US LI-RADS emphasized sensitivity and negative predictive value, key characteristics of a screening test.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2019.05.020

    View details for PubMedID 31173745