BACKGROUND/AIMS: Alternatives to liver biopsy for staging liver disease caused by hepatitis C virus (HCV) have not appeared accurate enough for widespread clinical use. We characterized the magnitude of the impact of error in the "gold standard" on the observed diagnostic accuracy of surrogate markers. METHODS: We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for a surrogate marker against the gold standard (biopsy) for a range of possible performances of each test (biopsy and marker) against truth and a gradient of clinically significant disease prevalence. RESULTS: In the 'best' scenario where liver biopsy accuracy is highest (sensitivity and specificity of biopsy are 90%) and the prevalence of significant disease 40%, the calculated AUROC would be 0.90 for a perfect marker (99% actual accuracy) which is within the range of what has already been observed. With lower biopsy sensitivity and specificity, AUROC determinations > 0.90 could not be achieved even for a marker that perfectly measured disease. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that error in the liver biopsy result itself makes it impossible to distinguish a perfect surrogate from ones that are now judged by some as clinically unacceptable. An alternative gold standard is needed to assess the accuracy of tests used to stage HCV-related liver disease.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Alternatives to liver biopsy for staging liver disease caused by hepatitis C virus (HCV) have not appeared accurate enough for widespread clinical use. We characterized the magnitude of the impact of error in the "gold standard" on the observed diagnostic accuracy of surrogate markers. METHODS: We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for a surrogate marker against the gold standard (biopsy) for a range of possible performances of each test (biopsy and marker) against truth and a gradient of clinically significant disease prevalence. RESULTS: In the 'best' scenario where liver biopsy accuracy is highest (sensitivity and specificity of biopsy are 90%) and the prevalence of significant disease 40%, the calculated AUROC would be 0.90 for a perfect marker (99% actual accuracy) which is within the range of what has already been observed. With lower biopsy sensitivity and specificity, AUROC determinations > 0.90 could not be achieved even for a marker that perfectly measured disease. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that error in the liver biopsy result itself makes it impossible to distinguish a perfect surrogate from ones that are now judged by some as clinically unacceptable. An alternative gold standard is needed to assess the accuracy of tests used to stage HCV-related liver disease.
Authors: Xavier Forns; Sergi Ampurdanès; Josep M Llovet; John Aponte; Llorenç Quintó; Eva Martínez-Bauer; Miquel Bruguera; Jose Maria Sánchez-Tapias; Juan Rodés Journal: Hepatology Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Chun-Tao Wai; Joel K Greenson; Robert J Fontana; John D Kalbfleisch; Jorge A Marrero; Hari S Conjeevaram; Anna S-F Lok Journal: Hepatology Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Keyur Patel; Mireen Friedrich-Rust; Yoav Lurie; Mircea Grigorescu; Carol Stanciu; Chuan-Mo Lee; Eugene R Schiff; Dieter Häussinger; Michael P Manns; Guido Gerken; Isabelle Colle; Michael Torbenson; Erik Pulkstenis; G Mani Subramanian; John G McHutchison; Stefan Zeuzem Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Norah J Shire; Meng Yin; Jun Chen; Radha A Railkar; Sabrina Fox-Bosetti; Stephanie M Johnson; Chan R Beals; Bernard J Dardzinski; Schuyler O Sanderson; Jayant A Talwalkar; Richard L Ehman Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Gregory D Kirk; Jacquie Astemborski; Shruti H Mehta; Chuck Spoler; Cedric Fisher; Danisha Allen; Yvonne Higgins; Richard D Moore; Nezem Afdhal; Michael Torbenson; Mark Sulkowski; David L Thomas Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2009-04-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Keyur Patel; Katja S Remlinger; Terence G Walker; Peter Leitner; Joseph E Lucas; Stephen D Gardner; John G McHutchison; Will Irving; Indra Neil Guha Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Dalia Omran; Ayman Yosry; Samar K Darweesh; Mohammed M Nabeel; Mohammed El-Beshlawey; Sameh Saif; Azza Fared; Mohamed Hassany; Rania A Zayed Journal: Clin Exp Med Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.984