GOALS AND BACKGROUND: The recently developed histologic scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) by the nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) Clinical Research Network (CRN) is becoming increasingly popular. However, its generalizability to a community setting has not been evaluated. We conducted a study to compare a community general pathologist to an expert hepatopathologist in assessing NAFLD using the NASH CRN scoring system. STUDY: Forty-eight consecutive patients with suspected NAFLD underwent liver biopsy. Histologic features of interest such as steatosis, lobular inflammation, balloon degeneration, fibrosis, NAFLD Activity Score (NAS), and the presence of NASH were scored in a blinded fashion by the 2 pathologists on 2 separate occasions 3 months apart. RESULTS: The mean (± SD) length of the liver biopsy samples was 25 ± 5 mm. Interobserver agreement (κ) between 2 pathologists was 0.62 (0.45-0.80) for steatosis, 0.44 (0.23-0.65) for lobular inflammation, 0.25 (0.11-0.38) for ballooning, 0.40 for NAS (0.28-0.52), and 0.35 (0.19-0.52) for fibrosis. The 2 pathologists diagnosed "definite NASH" in a similar proportion of patients (56% vs. 57%), but their interobserver agreement was only 0.46 (0.24-0.67) as they both diagnosed different levels of NASH (borderline vs. definite) in different subjects. Intraobserver agreement was generally comparable for steatosis, lobular inflammation, NAS, and diagnosis of NASH, but not for fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically important differences exist between community general pathologist and expert hepatopathologist in assessing NAFLD using the NASH CRN scoring system. More studies are needed to investigate its suitability for community-based clinical practice.
GOALS AND BACKGROUND: The recently developed histologic scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) by the nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) Clinical Research Network (CRN) is becoming increasingly popular. However, its generalizability to a community setting has not been evaluated. We conducted a study to compare a community general pathologist to an expert hepatopathologist in assessing NAFLD using the NASH CRN scoring system. STUDY: Forty-eight consecutive patients with suspected NAFLD underwent liver biopsy. Histologic features of interest such as steatosis, lobular inflammation, balloon degeneration, fibrosis, NAFLD Activity Score (NAS), and the presence of NASH were scored in a blinded fashion by the 2 pathologists on 2 separate occasions 3 months apart. RESULTS: The mean (± SD) length of the liver biopsy samples was 25 ± 5 mm. Interobserver agreement (κ) between 2 pathologists was 0.62 (0.45-0.80) for steatosis, 0.44 (0.23-0.65) for lobular inflammation, 0.25 (0.11-0.38) for ballooning, 0.40 for NAS (0.28-0.52), and 0.35 (0.19-0.52) for fibrosis. The 2 pathologists diagnosed "definite NASH" in a similar proportion of patients (56% vs. 57%), but their interobserver agreement was only 0.46 (0.24-0.67) as they both diagnosed different levels of NASH (borderline vs. definite) in different subjects. Intraobserver agreement was generally comparable for steatosis, lobular inflammation, NAS, and diagnosis of NASH, but not for fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically important differences exist between community general pathologist and expert hepatopathologist in assessing NAFLD using the NASH CRN scoring system. More studies are needed to investigate its suitability for community-based clinical practice.
Authors: Renata Belfort; Stephen A Harrison; Kenneth Brown; Celia Darland; Joan Finch; Jean Hardies; Bogdan Balas; Amalia Gastaldelli; Fermin Tio; Joseph Pulcini; Rachele Berria; Jennie Z Ma; Sunil Dwivedi; Russell Havranek; Chris Fincke; Ralph DeFronzo; George A Bannayan; Steven Schenker; Kenneth Cusi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-11-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David E Kleiner; Elizabeth M Brunt; Mark Van Natta; Cynthia Behling; Melissa J Contos; Oscar W Cummings; Linda D Ferrell; Yao-Chang Liu; Michael S Torbenson; Aynur Unalp-Arida; Matthew Yeh; Arthur J McCullough; Arun J Sanyal Journal: Hepatology Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Elizabeth M Brunt; Brent A Neuschwander-Tetri; Dana Oliver; Kent R Wehmeier; Bruce R Bacon Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Z M Younossi; T Gramlich; Y C Liu; C Matteoni; M Petrelli; J Goldblum; L Rybicki; A J McCullough Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Guruprasad P Aithal; James A Thomas; Philip V Kaye; Adam Lawson; Stephen D Ryder; Ian Spendlove; Andrew S Austin; Jan G Freeman; Linda Morgan; Jonathan Webber Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-06-25 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Ziying Yin; Matthew C Murphy; Jiahui Li; Kevin J Glaser; Amy S Mauer; Taofic Mounajjed; Terry M Therneau; Heshan Liu; Harmeet Malhi; Armando Manduca; Richard L Ehman; Meng Yin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jonathan C Hooker; Gavin Hamilton; Charlie C Park; Steven Liao; Tanya Wolfson; Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Cheng William Hong; Adrija Mamidipalli; Anthony Gamst; Rohit Loomba; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-02
Authors: Rish K Pai; David E Kleiner; John Hart; Oyedele A Adeyi; Andrew D Clouston; Cynthia A Behling; Dhanpat Jain; Sanjay Kakar; Mayur Brahmania; Lawrence Burgart; Kenneth P Batts; Mark A Valasek; Michael S Torbenson; Maha Guindi; Hanlin L Wang; Veeral Ajmera; Leon A Adams; Claire E Parker; Brian G Feagan; Rohit Loomba; Vipul Jairath Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Curtis K Argo; James T Patrie; Carolin Lackner; Thomas D Henry; Eduard E de Lange; Arthur L Weltman; Neeral L Shah; Abdullah M Al-Osaimi; Patcharin Pramoonjago; Saumya Jayakumar; Lukas P Binder; Winsor D Simmons-Egolf; Sandra G Burks; Yongde Bao; Ann Gill Taylor; Jessica Rodriguez; Stephen H Caldwell Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Mary E Rinella; Rohit Loomba; Stephen H Caldwell; Kris Kowdley; Michael Charlton; Brent Tetri; Stephen A Harrison Journal: Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) Date: 2014-04