BACKGROUND & AIMS: The diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive liver fibrosis tests that may replace liver biopsy in patients with chronic hepatitis remains controversial. We assessed and compared the accuracy of FibroScan® and that of the main biomarkers used for predicting cirrhosis and significant fibrosis (METAVIR ≥ F2) in patients with chronic viral hepatitis. METHODS: A multicenter prospective cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study was conducted in the Hepatology departments of 23 French university hospitals. Index tests and reference standard (METAVIR fibrosis score on liver biopsy) were measured on the same day and interpreted blindly. Consecutive patients with chronic viral hepatitis (hepatitis B or C virus, including possible Human Immunodeficiency Virus co-infection) requiring liver biopsy were recruited in the study. RESULTS: The analysis was first conducted on the total population (1839 patients), and after excluding 532 protocol deviations, on 1307 patients (non-compliant FibroScan® examinations). The overall accuracy of FibroScan® was high (AUROC 0.89 and 0.90, respectively) and significantly higher than that of biomarkers in predicting cirrhosis (AUROC 0.77-0.86). All non-invasive methods had a moderate accuracy in predicting significant fibrosis (AUROC 0.72-0.78). Based on multilevel likelihood ratios, non-invasive tests provided a relevant gain in the likelihood of diagnosis in 0-60% of patients (cirrhosis) and 9-30% of patients (significant fibrosis). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests was high for cirrhosis, but poor for significant fibrosis. A clinically relevant gain in the likelihood of diagnosis was achieved in a low proportion of patients. Although the diagnosis of cirrhosis may rely on non-invasive tests, liver biopsy is warranted to diagnose intermediate stages of fibrosis.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive liver fibrosis tests that may replace liver biopsy in patients with chronic hepatitis remains controversial. We assessed and compared the accuracy of FibroScan® and that of the main biomarkers used for predicting cirrhosis and significant fibrosis (METAVIR ≥ F2) in patients with chronic viral hepatitis. METHODS: A multicenter prospective cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study was conducted in the Hepatology departments of 23 French university hospitals. Index tests and reference standard (METAVIR fibrosis score on liver biopsy) were measured on the same day and interpreted blindly. Consecutive patients with chronic viral hepatitis (hepatitis B or C virus, including possible Human Immunodeficiency Virus co-infection) requiring liver biopsy were recruited in the study. RESULTS: The analysis was first conducted on the total population (1839 patients), and after excluding 532 protocol deviations, on 1307 patients (non-compliant FibroScan® examinations). The overall accuracy of FibroScan® was high (AUROC 0.89 and 0.90, respectively) and significantly higher than that of biomarkers in predicting cirrhosis (AUROC 0.77-0.86). All non-invasive methods had a moderate accuracy in predicting significant fibrosis (AUROC 0.72-0.78). Based on multilevel likelihood ratios, non-invasive tests provided a relevant gain in the likelihood of diagnosis in 0-60% of patients (cirrhosis) and 9-30% of patients (significant fibrosis). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests was high for cirrhosis, but poor for significant fibrosis. A clinically relevant gain in the likelihood of diagnosis was achieved in a low proportion of patients. Although the diagnosis of cirrhosis may rely on non-invasive tests, liver biopsy is warranted to diagnose intermediate stages of fibrosis.
Authors: Richard K Sterling; Wendy C King; Abdus S Wahed; David E Kleiner; Mandana Khalili; Mark Sulkowski; Raymond T Chung; Mamta K Jain; Mauricio Lisker-Melman; David K Wong; Marc G Ghany Journal: Hepatology Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Mohammed Aljawad; Eric M Yoshida; Julia Uhanova; Paul Marotta; Natasha Chandok Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Shuoyu Xu; Yan Wang; Dean C S Tai; Shi Wang; Chee Leong Cheng; Qiwen Peng; Jie Yan; Yongpeng Chen; Jian Sun; Xieer Liang; Youfu Zhu; Jagath C Rajapakse; Roy E Welsch; Peter T C So; Aileen Wee; Jinlin Hou; Hanry Yu Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Giovanna Ferraioli; Carmine Tinelli; Barbara Dal Bello; Mabel Zicchetti; Raffaella Lissandrin; Gaetano Filice; Carlo Filice; Elisabetta Above; Giorgio Barbarini; Enrico Brunetti; Willy Calderon; Marta Di Gregorio; Roberto Gulminetti; Paolo Lanzarini; Serena Ludovisi; Laura Maiocchi; Antonello Malfitano; Giuseppe Michelone; Lorenzo Minoli; Mario Mondelli; Stefano Novati; Savino F A Patruno; Alessandro Perretti; Gianluigi Poma; Paolo Sacchi; Domenico Zanaboni; Marco Zaramella Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 5.742