Flavia F Fernandes1, Maria L Ferraz, Luiz E Andrade, Alessandra Dellavance, Carlos Terra, Gustavo Pereira, João L Pereira, Frederico Campos, Fátima Figueiredo, Renata M Perez. 1. *Gastroenterology Department, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro †Department of Gastroenterology, Bonsucesso Federal Hospital §D'Or Institute for Research and Education #Internal Medicine Department, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro ‡Gastroenterology Department, Federal University of São Paulo ∥Rheumatology Division, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, UNIFESP, São Paulo ¶Department of Research and Development, Fleury Group, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of fibrosis is crucial in the assessment of chronic hepatitis C (CHC). The enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) is a serological panel including hyaluronic acid (HA), tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 (TIMP-1), and amino-terminal propeptide of type III procollagen (PIIINP) that has shown good results in predicting liver fibrosis in distinct scenarios of chronic liver diseases. AIMS: We aimed to assess the performance of ELF on the detection of fibrosis and cirrhosis in a CHC patient cohort and to compare the results of ELF and transient elastography (TE-Fibroscan) using liver biopsy as reference. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty patients were prospectively evaluated by TE and ELF using an ADVIA Centaur automated system. The ELF score was calculated using the manufacturer's algorithm. Biopsies were classified according to the METAVIR score. Receiver operator characteristic curve analyses were performed to evaluate the accuracy of ELF and TE. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) of ELF for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis was 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-0.87], for advanced fibrosis was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.74-0.88), and for cirrhosis was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85). Using the proposed cutoffs, ELF overestimated fibrosis in 66% (81/120) of cases and underestimated in 3% (3/120). We found no statistically significant difference when comparing the AUROC of ELF and TE for diagnosing fibrosis or cirrhosis. CONCLUSIONS: ELF panel is a good noninvasive fibrosis marker and showed similar results to TE in CHC patients. However, new cutoff points need to be established to improve its performance on patients with CHC.
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of fibrosis is crucial in the assessment of chronic hepatitis C (CHC). The enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) is a serological panel including hyaluronic acid (HA), tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 (TIMP-1), and amino-terminal propeptide of type III procollagen (PIIINP) that has shown good results in predicting liver fibrosis in distinct scenarios of chronic liver diseases. AIMS: We aimed to assess the performance of ELF on the detection of fibrosis and cirrhosis in a CHCpatient cohort and to compare the results of ELF and transient elastography (TE-Fibroscan) using liver biopsy as reference. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty patients were prospectively evaluated by TE and ELF using an ADVIA Centaur automated system. The ELF score was calculated using the manufacturer's algorithm. Biopsies were classified according to the METAVIR score. Receiver operator characteristic curve analyses were performed to evaluate the accuracy of ELF and TE. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) of ELF for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis was 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-0.87], for advanced fibrosis was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.74-0.88), and for cirrhosis was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85). Using the proposed cutoffs, ELF overestimated fibrosis in 66% (81/120) of cases and underestimated in 3% (3/120). We found no statistically significant difference when comparing the AUROC of ELF and TE for diagnosing fibrosis or cirrhosis. CONCLUSIONS: ELF panel is a good noninvasive fibrosis marker and showed similar results to TE in CHCpatients. However, new cutoff points need to be established to improve its performance on patients with CHC.
Authors: Kenneth E Sherman; Enass Abdel-Hameed; Susan D Rouster; Mohamed Tarek M Shata; Jason T Blackard; Parham Safaie; Barbara Kroner; Liliana Preiss; Paul S Horn; Shyam Kottilil Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Kenneth E Sherman; Enass A Abdel-Hameed; Richard L Ehman; Susan D Rouster; Adriana Campa; Sabrina Sales Martinez; Yongjun Huang; Gustavo G Zarini; Jacqueline Hernandez; Colby Teeman; Javier Tamargo; Qingyun Liu; Raul Mandler; Marianna K Baum Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 3.199
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
Authors: Christian Jansen; Thomas Reiberger; Jia Huang; Hannah Eischeid; Robert Schierwagen; Mattias Mandorfer; Evrim Anadol; Philipp Schwabl; Carolynne Schwarze-Zander; Ute Warnecke-Eberz; Christian P Strassburg; Jürgen K Rockstroh; Markus Peck-Radosavljevic; Margarete Odenthal; Jonel Trebicka Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 3.240