OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the correlation of liver hardness testing RESULTS: obtained by FibroTouch and FibroScan and the liver pathological stage. METHODS: Seventy-five patients with chronic hepatitis B who presented to our clinic between January 2011 and April 2013 were examined with FibroTouch and FibroScan to evaluate the degree of liver fibrosis. Forty-six of those patients also underwent liver biopsy examination. THE RESULTS: from technology-based testing and histopathological evaluation of the biopsy were compared by statistical analysis to determine the consistency of FibroTouch and FibroScan in regard to histological stage. RESULTS: Analysis by paired t-test showed that the RESULTS: from FibroTouch and FibroScan were not significantly different (t = -0.17, P =0.8616), and the correlation coefficient from Pearson's correlation analysis was 0.9949 (P less than 0.05), suggesting that the two technologies' RESULTS: are correlated. Based on the histopathology RESULTS: for liver fibrosis stage, the FibroTouch diagnosis of liver fibrosis more than or equal to S 1 had a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) of 0.889, diagnosis of liver fibrosis more than or equal to S2 had a ROC AUC of 0.941, diagnosis of liver fibrosis more than or equal to S3 had a ROC AUC of 0.908, and diagnosis of liver fibrosis more than or equal to S4 had a ROC AUC of 0.911. CONCLUSION: Compared to FibroScan, FibroTouch has a better ability for detecting liver fibrosis and a better consistency with liver pathological stage determined by histopathological analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the correlation of liver hardness testing RESULTS: obtained by FibroTouch and FibroScan and the liver pathological stage. METHODS: Seventy-five patients with chronic hepatitis B who presented to our clinic between January 2011 and April 2013 were examined with FibroTouch and FibroScan to evaluate the degree of liver fibrosis. Forty-six of those patients also underwent liver biopsy examination. THE RESULTS: from technology-based testing and histopathological evaluation of the biopsy were compared by statistical analysis to determine the consistency of FibroTouch and FibroScan in regard to histological stage. RESULTS: Analysis by paired t-test showed that the RESULTS: from FibroTouch and FibroScan were not significantly different (t = -0.17, P =0.8616), and the correlation coefficient from Pearson's correlation analysis was 0.9949 (P less than 0.05), suggesting that the two technologies' RESULTS: are correlated. Based on the histopathology RESULTS: for liver fibrosis stage, the FibroTouch diagnosis of liver fibrosis more than or equal to S 1 had a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) of 0.889, diagnosis of liver fibrosis more than or equal to S2 had a ROC AUC of 0.941, diagnosis of liver fibrosis more than or equal to S3 had a ROC AUC of 0.908, and diagnosis of liver fibrosis more than or equal to S4 had a ROC AUC of 0.911. CONCLUSION: Compared to FibroScan, FibroTouch has a better ability for detecting liver fibrosis and a better consistency with liver pathological stage determined by histopathological analysis.