AIM: To compare ultrasound-based acoustic structure quantification (ASQ) with established non-invasive techniques for grading and staging fatty liver disease. METHODS: Type 2 diabetic patients at risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (n = 50) and healthy volunteers (n = 20) were evaluated using laboratory analysis and anthropometric measurements, transient elastography (TE), controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((1)H-MRS; only available for the diabetic cohort), and ASQ. ASQ parameters mode, average and focal disturbance (FD) ratio were compared with: (1) the extent of liver fibrosis estimated from TE and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) fibrosis scores; and (2) the amount of steatosis, which was classified according to CAP values. RESULTS: Forty-seven diabetic patients (age 67.0 ± 8.6 years; body mass index 29.4 ± 4.5 kg/m²) with reliable CAP measurements and all controls (age 26.5 ± 3.2 years; body mass index 22.0 ± 2.7 kg/m²) were included in the analysis. All ASQ parameters showed differences between healthy controls and diabetic patients (P < 0.001, respectively). The ASQ FD ratio (logarithmic) correlated with the CAP (r = -0.81, P < 0.001) and (1)H-MRS (r = -0.43, P = 0.004) results. The FD ratio [CAP < 250 dB/m: 107 (102-109), CAP between 250 and 300 dB/m: 106 (102-114); CAP between 300 and 350 dB/m: 105 (100-112), CAP ≥ 350 dB/m: 102 (99-108)] as well as mode and average parameters, were reduced in cases with advanced steatosis (ANOVA P < 0.05). However, none of the ASQ parameters showed a significant difference in patients with advanced fibrosis, as determined by TE and the NAFLD fibrosis score (P > 0.08, respectively). CONCLUSION: ASQ parameters correlate with steatosis, but not with fibrosis in fatty liver disease. Steatosis estimation with ASQ should be further evaluated in biopsy-controlled studies.
AIM: To compare ultrasound-based acoustic structure quantification (ASQ) with established non-invasive techniques for grading and staging fatty liver disease. METHODS: Type 2 diabeticpatients at risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (n = 50) and healthy volunteers (n = 20) were evaluated using laboratory analysis and anthropometric measurements, transient elastography (TE), controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((1)H-MRS; only available for the diabetic cohort), and ASQ. ASQ parameters mode, average and focal disturbance (FD) ratio were compared with: (1) the extent of liver fibrosis estimated from TE and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) fibrosis scores; and (2) the amount of steatosis, which was classified according to CAP values. RESULTS: Forty-seven diabeticpatients (age 67.0 ± 8.6 years; body mass index 29.4 ± 4.5 kg/m²) with reliable CAP measurements and all controls (age 26.5 ± 3.2 years; body mass index 22.0 ± 2.7 kg/m²) were included in the analysis. All ASQ parameters showed differences between healthy controls and diabeticpatients (P < 0.001, respectively). The ASQFD ratio (logarithmic) correlated with the CAP (r = -0.81, P < 0.001) and (1)H-MRS (r = -0.43, P = 0.004) results. The FD ratio [CAP < 250 dB/m: 107 (102-109), CAP between 250 and 300 dB/m: 106 (102-114); CAP between 300 and 350 dB/m: 105 (100-112), CAP ≥ 350 dB/m: 102 (99-108)] as well as mode and average parameters, were reduced in cases with advanced steatosis (ANOVA P < 0.05). However, none of the ASQ parameters showed a significant difference in patients with advanced fibrosis, as determined by TE and the NAFLD fibrosis score (P > 0.08, respectively). CONCLUSION:ASQ parameters correlate with steatosis, but not with fibrosis in fatty liver disease. Steatosis estimation with ASQ should be further evaluated in biopsy-controlled studies.
Authors: Dimitri Aristotle Raptis; Michael Alexander Fischer; Rolf Graf; Daniel Nanz; Achim Weber; Wolfgang Moritz; Yinghua Tian; Christian Eugen Oberkofler; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Gut Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Paul Angulo; Jason M Hui; Giulio Marchesini; Ellisabetta Bugianesi; Jacob George; Geoffrey C Farrell; Felicity Enders; Sushma Saksena; Alastair D Burt; John P Bida; Keith Lindor; Schuyler O Sanderson; Marco Lenzi; Leon A Adams; James Kench; Terry M Therneau; Christopher P Day Journal: Hepatology Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Thomas Karlas; David Petroff; Nikita Garnov; Stephan Böhm; Hannelore Tenckhoff; Christian Wittekind; Manfred Wiese; Ingolf Schiefke; Nicolas Linder; Alexander Schaudinn; Harald Busse; Thomas Kahn; Joachim Mössner; Thomas Berg; Michael Tröltzsch; Volker Keim; Johannes Wiegand Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Thomas Ebert; Nicolas Linder; Alexander Schaudinn; Harald Busse; Joachim Berger; Ralf Lichtinghagen; Volker Keim; Johannes Wiegand; Thomas Karlas Journal: Endocrine Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Jennifer C Price; Jennifer L Dodge; Yifei Ma; Rebecca Scherzer; Natalie Korn; Kyle Tillinghast; Marion G Peters; Susan Noworolski; Phyllis C Tien Journal: AIDS Date: 2017-09-24 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Thomas Karlas; Lara Weise; Stephanie Kuhn; Felix Krenzien; Matthias Mehdorn; David Petroff; Nicolas Linder; Alexander Schaudinn; Harald Busse; Volker Keim; Johann Pratschke; Johannes Wiegand; Katrin Splith; Moritz Schmelzle Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2017-05-19 Impact factor: 5.531