Giovanna Ferraioli1, Laura Maiocchi2, Raffaella Lissandrin2, Carmine Tinelli3, Annalisa De Silvestri3, Carlo Filice2. 1. Ultrasound Unit, Infectious Diseases Department, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico S. Matteo, Medical School University of Pavia, Italy. giovanna.ferraioli@unipv.it. 2. Ultrasound Unit, Infectious Diseases Department, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico S. Matteo, Medical School University of Pavia, Italy. 3. Clinical Epidemiology and Biometric Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico S. Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Noninvasive assessment of liver stiffness has been increasingly used to evaluate fibrosis instead of liver biopsy, especially in patients with chronic viral hepatitis. The aim of this study was to assess the performance in staging liver fibrosis of the updated ElastPQ® technique (EPIQ7 ultrasound system, Philips Healthcare, Bothell, WA, USA) in the "real life" setting by using the FibroScan as the reference standard and to understand whether the use of the quality criteria improves the performance of the technique. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study: 278 patients affected by chronic hepatitis C referred for liver stiffness measurement with the FibroScan® 502 Touch device (Echosens, Paris, France) underwent measurements also with the ElastPQ® technique. For the assessment of significant fibrosis (F>/=2), advanced fibrosis (F>/=3) and cirrhosis (F=4), respectively, we used the cutoffs of 7.0, 9.5 and 12.0 kPa. The diagnostic performance of ElastPQ® was assessed using the area under the ROC (AUROC) curve analysis and was evaluated overall and for cases with (a) 10 measurements and IQR/M</=30%, (b) 5 measurements and IQR/M </=30%, (c) 10 measurements and IQR/M>30%, (d) 5 measurements and IQR/M>30%. RESULTS: The optimal cutoffs of ElastPQ® for significant fibrosis, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis were 6.43, 9.54 and 11.34 kPa, respectively. For measurements with an IQR/M</=30%, there was no statistically significant decrease in sensitivity between 10 and 5 measurements (p=0.26, p=0.09, p=0.71, for F>/=2, F>/=3, and F=4, respectively). CONCLUSION: The ElastPQ® technique is reliable and accurate for staging liver fibrosis. The number of measurements does not affect the performance.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Noninvasive assessment of liver stiffness has been increasingly used to evaluate fibrosis instead of liver biopsy, especially in patients with chronic viral hepatitis. The aim of this study was to assess the performance in staging liver fibrosis of the updated ElastPQ® technique (EPIQ7 ultrasound system, Philips Healthcare, Bothell, WA, USA) in the "real life" setting by using the FibroScan as the reference standard and to understand whether the use of the quality criteria improves the performance of the technique. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study: 278 patients affected by chronic hepatitis C referred for liver stiffness measurement with the FibroScan® 502 Touch device (Echosens, Paris, France) underwent measurements also with the ElastPQ® technique. For the assessment of significant fibrosis (F>/=2), advanced fibrosis (F>/=3) and cirrhosis (F=4), respectively, we used the cutoffs of 7.0, 9.5 and 12.0 kPa. The diagnostic performance of ElastPQ® was assessed using the area under the ROC (AUROC) curve analysis and was evaluated overall and for cases with (a) 10 measurements and IQR/M</=30%, (b) 5 measurements and IQR/M </=30%, (c) 10 measurements and IQR/M>30%, (d) 5 measurements and IQR/M>30%. RESULTS: The optimal cutoffs of ElastPQ® for significant fibrosis, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis were 6.43, 9.54 and 11.34 kPa, respectively. For measurements with an IQR/M</=30%, there was no statistically significant decrease in sensitivity between 10 and 5 measurements (p=0.26, p=0.09, p=0.71, for F>/=2, F>/=3, and F=4, respectively). CONCLUSION: The ElastPQ® technique is reliable and accurate for staging liver fibrosis. The number of measurements does not affect the performance.
Authors: Paul Kennedy; Mathilde Wagner; Laurent Castéra; Cheng William Hong; Curtis L Johnson; Claude B Sirlin; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Dong Won Park; Yoon Jin Lee; Won Chang; Ji Hoon Park; Kyoung Ho Lee; Young Hoon Kim; Nam Kyu Kang; Jung Wha Chung; Hee Yoon Jang; Soomin Ahn; Haeryoung Kim; Sook-Hyang Jeong; Jin-Wook Kim; Eun Sun Jang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 3.240