Liang Xu1, Wei Lu2, Ping Li3, Feng Shen4, Yu-Qiang Mi5, Jian-Gao Fan6. 1. First Center for Clinical College, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China; Department of Hepatology, Tianjin Second People's Hospital, Tianjin, China; Tianjin Research Institute of Liver Diseases, Tianjin, China. 2. First Center for Clinical College, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China; Tianjin First Center Hospital, Tianjin, China; Tianjin Research Institute of Liver Diseases, Tianjin, China. Electronic address: luwei1966@163.com. 3. Department of Hepatology, Tianjin Second People's Hospital, Tianjin, China; Tianjin Research Institute of Liver Diseases, Tianjin, China. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, Xinhua Hospital affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 5. Department of Hepatology, Tianjin Second People's Hospital, Tianjin, China; Tianjin Research Institute of Liver Diseases, Tianjin, China. Electronic address: yuqiangmi68@163.com. 6. Department of Gastroenterology, Xinhua Hospital affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: fattyliver2004@126.com.
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the value of noninvasive tools for diagnosis of hepatic steatosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). METHODS: Consecutive treatment-naïve patients with CHB with body mass index less than 30kg/m2 who underwent liver biopsy, ultrasound and FibroScan® were enrolled. The diagnostic performance of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), hepatic steatosis index (HSI) and ultrasound for hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy was assessed. The areas under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) were calculated to determine the diagnostic efficacy, with comparisons using the DeLong test. RESULTS: CAP and HSI accuracies were significantly higher than that of ultrasound to detect patients with biopsy-proven mild steatosis (S1, 65.3%, 56.5%, respectively, vs. 17.7%, χ2=46.305, 31.736, both P<0.05)and moderate-severe (S2-3) steatosis (92.3%, 100%, respectively, vs. 53.8%, χ2=4.887, 7.800, P=0.037, 0.007, respectively). Both CAP and HSI had lower underestimation rates of steatosis grade than ultrasound (12%, 14.8%, respectively, vs. 29.5%, χ2=9.765, 6.452; P<0.05 for both), but they exhibited higher overestimation rates (30.5%, 38.2%, respectively, vs. 12.4%, χ2=39.222, 70.986; both P<0.05). The AUROCs of CAP and HSI were 0.780 (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.735-0.822) and 0.655 (95%CI 0.604-0.704) for S ≥1, 0.932 (95%CI 0.902-0.956) and 0.755 (95%CI 0.707-0.799) for S ≥2, 0.990 (95%CI 0.974-0.998) and 0.786 (95% CI 0.740-0.827) for S3, respectively. CONCLUSION: CAP might be more accurate for detecting hepatic steatosis than HSI and ultrasound in patients with CHB, but further studies are needed to reduce the overestimation rates.
AIMS: To evaluate the value of noninvasive tools for diagnosis of hepatic steatosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). METHODS: Consecutive treatment-naïve patients with CHB with body mass index less than 30kg/m2 who underwent liver biopsy, ultrasound and FibroScan® were enrolled. The diagnostic performance of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), hepatic steatosis index (HSI) and ultrasound for hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy was assessed. The areas under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) were calculated to determine the diagnostic efficacy, with comparisons using the DeLong test. RESULTS: CAP and HSI accuracies were significantly higher than that of ultrasound to detect patients with biopsy-proven mild steatosis (S1, 65.3%, 56.5%, respectively, vs. 17.7%, χ2=46.305, 31.736, both P<0.05)and moderate-severe (S2-3) steatosis (92.3%, 100%, respectively, vs. 53.8%, χ2=4.887, 7.800, P=0.037, 0.007, respectively). Both CAP and HSI had lower underestimation rates of steatosis grade than ultrasound (12%, 14.8%, respectively, vs. 29.5%, χ2=9.765, 6.452; P<0.05 for both), but they exhibited higher overestimation rates (30.5%, 38.2%, respectively, vs. 12.4%, χ2=39.222, 70.986; both P<0.05). The AUROCs of CAP and HSI were 0.780 (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.735-0.822) and 0.655 (95%CI 0.604-0.704) for S ≥1, 0.932 (95%CI 0.902-0.956) and 0.755 (95%CI 0.707-0.799) for S ≥2, 0.990 (95%CI 0.974-0.998) and 0.786 (95% CI 0.740-0.827) for S3, respectively. CONCLUSION: CAP might be more accurate for detecting hepatic steatosis than HSI and ultrasound in patients with CHB, but further studies are needed to reduce the overestimation rates.
Authors: Yingzhen N Zhang; Kathryn J Fowler; Gavin Hamilton; Jennifer Y Cui; Ethan Z Sy; Michelle Balanay; Jonathan C Hooker; Nikolaus Szeverenyi; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Richard K Sterling; Wendy C King; Mandana Khalili; David E Kleiner; Amanda S Hinerman; Mark Sulkowski; Raymond T Chung; Mamta K Jain; M Auricio Lisker-Melman; David K Wong; Marc G Ghany Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Alshaima Alhinai; Afsheen Qayyum-Khan; Xun Zhang; Patrick Samaha; Peter Metrakos; Marc Deschenes; Philip Wong; Peter Ghali; Tian-Yan Chen; Giada Sebastiani Journal: World J Hepatol Date: 2021-12-27
Authors: Jin Won Chang; Hye Won Lee; Beom Kyung Kim; Jun Yong Park; Do Young Kim; Sang Hoon Ahn; Kwang-Hyub Han; Seung Up Kim Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 4.519