Peter J Eddowes1, Magali Sasso2, Michael Allison3, Emmanouil Tsochatzis4, Quentin M Anstee5, David Sheridan6, Indra N Guha7, Jeremy F Cobbold8, Jonathan J Deeks9, Valérie Paradis10, Pierre Bedossa10, Philip N Newsome11. 1. National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Centre for Liver and Gastrointestinal Research, Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Liver Unit, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK; National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 2. Echosens, R&D Department, Paris, France. 3. Liver Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. 4. University College London Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK. 5. Institute of Cellular Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 6. Institute of Translational and Stratified Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK. 7. National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 8. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK. 9. National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 10. Department of Pathology, Physiology and Imaging, Beaujon Hospital Paris Diderot University, Paris, France. 11. National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Centre for Liver and Gastrointestinal Research, Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Liver Unit, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: P.N.Newsome@bham.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: We estimated the accuracy of FibroScan vibration-controlled transient elastography controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) and liver stiffness measurement (LSMs) in assessing steatosis and fibrosis in patients with suspected nonalcoholic liver disease (NAFLD). METHODS: We collected data from 450 consecutive adults who underwent liver biopsy analysis for suspected NAFLD at 7 centers in the United Kingdom from March 2014 through January 2017. FibroScan examinations with M or XL probe were completed within the 2 weeks of the biopsy analysis (404 had a valid examination). The biopsies were scored by 2 blinded expert pathologists according to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis clinical research network criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was estimated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) for the categories of steatosis and fibrosis. We assessed effects of disease prevalence on positive and negative predictive values. For LSM, the effects of histological parameters and probe type were appraised using multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Using biopsy analysis as the reference standard, we found that CAP identified patients with steatosis with an AUROC of 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-0.92) for S≥S1, 0.77 (95% CI 0.71-0.82) for S≥S2, and 0.70 (95% CI 0.64-0.75) for S=S3. Youden cutoff values for S≥S1, S≥S2, and S≥S3 were 302 dB/m, 331 dB/m, and 337 dB/m, respectively. LSM identified patients with fibrosis with AUROCs of 0.77 (95% CI 0.72-0.82) for F≥F2, 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.84) for F≥F3, and 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93) for F=F4. Youden cutoff values for F≥F2, F≥F3, and F=F4 were 8.2 kPa, 9.7 kPa, and 13.6 kPa, respectively. Applying the optimal cutoff values, determined from this cohort, to populations of lower fibrosis prevalence increased negative predictive values and reduced positive predictive values. Multivariable analysis found that the only parameter that significantly affected LSMs was fibrosis stage (P<10-16); we found no association with steatosis or probe type. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective analysis of patients with NAFLD, we found CAP and LSM by FibroScan to assess liver steatosis and fibrosis, respectively, with AUROC values ranging from 0.70 to 0.89. Probe type and steatosis did not affect LSM. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01985009.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: We estimated the accuracy of FibroScan vibration-controlled transient elastography controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) and liver stiffness measurement (LSMs) in assessing steatosis and fibrosis in patients with suspected nonalcoholic liver disease (NAFLD). METHODS: We collected data from 450 consecutive adults who underwent liver biopsy analysis for suspected NAFLD at 7 centers in the United Kingdom from March 2014 through January 2017. FibroScan examinations with M or XL probe were completed within the 2 weeks of the biopsy analysis (404 had a valid examination). The biopsies were scored by 2 blinded expert pathologists according to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis clinical research network criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was estimated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) for the categories of steatosis and fibrosis. We assessed effects of disease prevalence on positive and negative predictive values. For LSM, the effects of histological parameters and probe type were appraised using multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Using biopsy analysis as the reference standard, we found that CAP identified patients with steatosis with an AUROC of 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-0.92) for S≥S1, 0.77 (95% CI 0.71-0.82) for S≥S2, and 0.70 (95% CI 0.64-0.75) for S=S3. Youden cutoff values for S≥S1, S≥S2, and S≥S3 were 302 dB/m, 331 dB/m, and 337 dB/m, respectively. LSM identified patients with fibrosis with AUROCs of 0.77 (95% CI 0.72-0.82) for F≥F2, 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.84) for F≥F3, and 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93) for F=F4. Youden cutoff values for F≥F2, F≥F3, and F=F4 were 8.2 kPa, 9.7 kPa, and 13.6 kPa, respectively. Applying the optimal cutoff values, determined from this cohort, to populations of lower fibrosis prevalence increased negative predictive values and reduced positive predictive values. Multivariable analysis found that the only parameter that significantly affected LSMs was fibrosis stage (P<10-16); we found no association with steatosis or probe type. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective analysis of patients with NAFLD, we found CAP and LSM by FibroScan to assess liver steatosis and fibrosis, respectively, with AUROC values ranging from 0.70 to 0.89. Probe type and steatosis did not affect LSM. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01985009.
Authors: Daniel Jesper; Daniel Klett; Barbara Schellhaas; Lukas Pfeifer; Moritz Leppkes; Maximilian Waldner; Markus F Neurath; Deike Strobel Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Max M Puthenpura; Vishal Patel; John Fam; Leon Katz; David S Tichansky; Stephan Myers Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-09-26 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Veeral H Ajmera; Edward R Cachay; Christian B Ramers; Shirin Bassirian; Seema Singh; Richele Bettencourt; Lisa Richards; Gavin Hamilton; Michael Middleton; Katie Fowler; Claude Sirlin; Rohit Loomba Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Georg Semmler; Katharina Wöran; Bernhard Scheiner; Lukas Walter Unger; Rafael Paternostro; Judith Stift; Philipp Schwabl; Theresa Bucsics; David Bauer; Benedikt Simbrunner; Albert Friedrich Stättermayer; Matthias Pinter; Michael Trauner; Thomas Reiberger; Mattias Mandorfer Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Katharina Staufer; Emina Halilbasic; Walter Spindelboeck; Magdalena Eilenberg; Gerhard Prager; Vanessa Stadlbauer; Andreas Posch; Petra Munda; Rodrig Marculescu; Barbara Obermayer-Pietsch; Judith Stift; Carolin Lackner; Michael Trauner; Rudolf E Stauber Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Scott McHenry; Ankita Tirath; Richard Tsai; Yeshika Sharma; Avegail G Flores; Nicholas O Davidson; Kathryn J Fowler; Matthew A Ciorba; Parakkal Deepak Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 5.325