Toshihide Shima1, Kyoko Sakai2,3, Hirohisa Oya1, Takayuki Katayama1, Yasuhide Mitsumoto1, Masayuki Mizuno1, Yoshihiro Kanbara4, Takeshi Okanoue5. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Saiseikai Suita Hospital, Suita, Japan. 2. Clinical Laboratory, Saiseikai Suita Hospital, Suita, Japan. 3. Health Informatics, Kyoto University School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan. 4. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Saiseikai Suita Hospital, Suita, Japan. 5. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Saiseikai Suita Hospital, Suita, Japan. okanoue@suita.saiseikai.or.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous biomarkers have been developed for assessing the presence and severity of liver fibrosis associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Fibrosis can be assessed by liver stiffness measurement (LSM) using vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE). Here we examined whether diagnostic accuracy and applicability can be further improved by combining various biomarker measurements with LSM. METHODS: A total of 278 patients with biopsy-confirmed Japanese NAFLD patients were enrolled. Area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) was evaluated for obtaining the optimum interpretation criteria for LSM by VCTE and comparing various biomarkers alone and in combination with LSM. RESULTS: Liver stiffness measurements including cases with interquartile range (IQR)/median (M) < 30% or LSM ≤ 7.1 kPa demonstrated high applicability (90% of patients with NAFLD) and accuracy (AUROC: 0.891) for predicting stage ≥ 3 fibrosis. For all biomarkers tested, the AUROC values for predicting stage ≥ 3 fibrosis were increased when combined with LSM [platelet count, 0.734 vs. 0.912; type-4 collagen 7s (T4C7s), 0.894 vs. 0.921; aspartate aminotransferase to alanine aminotransferase ratio (AST/ALT), 0.774 vs. 0.906; AST to platelet ratio index, 0.789 vs. 0.902; FIB-4 index, 0.828 vs. 0.922; NAFLD fibrosis score, 0.800 vs. 0.906; CA index-fibrosis, 0.884 vs. 0.913; FM-fibro index, 0.920 vs. 0.943; FIB-4 index + T4C7s, 0.901 vs. 0.930], demonstrating the advantage of concurrent LSM. CONCLUSIONS: While VCTE has slightly limited applicability (90%) for patients with NAFLD, concurrent measurement with certain biomarkers (especially FM-fibro, T4C7s, and FIB-4) greatly improves the diagnostic accuracy.
BACKGROUND: Numerous biomarkers have been developed for assessing the presence and severity of liver fibrosis associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Fibrosis can be assessed by liver stiffness measurement (LSM) using vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE). Here we examined whether diagnostic accuracy and applicability can be further improved by combining various biomarker measurements with LSM. METHODS: A total of 278 patients with biopsy-confirmed Japanese NAFLD patients were enrolled. Area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) was evaluated for obtaining the optimum interpretation criteria for LSM by VCTE and comparing various biomarkers alone and in combination with LSM. RESULTS:Liver stiffness measurements including cases with interquartile range (IQR)/median (M) < 30% or LSM ≤ 7.1 kPa demonstrated high applicability (90% of patients with NAFLD) and accuracy (AUROC: 0.891) for predicting stage ≥ 3 fibrosis. For all biomarkers tested, the AUROC values for predicting stage ≥ 3 fibrosis were increased when combined with LSM [platelet count, 0.734 vs. 0.912; type-4 collagen 7s (T4C7s), 0.894 vs. 0.921; aspartate aminotransferase to alanine aminotransferase ratio (AST/ALT), 0.774 vs. 0.906; AST to platelet ratio index, 0.789 vs. 0.902; FIB-4 index, 0.828 vs. 0.922; NAFLD fibrosis score, 0.800 vs. 0.906; CA index-fibrosis, 0.884 vs. 0.913; FM-fibro index, 0.920 vs. 0.943; FIB-4 index + T4C7s, 0.901 vs. 0.930], demonstrating the advantage of concurrent LSM. CONCLUSIONS: While VCTE has slightly limited applicability (90%) for patients with NAFLD, concurrent measurement with certain biomarkers (especially FM-fibro, T4C7s, and FIB-4) greatly improves the diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: Christoph F Dietrich; Jeffrey Bamber; Annalisa Berzigotti; Simona Bota; Vito Cantisani; Laurent Castera; David Cosgrove; Giovanna Ferraioli; Mireen Friedrich-Rust; Odd Helge Gilja; Ruediger Stephan Goertz; Thomas Karlas; Robert de Knegt; Victor de Ledinghen; Fabio Piscaglia; Bogdan Procopet; Adrian Saftoiu; Paul S Sidhu; Ioan Sporea; Maja Thiele Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: Jun Chen; Meng Yin; Jayant A Talwalkar; Jennifer Oudry; Kevin J Glaser; Thomas C Smyrk; Véronique Miette; Laurent Sandrin; Richard L Ehman Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Cosmin Sebastian Voican; Alexandre Louvet; Jean-Baptiste Trabut; Micheline Njiké-Nakseu; Sébastien Dharancy; Andrea Sanchez; Marion Corouge; Karima Lamouri; Amandine Lebrun; Axel Balian; Sophie Prévot; Mounia Lachgar; Sophie Maitre; Hélène Agostini; Philippe Mathurin; Gabriel Perlemuter; Sylvie Naveau Journal: Liver Int Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: Bubu A Banini; Samarth Patel; Jonathan W Yu; Le Kang; Christopher Bailey; Brian J Strife; Mohammad S Siddiqui; Vaishali Patel; Scott C Matherly; Hannah Lee; Shawn Lewis; Reena Cherian; Richard T Stravitz; Velimir Luketic; Arun J Sanyal; Richard K Sterling Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 3.174
Authors: Nancy de Los Ángeles Segura-Azuara; Carlos Daniel Varela-Chinchilla; Plinio A Trinidad-Calderón Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-01-13