BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver cT1 , liver T1 , transient elastography (TE) and blood-based biomarkers have independently been shown to predict clinical outcomes but have not been directly compared in a single cohort of patients. Our aim was to compare these tests' prognostic value in a cohort of patients with compensated chronic liver disease. METHODS: Patients with unselected compensated liver disease aetiologies had baseline assessments and were followed up for development of clinical outcomes, blinded to the imaging results. The prognostic value of non-invasive liver tests at prespecified thresholds was assessed for a combined clinical endpoint comprising ascites, variceal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation and mortality. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-seven patients (61% male) with median age of 54 years were followed up for 693 patient-years (median (IQR) 43 (26-58) months). The main diagnoses were NAFLD (41%), viral hepatitis (VH, 25%) and alcohol-related liver disease (ArLD; 14%). During follow-up 14 new clinical events, and 11 deaths occurred. Clinical outcomes were predicted by liver cT1 > 825ms with HR 9.9 (95% CI: 1.29-76.4, P = .007), TE > 8kPa with HR 7.8 (95% CI: 0.97-62.3, P = .02) and FIB-4 > 1.45 with HR 4.09 (95% CI: 0.90-18.4, P = .05). In analysis taking into account technical failure and unreliability, liver cT1 > 825 ms could predict clinical outcomes (P = .03), but TE > 8kPa could not (P = .4). CONCLUSIONS: We provide further evidence that liver cT1 , TE and serum-based biomarkers can predict clinical outcomes, but when taking into account technical failure/unreliability, TE cut-offs perform worse than those of cT1 and blood biomarkers.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver cT1 , liver T1 , transient elastography (TE) and blood-based biomarkers have independently been shown to predict clinical outcomes but have not been directly compared in a single cohort of patients. Our aim was to compare these tests' prognostic value in a cohort of patients with compensated chronic liver disease. METHODS:Patients with unselected compensated liver disease aetiologies had baseline assessments and were followed up for development of clinical outcomes, blinded to the imaging results. The prognostic value of non-invasive liver tests at prespecified thresholds was assessed for a combined clinical endpoint comprising ascites, variceal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation and mortality. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-seven patients (61% male) with median age of 54 years were followed up for 693 patient-years (median (IQR) 43 (26-58) months). The main diagnoses were NAFLD (41%), viral hepatitis (VH, 25%) and alcohol-related liver disease (ArLD; 14%). During follow-up 14 new clinical events, and 11 deaths occurred. Clinical outcomes were predicted by liver cT1 > 825ms with HR 9.9 (95% CI: 1.29-76.4, P = .007), TE > 8kPa with HR 7.8 (95% CI: 0.97-62.3, P = .02) and FIB-4 > 1.45 with HR 4.09 (95% CI: 0.90-18.4, P = .05). In analysis taking into account technical failure and unreliability, liver cT1 > 825 ms could predict clinical outcomes (P = .03), but TE > 8kPa could not (P = .4). CONCLUSIONS: We provide further evidence that liver cT1 , TE and serum-based biomarkers can predict clinical outcomes, but when taking into account technical failure/unreliability, TE cut-offs perform worse than those of cT1 and blood biomarkers.
Authors: Kamil Janowski; Elizabeth Shumbayawonda; Matt Kelly; Carlos Ferreira; Maciej Pronicki; Wieslawa Grajkowska; Magdalena Naorniakowska; Piotr Pawliszak; Sylwia Chełstowska; Elżbieta Jurkiewicz; Rajarshi Banerjee; Piotr Socha Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2022-04-25
Authors: Jonathan R Dillman; Stefanie W Benoit; Deep B Gandhi; Andrew T Trout; Jean A Tkach; Katherine VandenHeuvel; Prasad Devarajan Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2022-03-02
Authors: Christopher R Bradley; Eleanor F Cox; Naaventhan Palaniyappan; Susan T Francis; Indra Neil Guha; Guruprasad P Aithal Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2022-10-24
Authors: Fasiha Kanwal; Jay H Shubrook; Leon A Adams; Kim Pfotenhauer; Vincent Wai-Sun Wong; Eugene Wright; Manal F Abdelmalek; Stephen A Harrison; Rohit Loomba; Christos S Mantzoros; Elisabetta Bugianesi; Robert H Eckel; Lee M Kaplan; Hashem B El-Serag; Kenneth Cusi Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 33.883
Authors: Damian J Mole; Jonathan A Fallowfield; Ahmed E Sherif; Timothy Kendall; Scott Semple; Matt Kelly; Gerard Ridgway; John J Connell; John McGonigle; Rajarshi Banerjee; J Michael Brady; Xiaozhong Zheng; Michael Hughes; Lucile Neyton; Joanne McClintock; Garry Tucker; Hilary Nailon; Dilip Patel; Anthony Wackett; Michelle Steven; Fenella Welsh; Myrddin Rees Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Liam A J Young; Carlo D L Ceresa; Ferenc E Mózes; Jane Ellis; Ladislav Valkovič; Richard Colling; Constantin-C Coussios; Peter J Friend; Christopher T Rodgers Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-07-17 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Anne Linde Mak; Jenny Lee; Anne-Marieke van Dijk; Yasaman Vali; Guruprasad P Aithal; Jörn M Schattenberg; Quentin M Anstee; M Julia Brosnan; Mohammad Hadi Zafarmand; Dewkoemar Ramsoekh; Stephen A Harrison; Max Nieuwdorp; Patrick M Bossuyt; Adriaan G Holleboom Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2021-12-15