| Literature DB >> 33207115 |
Gwyneth Soon1, Aileen Wee1,2.
Abstract
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NAFLD/NASH) is a major cause of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. Accurate assessment of liver fibrosis is important for predicting disease outcomes and assessing therapeutic response in clinical practice and clinical trials. Although noninvasive tests such as transient elastography and magnetic resonance elastography are preferred where possible, histological assessment of liver fibrosis via semiquantitative scoring systems remains the current gold standard. Collagen proportionate area provides more granularity by measuring the percentage of fibrosis on a continuous scale, but is limited by the absence of architectural input. Although not yet used in routine clinical practice, advances in second harmonic generation/two-photon excitation fluorescence (SHG/TPEF) microscopy imaging show great promise in characterising architectural features of fibrosis at the individual collagen fiber level. Quantification and calculation of different detailed variables of collagen fibers can be used to establish algorithm-based quantitative fibrosis scores (e.g., qFibrosis, q-FPs), which have been validated against fibrosis stage in NAFLD. Artificial intelligence is being explored to further refine and develop quantitative fibrosis scoring methods. SHG-microscopy shows promise as the new gold standard for the quantitative measurement of liver fibrosis. This has reaffirmed the pivotal role of the liver biopsy in fibrosis assessment in NAFLD, at least for the near-future. The ability of SHG-derived algorithms to intuitively detect subtle nuances in liver fibrosis changes over a continuous scale should be employed to redress the efficacy endpoint for fibrosis in NASH clinical trials; this approach may improve the outcomes of the trials evaluating therapeutic response to antifibrotic drugs.Entities:
Keywords: Biopsy; Fibrosis; Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Year: 2020 PMID: 33207115 PMCID: PMC7820194 DOI: 10.3350/cmh.2020.0181
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Mol Hepatol ISSN: 2287-2728
Comparison of histological fibrosis scoring systems
| Fibrosis stage | Brunt system [ | NASH CRN score [ | SAF score [ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | None | None | None |
| 1 | Zone 3 perisinusoidal fibrosis; focally or extensively present | 1a: Mild (delicate) zone 3 perisinusoidal fibrosis | |
| 1b: Moderate (dense) zone 3 perisinusoidal fibrosis | |||
| 1c: Portal fibrosis only | |||
| 2 | Zone 3 perisinusoidal fibrosis with focal or extensive periportal fibrosis | Zone 3 perisinusoidal fibrosis with periportal fibrosis | |
| 3 | Zone 3 perisinusoidal fibrosis and portal fibrosis with focal or extensive bridging fibrosis | Bridging fibrosis | |
| 4 | Cirrhosis | Cirrhosis | |
NASH CRN, Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network; SAF, steatosis activity fibrosis.
Figure 1.Comparison of histopathological staining (H&E and Masson trichrome) with SHG/TPEF images of liver biopsy tissue from NAFLD patients. SHG imaging, Masson trichrome, and H&E were performed on serial sections (×200). H&E, haemotoxylin and eosin; SHG, second harmonic generation; TPEF, two-photon excitation fluorescence; NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Performance of SHG-based models for quantitative assessment of liver fibrosis in NAFLD
| Study | Model | Methodology | No. of patients | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wang et al. [ | q-FP | SHG/TPEF to capture images (of whole biopsy section) | 50 (test cohort) | Principal component analysis model of 16 q-FPs: |
| Images assessed with computerized image-analysis by two independent investigators to output the profile of q-FPs data for each slice in operator-defined segmentation regions of liver tissue, including: | 42 (validation cohort) | - Fibrosis vs. no fibrosis: AUC 0.88 | ||
| (1) General: the liver section in its entirety | - Cirrhosis vs. earlier stages: AUC 0.93 | |||
| (2) Perisinusoidal: hepatocyte-associated collagen in the perisinusoidal space | Linear scale of fibrosis measurement of 4 q-FPs using desirability functions: | |||
| (3) Vessel: collagen fibrils directly connected to veins; and | - Related to fibrosis stage ( | |||
| (4) Vessel bridges: collagen fibrils extending from vein to vein or vein to portal tract. | ||||
| 70 q-FPs had interclass concordance ≥0.8 which were selected for further model development | ||||
| Wang et al. [ | q-FP | Compared against NASH CRN staging system (but with substages of stage 1 combined) | 344 (428 biopsies) (larger validation study) | 25 q-FPs with AUC >0.90 for different fibrosis stages; perimeter of collagen fibres and number of long collagen fibres had the best accuracy (88.3–96.2% sensitivity and 78.1–91.1% specificity for different fibrosis stages) |
| Chang et al. [ | SHG B-index | SHG/TPEF to capture images (final sampling size of 10 mm2 per biopsy) | 83 adults | Prediction model based on 14 unique SHG-based collagen parameters |
| An image processing algorithm was used to quantify fibrosis features in three specific regions: 1) central vein, 2) portal tract, and 3) perisinusoidal | - Fibrosis vs. no fibrosis: AUC 0.853 | |||
| In total, 100 collagen features were extracted and quantified, of which 28 features including the percentages of different collagen patterns and collagen string features were extracted in each region | - Cirrhosis vs. earlier stages: AUC 0.941 | |||
| - Stage 0/1 vs. 2/3/4: AUC 0.967 | ||||
| - Stage 0/1/2 vs. 3/4: AUC 0.985 | ||||
| Compared against Brunt’s staging system | - High correlation of 0.820 with fibrosis stage ( | |||
| Liu et al. [ | qFibrosis | SHG/TPEF to capture images (final sampling size of 10 mm2 per biopsy) | 62 adults (30 training, 32 validation); 36 children (18 training, 18 validation) | Prediction model based on six shared parameters for string collagen |
| An image processing algorithm was used to quantify fibrosis features in three specific regions: 1) central vein, 2) portal tract, and 3) perisinusoidal | (Adult) | |||
| - Fibrosis vs. no fibrosis: AUC 0.835 | ||||
| In total, 100 collagen features were extracted and quantified | - Cirrhosis vs. earlier stages: 0.982 | |||
| - Stage 0/1 vs. 2/3/4: AUC 0.892 | ||||
| - Stage 0/1/2 vs. 3/4: AUC 0.87 | ||||
| (Pediatric) | ||||
| - Fibrosis vs. no fibrosis: AUC 0.981 | ||||
| - Stage 0/1 vs. 2/3: AUC 0.931 | ||||
| - Stage 0/1/2 vs. 3: AUC 0.885 | ||||
| Liu et al. [ | qFibrosis | Compared against NASH CRN staging system | 219 adults (146 training, 73 validation) (multicenter) | Prediction model based on 17 parameters, with output as a numerical index from 0 and 6.55 |
| - Fibrosis vs. no fibrosis: AUC 0.87 | ||||
| - Cirrhosis vs. earlier stages: 0.951 | ||||
| - Stage 0/1 vs. 2/3/4: AUC 0.881 | ||||
| - Stage 0/1/2 vs. 3/4: AUC 0.945 |
SHG, second harmonic generation; NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; q-FP, quantification of fibrosis-related parameter; TPEF, two-photon excitation fluorescence; AUC, area under curve; NASH CRN, Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network.
Figure 2.Comparison of the various noninvasive and invasive methods for fibrosis assessment in terms of the quantitative and qualitative information yielded. The size of the circle represents current utility in clinical practice/trials (shaded area represents potential growth). CPA, collagen proportionate area; TE, transient elastography; MRE, magnetic resonance elastography; SHG, second harmonic generation.