Emmanuel Anandraj Selvaraj1, Ferenc Emil Mózes2, Arjun Narayan Ajmer Jayaswal2, Mohammad Hadi Zafarmand3, Yasaman Vali3, Jenny A Lee3, Christina Kim Levick2, Liam Arnold Joseph Young2, Naaventhan Palaniyappan4, Chang-Hai Liu5, Guruprasad Padur Aithal4, Manuel Romero-Gómez6, M Julia Brosnan7, Theresa A Tuthill7, Quentin M Anstee8, Stefan Neubauer2, Stephen A Harrison2, Patrick M Bossuyt3, Michael Pavlides9. 1. Oxford Centre for Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. Oxford Centre for Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 5. UCM Digestive Diseases. Virgen del Rocio University Hospital. Institute of Biomedicine of Seville, University of Seville, Sevilla, Spain; Center for Infectious Diseases, West China Hospital of Sichuan University; Division of Infectious Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Center of Infectious Disease, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 6. UCM Digestive Diseases. Virgen del Rocio University Hospital. Institute of Biomedicine of Seville, University of Seville, Sevilla, Spain. 7. Internal Medicine Research Unit, Pfizer Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA. 8. Liver Research Group, Translational & Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 9. Oxford Centre for Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: michael.pavlides@cardiov.ox.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), point shear wave elastography (pSWE), 2-dimensional shear wave elastography (2DSWE), magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been proposed as non-invasive tests for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). This study evaluated their diagnostic accuracy for liver fibrosis and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). METHODS: PubMED/MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies examining the diagnostic accuracy of these index tests, against histology as the reference standard, in adult patients with NAFLD. Two authors independently screened and assessed methodological quality of studies and extracted data. Summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (sAUC) were calculated for fibrosis stages and NASH, using a random effects bivariate logit-normal model. RESULTS: We included 82 studies (14,609 patients). Meta-analysis for diagnosing fibrosis stages was possible in 53 VCTE, 11 MRE, 12 pSWE and 4 2DSWE studies, and for diagnosing NASH in 4 MRE studies. sAUC for diagnosis of significant fibrosis were: 0.83 for VCTE, 0.91 for MRE, 0.86 for pSWE and 0.75 for 2DSWE. sAUC for diagnosis of advanced fibrosis were: 0.85 for VCTE, 0.92 for MRE, 0.89 for pSWE and 0.72 for 2DSWE. sAUC for diagnosis of cirrhosis were: 0.89 for VCTE, 0.90 for MRE, 0.90 for pSWE and 0.88 for 2DSWE. MRE had sAUC of 0.83 for diagnosis of NASH. Three (4%) studies reported intention-to-diagnose analyses and 15 (18%) studies reported diagnostic accuracy against pre-specified cut-offs. CONCLUSIONS: When elastography index tests are acquired successfully, they have acceptable diagnostic accuracy for advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis. The potential clinical impact of these index tests cannot be assessed fully as intention-to-diagnose analyses and validation of pre-specified thresholds are lacking. LAY SUMMARY: Non-invasive tests that measure liver stiffness or use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been suggested as alternatives to liver biopsy for assessing the severity of liver scarring (fibrosis) and fatty inflammation (steatohepatitis) in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). In this study, we summarise the results of previously published studies on how accurately these non-invasive tests can diagnose liver fibrosis and inflammation, using liver biopsy as the reference. We found that some techniques that measure liver stiffness had a good performance for the diagnosis of severe liver scarring.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), point shear wave elastography (pSWE), 2-dimensional shear wave elastography (2DSWE), magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been proposed as non-invasive tests for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). This study evaluated their diagnostic accuracy for liver fibrosis and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). METHODS: PubMED/MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies examining the diagnostic accuracy of these index tests, against histology as the reference standard, in adult patients with NAFLD. Two authors independently screened and assessed methodological quality of studies and extracted data. Summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (sAUC) were calculated for fibrosis stages and NASH, using a random effects bivariate logit-normal model. RESULTS: We included 82 studies (14,609 patients). Meta-analysis for diagnosing fibrosis stages was possible in 53 VCTE, 11 MRE, 12 pSWE and 4 2DSWE studies, and for diagnosing NASH in 4 MRE studies. sAUC for diagnosis of significant fibrosis were: 0.83 for VCTE, 0.91 for MRE, 0.86 for pSWE and 0.75 for 2DSWE. sAUC for diagnosis of advanced fibrosis were: 0.85 for VCTE, 0.92 for MRE, 0.89 for pSWE and 0.72 for 2DSWE. sAUC for diagnosis of cirrhosis were: 0.89 for VCTE, 0.90 for MRE, 0.90 for pSWE and 0.88 for 2DSWE. MRE had sAUC of 0.83 for diagnosis of NASH. Three (4%) studies reported intention-to-diagnose analyses and 15 (18%) studies reported diagnostic accuracy against pre-specified cut-offs. CONCLUSIONS: When elastography index tests are acquired successfully, they have acceptable diagnostic accuracy for advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis. The potential clinical impact of these index tests cannot be assessed fully as intention-to-diagnose analyses and validation of pre-specified thresholds are lacking. LAY SUMMARY: Non-invasive tests that measure liver stiffness or use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been suggested as alternatives to liver biopsy for assessing the severity of liver scarring (fibrosis) and fatty inflammation (steatohepatitis) in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). In this study, we summarise the results of previously published studies on how accurately these non-invasive tests can diagnose liver fibrosis and inflammation, using liver biopsy as the reference. We found that some techniques that measure liver stiffness had a good performance for the diagnosis of severe liver scarring.
Authors: Mark Barahman; Eduardo Grunvald; Pablo J Prado; Alejandro Bussandri; Walter C Henderson; Tanya Wolfson; Kathryn J Fowler; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 3.737
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