Xuebin Peng1, Aiping Tian1, Junfeng Li1, Yongwu Mao1, Ni Jiang1, Ting Li1, Xiaorong Mao2. 1. Department of Infectious Diseases, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China. 2. Department of Infectious Diseases, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China. xiaorongmao2007@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liver biopsy is the gold standard for staging liver fibrosis, but it has numerous drawbacks, mainly associated with bleeding and bile fistula risks. A number of non-invasive techniques have been investigated, but they all have their own disadvantages. To avoid the risks mentioned above and to improve the diagnostic value, we still need to search for a more accurate non-invasive method to evaluate the degree of liver fibrosis. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of FibroTouch versus other non-invasive fibrosis indexes in hepatic fibrosis of different aetiologies. METHODS: This study retrospectively enrolled 227 patients with chronic hepatic liver disease admitted to the first hospital of Lanzhou University from 2017 to 2020. Liver biopsy was performed in all of the patients, and their biochemical indicators were all tested. Non-invasive indexes including the fibrosis index based on four factors (FIB-4), the aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI), and the gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio index (GPRI) were all calculated. Transient elastography was performed using FibroTouch. RESULTS: The correlation between FibroTouch and the pathology of liver fibrosis was significantly higher than that between the non-invasive fibrosis indexes and the biopsy results (r = 0.771, p < 0.05). The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of FibroTouch was significantly higher than that of FIB-4, APRI, and GPRI for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis (≥ S2 fibrosis stage), advanced fibrosis (≥ S3 fibrosis stage), and cirrhosis (= S4 fibrosis stage) (p < 0.05). The patients were grouped according to different aetiologies. The diagnostic value of FibroTouch had much higher credibility in different fibrosis stages for different causes compared with other non-invasive indexes. The AUC of FibroTouch showed both higher specificity and higher sensitivity than FIB-4, APRI, and GPRI for different liver fibrosis stages with different aetiologies. CONCLUSIONS: FibroTouch demonstrates the highest diagnostic value for liver fibrosis and cirrhosis among non-invasive methods, showing better results than FIB-4, APRI, and GPRI, and surpassed only by liver biopsy. FibroTouch is reliable in assessing liver fibrosis with different aetiologies.
BACKGROUND: Liver biopsy is the gold standard for staging liver fibrosis, but it has numerous drawbacks, mainly associated with bleeding and bile fistula risks. A number of non-invasive techniques have been investigated, but they all have their own disadvantages. To avoid the risks mentioned above and to improve the diagnostic value, we still need to search for a more accurate non-invasive method to evaluate the degree of liver fibrosis. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of FibroTouch versus other non-invasive fibrosis indexes in hepatic fibrosis of different aetiologies. METHODS: This study retrospectively enrolled 227 patients with chronic hepatic liver disease admitted to the first hospital of Lanzhou University from 2017 to 2020. Liver biopsy was performed in all of the patients, and their biochemical indicators were all tested. Non-invasive indexes including the fibrosis index based on four factors (FIB-4), the aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI), and the gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio index (GPRI) were all calculated. Transient elastography was performed using FibroTouch. RESULTS: The correlation between FibroTouch and the pathology of liver fibrosis was significantly higher than that between the non-invasive fibrosis indexes and the biopsy results (r = 0.771, p < 0.05). The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of FibroTouch was significantly higher than that of FIB-4, APRI, and GPRI for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis (≥ S2 fibrosis stage), advanced fibrosis (≥ S3 fibrosis stage), and cirrhosis (= S4 fibrosis stage) (p < 0.05). The patients were grouped according to different aetiologies. The diagnostic value of FibroTouch had much higher credibility in different fibrosis stages for different causes compared with other non-invasive indexes. The AUC of FibroTouch showed both higher specificity and higher sensitivity than FIB-4, APRI, and GPRI for different liver fibrosis stages with different aetiologies. CONCLUSIONS: FibroTouch demonstrates the highest diagnostic value for liver fibrosis and cirrhosis among non-invasive methods, showing better results than FIB-4, APRI, and GPRI, and surpassed only by liver biopsy. FibroTouch is reliable in assessing liver fibrosis with different aetiologies.