Rish K Pai1, Vipul Jairath2,3,4, Malcolm Hogan3, Guangyong Zou3,4,5, Oyedele A Adeyi6, Quentin M Anstee7,8, Bashar A Aqel9, Cynthia Behling10,11, Elizabeth J Carey9, Andrew D Clouston12, Kathleen Corey13,14, Brian G Feagan2,3,4, David E Kleiner15, Christopher Ma3,16,17, Stefanie C McFarlane3, Mazen Noureddin18, Vlad Ratziu19, Mark A Valasek20, Zobair M Younossi21,22, Stephen A Harrison23,24, Rohit Loomba25. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine & Pathology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. 3. Alimentiv Inc., London, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. 5. Robarts Research Institute, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 7. Translational & Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. 8. NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Center, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. 9. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. 10. Pacific Rim Pathology, San Diego, California, USA. 11. Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA. 12. Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 13. Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 14. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 15. Laboratory of Pathology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 16. Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 17. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 18. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 19. Institute of Cardiometabolism and Nutrition, Sorbonne Université, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France. 20. Department of Pathology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA. 21. Betty and Guy Beatty Center for Integrated Research, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia, USA. 22. Department of Medicine, Center for Liver Diseases, Inova Fairfax Medical Campus, Falls Church, Virginia, USA. 23. Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 24. Medical Director, Pinnacle Clinical Research, San Antonio, Texas, USA. 25. NAFLD Research Center, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The NASH Clinical Research Network histologic scoring system, the gold-standard NASH histology assessment for clinical trials, has demonstrated intrarater and interrater variability. An expert panel in a previous systematic Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) study determined that existing histologic scoring systems do not fully capture NASH disease activity and fibrosis, and standardized definitions of histologic features are needed. We evaluated the reliability of existing and alternate histologic measures and their correlations with a disease activity visual analog scale to propose optimal components for an expanded NAFLD activity score (NAS). APPROACH AND RESULTS: Four liver pathologists who were involved in the prior RAND/UCLA study underwent standardized training and multiple discussions with the goal of improving agreement. They were blinded to clinical information and scored histologic measures twice, ≥2 weeks apart, for 40 liver biopsies representing the full spectrum of NAFLD. Index intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates demonstrated intrarater (0.80-0.85) and interrater (0.60-0.72) reliability. Hepatocyte ballooning items had similar interrater ICCs (0.68-0.79), including those extending scores from 0-2 to 0-4. Steatosis measures (interrater ICCs, 0.72-0.80) correlated poorly with disease activity. Correlations with disease activity were largest for hepatocyte ballooning and Mallory-Denk bodies (MDBs), with both used to develop the expanded NAS (intrarater ICC, 0.90; interrater ICC, 0.80). Fibrosis measures had ICCs of 0.70-0.87. CONCLUSIONS: After extensive preparation among a group of experienced pathologists, we demonstrated improved reliability of multiple existing histologic NAFLD indices and fibrosis staging systems. Hepatocyte ballooning and MDBs most strongly correlated with disease activity and were used for the expanded NAS. Further validation including evaluation of responsiveness is required.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The NASH Clinical Research Network histologic scoring system, the gold-standard NASH histology assessment for clinical trials, has demonstrated intrarater and interrater variability. An expert panel in a previous systematic Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) study determined that existing histologic scoring systems do not fully capture NASH disease activity and fibrosis, and standardized definitions of histologic features are needed. We evaluated the reliability of existing and alternate histologic measures and their correlations with a disease activity visual analog scale to propose optimal components for an expanded NAFLD activity score (NAS). APPROACH AND RESULTS: Four liver pathologists who were involved in the prior RAND/UCLA study underwent standardized training and multiple discussions with the goal of improving agreement. They were blinded to clinical information and scored histologic measures twice, ≥2 weeks apart, for 40 liver biopsies representing the full spectrum of NAFLD. Index intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates demonstrated intrarater (0.80-0.85) and interrater (0.60-0.72) reliability. Hepatocyte ballooning items had similar interrater ICCs (0.68-0.79), including those extending scores from 0-2 to 0-4. Steatosis measures (interrater ICCs, 0.72-0.80) correlated poorly with disease activity. Correlations with disease activity were largest for hepatocyte ballooning and Mallory-Denk bodies (MDBs), with both used to develop the expanded NAS (intrarater ICC, 0.90; interrater ICC, 0.80). Fibrosis measures had ICCs of 0.70-0.87. CONCLUSIONS: After extensive preparation among a group of experienced pathologists, we demonstrated improved reliability of multiple existing histologic NAFLD indices and fibrosis staging systems. Hepatocyte ballooning and MDBs most strongly correlated with disease activity and were used for the expanded NAS. Further validation including evaluation of responsiveness is required.
Authors: K Ishak; A Baptista; L Bianchi; F Callea; J De Groote; F Gudat; H Denk; V Desmet; G Korb; R N MacSween Journal: J Hepatol Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Vlad Ratziu; Stephen A Harrison; Sven Francque; Pierre Bedossa; Philippe Lehert; Lawrence Serfaty; Manuel Romero-Gomez; Jérôme Boursier; Manal Abdelmalek; Steve Caldwell; Joost Drenth; Quentin M Anstee; Dean Hum; Remy Hanf; Alice Roudot; Sophie Megnien; Bart Staels; Arun Sanyal Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: David E Kleiner; Elizabeth M Brunt; Mark Van Natta; Cynthia Behling; Melissa J Contos; Oscar W Cummings; Linda D Ferrell; Yao-Chang Liu; Michael S Torbenson; Aynur Unalp-Arida; Matthew Yeh; Arthur J McCullough; Arun J Sanyal Journal: Hepatology Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Elizabeth M Brunt; Brent A Neuschwander-Tetri; Dana Oliver; Kent R Wehmeier; Bruce R Bacon Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Rish K Pai; David E Kleiner; John Hart; Oyedele A Adeyi; Andrew D Clouston; Cynthia A Behling; Dhanpat Jain; Sanjay Kakar; Mayur Brahmania; Lawrence Burgart; Kenneth P Batts; Mark A Valasek; Michael S Torbenson; Maha Guindi; Hanlin L Wang; Veeral Ajmera; Leon A Adams; Claire E Parker; Brian G Feagan; Rohit Loomba; Vipul Jairath Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Mohammad Shadab Siddiqui; Stephen A Harrison; Manal F Abdelmalek; Quentin M Anstee; Pierre Bedossa; Laurent Castera; Lara Dimick-Santos; Scott L Friedman; Katherine Greene; David E Kleiner; Sophie Megnien; Brent A Neuschwander-Tetri; Vlad Ratziu; Elmer Schabel; Veronica Miller; Arun J Sanyal Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 17.425