Search

Unlabelled: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has become a major public health issue. The goal of this study was to assess the clinical use of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) evaluated by supersonic shear imaging (SSI), FibroScan, and acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) in a cohort of NAFLD patients who underwent liver biopsy. A total of 291 NAFLD patients were prospectively enrolled from November 2011 to February 2015 at 2 French university hospitals. LSM was assessed by SSI, FibroScan (M probe), and ARFI within two weeks prior to liver biopsy. Calculations of the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) were performed and compared for the staging of liver fibrosis. AUROC for SSI, FibroScan, and ARFI were 0.86, 0.82, and 0.77 for diagnoses of ≥F2; 0.89, 0.86, and 0.84 for ≥F3; and 0.88, 0.87, and 0.84 for F4, respectively. SSI had a higher accuracy than ARFI for diagnoses of significant fibrosis (≥F2) (P = 0.004). Clinical factors related to obesity such as body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m(2) , waist circumference ≥102 cm or increased parietal wall thickness were associated with LSM failures when using SSI or FibroScan and with unreliable results when using ARFI. In univariate analysis, FibroScan values were slightly correlated with NAFLD activity score and steatosis (R = 0.28 and 0.22, respectively), whereas SSI and ARFI were not; however, these components of NAFLD did not affect LSM results in multivariate analysis. The cutoff values for SSI and FibroScan for staging fibrosis with a sensitivity ≥90% were very close: 6.3/6.2 kPa for ≥F2, 8.3/8.2 kPa for ≥F3, and 10.5/9.5 kPa for F4., Conclusion: Although obesity is associated with an increase in LSM failure, the studied techniques and especially SSI provide high value for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis in NAFLD patients. (Hepatology 2016;63:1817-1827)., (© 2015 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Unlabelled: Liver stiffness evaluation (LSE) is usually considered as reliable when it fulfills all the following criteria: ≥10 valid measurements, ≥60% success rate, and interquartile range / median ratio (IQR/M) ≤0.30. However, such reliable LSE have never been shown to be more accurate than unreliable LSE. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the relevance of the usual definition for LSE reliability, and to improve reliability by using diagnostic accuracy as a primary outcome in a large population. 1,165 patients with chronic liver disease from 19 French centers were included. All patients had liver biopsy and LSE. 75.7% of LSE were reliable according to the usual definition. However, these reliable LSE were not significantly more accurate than unreliable LSE with, respectively: 85.8% versus 81.5% well-classified patients for the diagnosis of cirrhosis (P = 0.082). In multivariate analyses with different diagnostic targets, LSE median and IQR/M were independent predictors of fibrosis staging, with no significant influence of ≥10 valid measurements or LSE success rate. These two reliability criteria determined three LSE groups: "very reliable" (IQR/M ≤0.10), "reliable" (0.10< IQR/M ≤0.30, or IQR/M >0.30 with LSE median <7.1 kPa), and "poorly reliable" (IQR/M >0.30 with LSE median ≥7.1 kPa). The rates of well-classified patients for the diagnosis of cirrhosis were, respectively: 90.4%, 85.8%, and 69.5% (P < 10(-3) ). According to these new reliability criteria, 9.1% of LSE were poorly reliable (versus 24.3% unreliable LSE with the usual definition, P < 10(-3) ), 74.3% were reliable, and 16.6% were very reliable., Conclusion: The usual definition for LSE reliability is not relevant. LSE reliability depends on IQR/M according to liver stiffness median level, defining thus three reliability categories: very reliable, reliable, and poorly reliable LSE. (HEPATOLOGY 2013)., (Copyright © 2012 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Unlabelled: The sequential algorithm for fibrosis evaluation (SAFE) and the Bordeaux algorithm (BA), which cross-check FibroTest with the aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) or FibroScan, are very accurate but provide only a binary diagnosis of significant fibrosis (SAFE or BA for Metavir F ≥ 2) or cirrhosis (SAFE or BA for F4). Therefore, in clinical practice, physicians have to apply the algorithm for F ≥ 2, and then, when needed, the algorithm for F4 ("successive algorithms"). We aimed to evaluate successive SAFE, successive BA, and a new, noninvasive, detailed classification of fibrosis. The study included 1785 patients with chronic hepatitis C, liver biopsy, blood fibrosis tests, and FibroScan (the latter in 729 patients). The most accurate synchronous combination of FibroScan with a blood test (FibroMeter) provided a new detailed (six classes) classification (FM+FS). Successive SAFE had a significantly (P < 10(-3) ) lower diagnostic accuracy (87.3%) than individual SAFE for F ≥ 2 (94.6%) or SAFE for F4 (89.5%), and required significantly more biopsies (70.8% versus 64.0% or 6.4%, respectively, P < 10(-3) ). Similarly, successive BA had significantly (P ≤ 10(-3) ) lower diagnostic accuracy (84.7%) than individual BA for F ≥ 2 (88.3%) or BA for F4 (94.2%), and required significantly more biopsies (49.8% versus 34.6% or 24.6%, respectively, P < 10(-3) ). The diagnostic accuracy of the FM+FS classification (86.7%) was not significantly different from those of successive SAFE or BA. However, this new classification required no biopsy., Conclusion: SAFE and BA for significant fibrosis or cirrhosis are very accurate. However, their successive use induces a significant decrease in diagnostic accuracy and a significant increase in required liver biopsy. A new fibrosis classification that synchronously combines two fibrosis tests was as accurate as successive SAFE or BA, while providing an entirely noninvasive (0% liver biopsy) and more precise (six versus two or three fibrosis classes) fibrosis diagnosis., (Copyright © 2011 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)