Small Bowel Imaging in Celiac Disease: Is there a role for Small Bowel Ultrasound?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The incidence of celiac disease (CD) has increased over the last decades in part due to better disease awareness. Small bowel ultrasound (sb US) enables dynamic assessment of the bowel; although this topic has been addressed, the use of sb US in the diagnosis and in the follow-up of CD patients is limited to a few specialized tertiary referral centers. Herein, we aimed at summarizing the available literature on this topic to better define the potential clinical implications of sb US in CD, also through a comparison with other available diagnostic techniques. RECENT FINDINGS: According to available data, sb US can be of help in confirming or excluding CD in patients with clinical suspicion; specifically, the finding of increased gall bladder volume, free abdominal fluid and enlargement of mesenteric lymph nodes reliably and accurately predicts the diagnosis of CD, whereas the absence of bowel dilatation and increased peristalsis may exclude the diagnosis. However, the place of intestinal US in the diagnostic algorithm of CD is likely to vary depending on the probability of the disease in a given population. There are only a few studies on the role of sb US in complicated CD, even if recent reports suggest a possible clinical role. There is a lack of data on follow-up of CD patients, particularly with the aim of detecting a poor diet adherence. According to current data sb US parameters have been shown to be of value in confirming and excluding the diagnosis of CD. Prospective studies with large sample size are warranted to determine whether to include sb US in the available guidelines for CD diagnosis and monitoring.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors infusion for people with compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Advanced chronic liver disease is characterised by a long compensated phase followed by a rapidly progressive 'decompensated' phase, which is marked by the development of complications of portal hypertension and liver dysfunction. Advanced chronic liver disease is considered responsible for more than one million deaths annually worldwide. No treatment is available to specifically target fibrosis and cirrhosis; liver transplantation remains the only curative option. Researchers are investigating strategies to restore liver functionality to avoid or slow progression towards end-stage liver disease. Cytokine mobilisation of stem cells from the bone marrow to the liver could improve liver function. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a 175-amino-acid protein currently available for mobilisation of haematopoietic stem cells from the bone marrow. Multiple courses of G-CSF, with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors (erythropoietin or growth hormone) infusion, might be associated with accelerated hepatic regeneration, improved liver function, and survival. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of G-CSF with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors (erythropoietin or growth hormone) infusion, compared with no intervention or placebo in people with compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registers (October 2022) together with reference-checking and web-searching to identify additional studies. We applied no restrictions on language and document type. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only included randomised clinical trials comparing G-CSF, independent of the schedule of administration, as a single treatment or combined with stem or progenitor cell infusion, or with other medical co-interventions, with no intervention or placebo, in adults with chronic compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease or acute-on-chronic liver failure. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, outcomes reported, or language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane procedures. All-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life were our primary outcomes, and liver disease-related morbidity, non-serious adverse events, and no improvement of liver function scores were our secondary outcomes. We undertook meta-analyses, based on intention-to-treat, and presented results using risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I2 statistic values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE, evaluated the risk of small-study effects in regression analyses, and conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 trials (1419 participants; sample size ranged from 28 to 259), which lasted between 11 and 57 months. Nineteen trials included only participants with decompensated cirrhosis; in one trial, 30% had compensated cirrhosis. The included trials were conducted in Asia (15), Europe (four), and the USA (one). Not all trials provided data for our outcomes. All trials reported data allowing intention-to-treat analyses. The experimental intervention consisted of G-CSF alone or G-CSF plus any of the following: growth hormone, erythropoietin, N-acetyl cysteine, infusion of CD133-positive haemopoietic stem cells, or infusion of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells. The control group consisted of no intervention in 15 trials and placebo (normal saline) in five trials. Standard medical therapy (antivirals, alcohol abstinence, nutrition, diuretics, ß-blockers, selective intestinal decontamination, pentoxifylline, prednisolone, and other supportive measures depending on the clinical status and requirement) was administered equally to the trial groups. Very low-certainty evidence suggested a decrease in mortality with G-CSF, administered alone or in combination with any of the above, versus placebo (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.72; I2 = 75%; 1419 participants; 20 trials). Very low-certainty evidence suggested no difference in serious adverse events (G-CSF alone or in combination versus placebo: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.61; I2 = 66%; 315 participants; three trials). Eight trials, with 518 participants, reported no serious adverse events. Two trials, with 165 participants, used two components of the quality of life score for assessment, with ranges from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate better quality of life, with a mean increase from baseline of the physical component summary of 20.7 (95% CI 17.4 to 24.0; very low-certainty evidence) and a mean increase from baseline of the mental component summary of 27.8 (95% CI 12.3 to 43.3; very low-certainty evidence). G-CSF, alone or in combination, suggested a beneficial effect on the proportion of participants who developed one or more liver disease-related complications (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92; I2 = 62%; 195 participants; four trials; very low-certainty evidence). When we analysed the occurrences of single complications, there was no suggestion of a difference between G-CSF, alone or in combination, versus control, in participants in need of liver transplantation (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.85; 692 participants; five trials), in the development of hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.30; 520 participants; six trials), in the occurrence of variceal bleeding (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.23; 614 participants; eight trials), and in the development of encephalopathy (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.01; 605 participants; seven trials) (very low-certainty evidence). The same comparison suggested that G-CSF reduces the development of infections (including sepsis) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.84; 583 participants; eight trials) and does not improve liver function scores (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86; 319 participants; two trials) (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: G-CSF, alone or in combination, seems to decrease mortality in people with decompensated advanced chronic liver disease of whatever aetiology and with or without acute-on-chronic liver failure, but the certainty of evidence is very low because of high risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. The results of trials conducted in Asia and Europe were discrepant; this could not be explained by differences in participant selection, intervention, and outcome measurement. Data on serious adverse events and health-related quality of life were few and inconsistently reported. The evidence is also very uncertain regarding the occurrence of one or more liver disease-related complications. We lack high-quality, global randomised clinical trials assessing the effect of G-CSF on clinically relevant outcomes.

Bulevirtide monotherapy for 48 weeks in patients with HDV-related compensated cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Bulevirtide (BLV) has recently been conditionally approved for the treatment of chronic hepatitis delta (CHD) in Europe, but its effectiveness and safety in patients with compensated cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) are unknown. METHODS: Consecutive patients with HDV-related compensated cirrhosis and CSPH who started BLV 2 mg/day were enrolled in this single-center study. Clinical/virological characteristics were collected at baseline, weeks 4, 8 and every 8 weeks thereafter. HDV RNA was quantified by Robogene 2.0 (lower limit of detection 6 IU/ml). RESULTS: Eighteen Caucasian patients with compensated cirrhosis and CSPH under nucleos(t)ide analogue treatment were enrolled: median (IQR) age was 48 (29-77) years, and 67% were male. Median (IQR) platelet count was 70 (37-227) x103/µl, liver stiffness measurement (LSM) 16.4 (7.8-57.8) kPa, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) 106 (32-222) U/L, HBsAg 3.7 (2.5-4.3) log IU/ml, HDV RNA 4.9 (3.3-6.6) log IU/ml. During 48 weeks of BLV monotherapy, HDV RNA declined by 3.1 (0.2-4.3) log IU/ml (p <0.001 vs. baseline), becoming undetectable in 5 patients (23%). A virological response was observed in 14 (78%) patients while a non-response was observed in 2 (11%). ALT decreased to 35 (15-86) U/L (p <0.001 vs. baseline), normalizing in 83% of patients. A combined response was observed in 67% of patients. Aspartate aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyltransferase levels significantly improved. Concerning liver function parameters, albumin values significantly increased and bilirubin remained stable. LSM significantly improved in patients with virological response, while platelet count was unchanged. None of the patients developed decompensating events or hepatocellular carcinoma. BLV was well tolerated, no patient discontinued treatment and the increase in bile acids was fully asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: A 48-week course of BLV 2 mg/day monotherapy is safe and effective even for difficult-to treat patients with HDV-related compensated cirrhosis and CSPH. LAY SUMMARY: Hepatitis delta virus (HDV) is associated with the most severe form of viral hepatitis. A new treatment for HDV called bulevirtide has recently received conditional approval for patients with chronic HDV infection. However, its safety and effectiveness in patients with more advanced liver disease is not known. Herein, we show that it is safe and effective in patients with HDV-related cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension.

Reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy of pocket-sized ultrasound devices in ruling out compensated cirrhosis of mixed etiology.

OBJECTIVE: Fibrosis is the key prognostic factor in chronic liver disease patients. Liver surface nodularity (LSN) is the ultrasonographic sign with the highest accuracy to detect advanced liver fibrosis. The use of pocket-sized ultrasound devices (PUDs) has been assessed in several clinical settings but never as regards chronic liver disease (CLD) severity. Our study aimed at evaluating the feasibility, reproducibility, and diagnostic accuracy of PUD in LSN identification. METHODS: We enrolled all the consecutive adults referred for percutaneous liver biopsy. Two independent operators evaluated LSN by PUD; one sonographer used standard ultrasound (US). Transient elastography (TE) and liver biopsy were performed on all the patients. PUD reproducibility was evaluated by Cohen's k statistic. PUD, standard US, and TE results were compared with histology staging. RESULTS: A total of 104 consecutive patients (aged 54 ± 14 years) with mixed-etiology CLD were studied. Assessment by PUD was feasible in all the patients and showed very good inter-observer agreement with Cohen's k = 0.87 (95% CI 0.72-0.95). The diagnostic accuracy estimates for PUD in diagnosing compensated cirrhosis (F = 4) were 87.5% sensitivity, 76.8% specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR) 3.78, and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) 0.16, while those for standard US and TE (> 12.5 kPa) were, respectively, 87.5% sensitivity, 72.6% specificity, LR+ 3.2, and LR- 0.17, and 87.5% sensitivity, 90.5% specificity, LR + 9.2, and LR- 0.13. CONCLUSIONS: PUD reproducibility in assessing LSN was excellent even with operators of different experience. PUD performed very well in excluding advanced CLD. PUD can be used as a first-line tool for screening patients to undergo more invasive techniques, thus shortening the time for clinical decision-making. KEY POINTS: • PUD is highly reproducible in assessing the sign of liver surface nodularity. • PUD showed high diagnostic accuracy in excluding the presence of advanced chronic liver disease. • PUD can be used as a first-line tool for screening patients with CLD who should undergo more invasive techniques.

Magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease and ranks sixth in terms of global incidence of cancer, and third in terms of cancer deaths. In clinical practice, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used as a second-line diagnostic imaging modality to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma on prior diagnostic test such as abdominal ultrasound or alpha-fetoprotein, or both, either in surveillance programmes or in clinical settings. According to current guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging study (computed tomography (CT) or MRI) showing typical hallmarks of hepatocellular carcinoma in people with cirrhosis is considered valid to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. The detection of hepatocellular carcinoma amenable to surgical resection could improve the prognosis. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas do not show typical hallmarks on imaging modalities, and hepatocellular carcinoma may, therefore, be missed. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival: the conflicting results can be a consequence of inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of MRI in people with chronic liver disease who are not included in surveillance programmes is needed for either ruling out or diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease. Secondary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, and to identify potential sources of heterogeneity in the results. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test of Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to 9 November 2021. We manually searched articles retrieved, contacted experts, handsearched abstract books from meetings held during the last 10 years, and searched for literature in OpenGrey (9 November 2021). Further information was requested by e-mails, but no additional information was provided. No data was obtained through correspondence with investigators. We applied no language or document-type restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We presented the results of sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and we tabulated the results. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We double-checked all data extractions and analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies, with 4841 participants. We judged all studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain because most studies used different reference standards, often inappropriate to exclude the presence of the target condition, and the time interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. Regarding applicability, we judged 15% (5/34) of studies to be at low concern and 85% (29/34) of studies to be at high concern mostly owing to characteristics of the participants, most of whom were on waiting lists for orthotopic liver transplantation, and due to pathology of the explanted liver being the only reference standard. MRI for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 84.4% (95% CI 80.1% to 87.9%) and specificity 93.8% (95% CI 90.1% to 96.1%) (34 studies, 4841 participants; low-certainty evidence). MRI for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 84.3% (95% CI 77.6% to 89.3%) and specificity 92.9% (95% CI 88.3% to 95.9%) (16 studies, 2150 participants; low-certainty evidence). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains mostly unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, which included only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test, showed no variation in the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that using MRI as a second-line imaging modality to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 16% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 6% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would be unnecessarily treated. For resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 16% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would improperly not be resected, while 7% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo inappropriate surgery. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias in the included studies and concerns regarding their applicability limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease. Worldwide, it ranks sixth in terms of incidence of cancer, and fourth in terms of cancer-related deaths. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is used as an add-on test to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma after prior diagnostic tests such as abdominal ultrasound or measurement of alpha-foetoprotein, or both. According to guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging investigation, with either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), may show the typical hepatocellular carcinoma hallmarks in people with cirrhosis, which will be sufficient to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas show atypical imaging features, and therefore, are missed at imaging. Dynamic CEUS images are obtained similarly to CT and MRI images. CEUS differentiates between arterial and portal venous phases, in which sonographic hepatocellular carcinoma hallmarks, such as arterial hyperenhancement and subsequent washout appearance, are investigated. The advantages of CEUS over CT and MRI include real-time imaging, use of contrast agents that do not contain iodine and are not nephrotoxic, and quick image acquisition. Despite the advantages, the use of CEUS in the diagnostic algorithm for HCC remains controversial, with disagreement on relevant guidelines. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival as the conflicting results can be a consequence of an inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Therefore, assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma is needed for either diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma or ruling it out in people with chronic liver disease who are not included in surveillance programmes. OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease, in a surveillance programme or in a clinical setting. 2. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in people with chronic liver disease and identify potential sources of heterogeneity in the results. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The last date of search was 5 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver, and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods to screen studies, extract data, and assess the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We used the bivariate model and provided estimates of summary sensitivity and specificity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We presented uncertainty-of-the-accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies with 6546 participants. Studies were published between 2001 and 2021. We judged all 23 studies at high-risk of bias in at least one domain, and 13/23 studies at high concern for applicability. Most studies used different reference standards to exclude the presence of the target condition. The time interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. We also had major concerns on their applicability due to the characteristics of the participants. - CEUS for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 77.8% (95% CI 69.4% to 84.4%) and specificity 93.8% (95% CI 89.1% to 96.6%) (23 studies, 6546 participants; very low-certainty evidence). - CEUS for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 77.5% (95% CI 62.9% to 87.6%) and specificity 92.7% (95% CI 86.8% to 96.1%) (13 studies, 1257 participants; low-certainty evidence). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, including only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted with no knowledge of the results about the index test, showed no differences in the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that by using CEUS, as an add-on test following abdominal ultrasound, to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 22% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 6% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would unnecessarily undergo further testing or inappropriate treatment. As to resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 23% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would incorrectly be unresected, while 8% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo further inappropriate testing or treatment. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias of the included studies, heterogeneity, and imprecision of the results and concerns on their applicability limit our ability to draw confident conclusions.

Abdominal ultrasound and alpha-foetoprotein for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease and ranks sixth in terms of global instances of cancer, and fourth in terms of cancer deaths for men. Despite that abdominal ultrasound (US) is used as an initial test to exclude the presence of focal liver lesions and serum alpha-foetoprotein (AFP) measurement may raise suspicion of HCC occurrence, further testing to confirm diagnosis as well as staging of HCC is required. Current guidelines recommend surveillance programme using US, with or without AFP, to detect HCC in high-risk populations despite the lack of clear benefits on overall survival. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of US and AFP may clarify whether the absence of benefit in surveillance programmes could be related to under-diagnosis. Therefore, assessment of the accuracy of these two tests for diagnosing HCC in people with chronic liver disease, not included in surveillance programmes, is needed. OBJECTIVES: Primary: the diagnostic accuracy of US and AFP, alone or in combination, for the diagnosis of HCC of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease, either in a surveillance programme or in a clinical setting. Secondary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal US and AFP, alone or in combination, for the diagnosis of resectable HCC; to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the individual tests versus the combination of both tests; to investigate sources of heterogeneity in the results. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic-Test-Accuracy Studies Register, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, until 5 June 2020. We applied no language or document-type restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of US and AFP, independently or in combination, for the diagnosis of HCC in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional and case-control designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver, histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion, or typical characteristics on computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging, all with a six-months follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We presented the results of sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest-plots, and tabulated the results. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We double-checked all data extractions and analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 373 studies. The index-test was AFP (326 studies, 144,570 participants); US (39 studies, 18,792 participants); and a combination of AFP and US (eight studies, 5454 participants). We judged at high-risk of bias all but one study. Most studies used different reference standards, often inappropriate to exclude the presence of the target condition, and the time-interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. Most studies with AFP had a case-control design. We also had major concerns for the applicability due to the characteristics of the participants. As the primary studies with AFP used different cut-offs, we performed a meta-analysis using the hierarchical-summary-receiver-operating-characteristic model, then we carried out two meta-analyses including only studies reporting the most used cut-offs: around 20 ng/mL or 200 ng/mL. AFP cut-off 20 ng/mL: for HCC (147 studies) sensitivity 60% (95% CI 58% to 62%), specificity 84% (95% CI 82% to 86%); for resectable HCC (six studies) sensitivity 65% (95% CI 62% to 68%), specificity 80% (95% CI 59% to 91%). AFP cut-off 200 ng/mL: for HCC (56 studies) sensitivity 36% (95% CI 31% to 41%), specificity 99% (95% CI 98% to 99%); for resectable HCC (two studies) one with sensitivity 4% (95% CI 0% to 19%), specificity 100% (95% CI 96% to 100%), and one with sensitivity 8% (95% CI 3% to 18%), specificity 100% (95% CI 97% to 100%). US: for HCC (39 studies) sensitivity 72% (95% CI 63% to 79%), specificity 94% (95% CI 91% to 96%); for resectable HCC (seven studies) sensitivity 53% (95% CI 38% to 67%), specificity 96% (95% CI 94% to 97%). Combination of AFP (cut-off of 20 ng/mL) and US: for HCC (six studies) sensitivity 96% (95% CI 88% to 98%), specificity 85% (95% CI 73% to 93%); for resectable HCC (two studies) one with sensitivity 89% (95% CI 73% to 97%), specificity of 83% (95% CI 76% to 88%), and one with sensitivity 79% (95% CI 54% to 94%), specificity 87% (95% CI 79% to 94%). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains mostly unexplained, and only in part referable to different cut-offs or settings (surveillance programme compared to clinical series). The sensitivity analyses, excluding studies published as abstracts, or with case-control design, showed no variation in the results. We compared the accuracy obtained from studies with AFP (cut-off around 20 ng/mL) and US: a direct comparison in 11 studies (6674 participants) showed a higher sensitivity of US (81%, 95% CI 66% to 90%) versus AFP (64%, 95% CI 56% to 71%) with similar specificity: US 92% (95% CI 83% to 97%) versus AFP 89% (95% CI 79% to 94%). A direct comparison of six studies (5044 participants) showed a higher sensitivity (96%, 95% CI 88% to 98%) of the combination of AFP and US versus US (76%, 95% CI 56% to 89%) with similar specificity: AFP and US 85% (95% CI 73% to 92%) versus US 93% (95% CI 80% to 98%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In the clinical pathway for the diagnosis of HCC in adults, AFP and US, singularly or in combination, have the role of triage-tests. We found that using AFP, with 20 ng/mL as a cut-off, about 40% of HCC occurrences would be missed, and with US alone, more than a quarter. The combination of the two tests showed the highest sensitivity and less than 5% of HCC occurrences would be missed with about 15% of false-positive results. The uncertainty resulting from the poor study quality and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Computed tomography for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease and ranks sixth in terms of global incidence of cancer, and fourth in terms of cancer deaths. In clinical practice, computed tomography (CT) is used as a second-line diagnostic imaging modality to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma on prior diagnostic test such as abdominal ultrasound or alpha-foetoprotein, or both, either in surveillance programmes or in clinical settings. According to current guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging study CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showing typical hallmarks of hepatocellular carcinoma in people with cirrhosis is valid to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas do not show typical hallmarks on imaging modalities, and hepatocellular carcinoma is, therefore, missed. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival: the conflicting results can be a consequence of inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CT may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of CT in people with chronic liver disease, who are not included in surveillance programmes is needed for either ruling out or diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of multidetector, multiphasic contrast-enhanced CT for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease, either in a surveillance programme or in a clinical setting. Secondary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CT for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Trials Register, Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Diagnostic-Test-Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science until 4 May 2021. We applied no language or document-type restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CT for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We presented the results of sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and tabulated the results. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We double-checked all data extractions and analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies, with a total of 3101 participants. We judged all studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain because most studies used different reference standards, often inappropriate to exclude the presence of the target condition, and the time-interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. Regarding applicability in the patient selection domain, we judged 14% (3/21) of studies to be at low concern and 86% (18/21) of studies to be at high concern owing to characteristics of the participants who were on waiting lists for orthotopic liver transplantation. CT for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 77.5% (95% CI 70.9% to 82.9%) and specificity 91.3% (95% CI 86.5% to 94.5%) (21 studies, 3101 participants; low-certainty evidence). CT for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 71.4% (95% CI 60.3% to 80.4%) and specificity 92.0% (95% CI 86.3% to 95.5%) (10 studies, 1854 participants; low-certainty evidence). In the three studies at low concern for applicability (861 participants), we found sensitivity 76.9% (95% CI 50.8% to 91.5%) and specificity 89.2% (95% CI 57.0% to 98.1%). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains mostly unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, which included only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test, showed no variation in the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In the clinical pathway for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, CT has roles as a confirmatory test for hepatocellular carcinoma lesions, and for staging assessment. We found that using CT in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 22.5% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 8.7% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would be unnecessarily treated. For resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 28.6% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would improperly not be resected, while 8% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo inappropriate surgery. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias in the included studies and concerns regarding their applicability limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Liver damage and sickle cell disease: genotype relationship.

Sickle hepatopathy is a severe and not rare complication of sickle cell disease (SCD), showing mainly a cholestatic pattern. So far, no effective approaches to prevent or treat this condition have been recognized. We conducted a single-center observational study in 68 adult sickle cell patients, encompassing 17 with sickle cell anemia (SCA), 38 with sickle cell thalassemia (HbS/ß-Thal), and 13 with HbSC disease. The aim of our study was to assess liver damage in the three main forms of SCD, through the evaluation of clinical, laboratory, and imaging findings. In our population, the role of hepatotropic viruses, high BMI, and alcohol consumption in liver damage was ruled out. SCA and HbS/ß-Thal patients with lower Hb (p < 0.001), higher HbS (p < 0.001), and frequent vaso-occlusive crises showed functional (GGT values: SCA and HbS/ß-Thal vs HbSC p = 0.047 and p = 0.009, respectively) and structural liver abnormalities, defined by abdominal ultrasound and vibration-controlled transient elastography (liver stiffness values: SCA and HbS/ß-Thal vs HbSC p 0.022 and p 0.19, respectively), more severe than HbSC patients. Through univariate and multivariate analyses, male sex, SCA genotype, lower HbF, frequent transfusions, increased GGT values, and abnormal liver ultrasound and stiffness were identified as potentially early markers of sickle hepatopathy.

A novel spleen-dedicated stiffness measurement by FibroScan® improves the screening of high-risk oesophageal varices.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several non-invasive tests (NITs) have been developed to diagnose oesophageal varices (EV), including the recent Baveno VI criteria to rule out high-risk varices (HRV). Spleen stiffness measurement (SSM) with the standard FibroScan® (SSM@50Hz) has been evaluated. However, the EV grading could be underestimated because of a ceiling threshold (75 kPa) of the SSM@50Hz. The aims were to evaluate SSM by a novel spleen-dedicated FibroScan® (SSM@100Hz) for EV diagnosis compared with SSM@50Hz, other validated NITs and Baveno VI criteria. METHODS: This prospective multicentre study consecutively enrolled patients with chronic liver disease; blood data, endoscopy, liver stiffness measurement (LSM), SSM@50Hz and SSM@100Hz were collected. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty patients met inclusion criteria. SSM@100Hz success rate was significantly higher than that of SSM@50Hz (92.5% vs 76.0%, P < .001). SSM@100Hz accuracy for the presence of EV (AUC = 0.728) and HRV (AUC = 0.756) was higher than in other NITs. SSM@100Hz AUC for large EV (0.782) was higher than SSM@50Hz (0.720, P = .027). AUC for HRV with SSM@100Hz (0.780) was higher than with LSM (0.615, P < .001). The spared endoscopy rate of Baveno VI criteria (8.1%) was significantly increased by the combination to SSM@50Hz (26.5%) or SSM@100Hz (38.9%, P < .001 vs others). The missed HRV rate was, respectively, 0% and 4.7% for combinations. CONCLUSIONS: SSM@100Hz is a new performant non-invasive marker for EV and HRV providing a higher accuracy than SSM@50Hz and other NITs. The combination of Baveno VI criteria and SSM@100Hz significantly increased the spared endoscopy rate compared to Baveno VI criteria alone or combined with SSM@50Hz. Clinical trial number: NCT02180113.