Comparative evaluation of GPR versus APRI and FIB-4 in predicting different levels of liver fibrosis of chronic hepatitis B.

It is of great significance to develop and evaluate noninvasive indexes predicting the level of liver fibrosis. The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-platelet ratio (GPR) versus aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) and fibrosis index based on 4 factors (FIB-4) in predicting different levels of liver fibrosis of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) within the framework of HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. A total of 1157 HBeAg-positive and 859 HBeAg-negative CHB patients were enrolled, among whom the pathological stage ≥S2, ≥S3, ≥S4 were defined as significant fibrosis, extensive fibrosis and cirrhosis, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the performance of GPR, APRI and FIB-4 in predicting different levels of liver fibrosis. In HBeAg-positive patients, the area under ROC curves (AUROCs) of GPR in predicting extensive fibrosis and cirrhosis were both significantly larger than those of APRI (P = .0001 and P < .0001). In HBeAg-negative patients, the AUROCs of GPR in predicting significant fibrosis and cirrhosis were significantly larger than those of FIB-4 (P = .0006 and P = .0041). The AUROC of GPR in predicting extensive fibrosis was significantly larger than that of APRI and FIB-4 (P = .0320 and P = .0018). Using a cut-off of GPR > 0.500 as standard, the sensitivities and specificities of GPR in predicting significant fibrosis in HBeAg-positive patients were 59.6% and 81.2%, and for cirrhosis 80.9% and 63.8%, respectively; and those of HBeAg-negative patients were 60.3% and 78.3%, 84.5% and 66.1%, respectively. Regardless of HBeAg-positive or HBeAg-negative status, GPR had the best performance in predicting different levels of liver fibrosis.

Assessment of liver fibrosis with liver and spleen magnetic resonance elastography, serum markers in chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: The accurate assessment of liver fibrosis is essential for patients with chronic liver disease. A liver biopsy is an invasive procedure that has many potential defects and complications. Therefore, noninvasive assessment techniques are of considerable value for clinical diagnosis. Liver and spleen magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and serum markers have been proposed for quantitative and noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis. This study aims to compare the diagnostic performance of liver and spleen stiffness measured by MRE, fibrosis index based on the 4 factors (FIB-4), aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI), and their combined models for staging hepatic fibrosis. METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients with chronic liver disease underwent MRE scans. Liver and spleen stiffness were measured by the MRE stiffness maps. Serum markers were collected to calculate FIB-4 and APRI. Liver biopsies were used to identify pathologic grading. Spearman's rank correlation analysis evaluated the correlation between the parameters and fibrosis stages. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis evaluated the performance of the four individual parameters, a liver and spleen stiffness combined model, and an all-parameters combined model in assessing liver fibrosis. RESULTS: Liver stiffness, spleen stiffness, FIB-4, and APRI were all correlated with fibrosis stage (r=0.87, 0.64, 0.65, and 0.51, respectively, all P<0.001). Among the 4 individual diagnostic markers, liver stiffness showed the highest values in staging F1-4, F2-4, F3-4 and F4 (AUC =0.89, 0. 97, 0.95, and 0.95, all P<0.001). The AUCs of the liver and spleen stiffness combined model in the F1-4, F2-4, F3-4, and F4 staging groups were 0.89, 0.97, 0.95, and 0.96, respectively (all P<0.001). The corresponding AUCs of the all-parameters combined model were 0.90, 0.97, 0.95, and 0.96 (all P<0.001). The AUCs of the liver and spleen stiffness combined model were significantly higher than those of APRI, FIB-4 in the F2-4, F3-4, and F4 staging groups (all P<0.05). Both combined models were not significantly different from liver stiffness in staging liver fibrosis (all P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Liver stiffness measured with MRE had better diagnostic performance than spleen stiffness, APRI, and FIB-4 for fibrosis staging. The combined models did not significantly improve the diagnostic value compared with liver stiffness in staging fibrosis.