Non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis with impulse elastography: comparison of Supersonic Shear Imaging with ARFI and FibroScan®.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis by elastography is a rapidly developing field with frequent technological innovations. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performances of Supersonic Shear Imaging (SSI) for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis in chronic liver disease. METHODS: A total of 349 consecutive patients with chronic liver diseases who underwent liver biopsy from November 2011 to October 2013 were prospectively enrolled. For each patient, liver stiffness was assessed by SSI, ARFI, FibroScan® (M probe for patients with BMI <30 kg/m(2), and XL probe for patients with BMI ⩾30 kg/m(2)), performed within two weeks of liver biopsy. Areas under the receiver operating curves (AUROCs) were performed and compared for each degree of liver fibrosis. RESULTS: SSI, FibroScan®, and ARFI correlated significantly with histological fibrosis score (r=0.79, p<0.00001; r=0.70, p<0.00001; r=0.64, p<0.00001, respectively). AUROCs of SSI, FibroScan®, and ARFI were 0.89, 0.86, and 0.84 for the diagnosis of mild fibrosis; 0.88, 0.84, and 0.81 for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis; 0.93, 0.87, and 0.89, for the diagnosis of severe fibrosis; 0.93, 0.90, and 0.90 for the diagnosis of cirrhosis, respectively. SSI had a higher accuracy than FibroScan® for the diagnosis of severe fibrosis (⩾F3) (p=0.0016), and a higher accuracy than ARFI for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis (⩾F2) (p=0.0003). No significant difference was observed for the diagnosis of mild fibrosis and cirrhosis. CONCLUSIONS: SSI is an efficient method for the assessment of liver fibrosis in chronic liver diseases, comparing favourably to FibroScan® and ARFI.

Non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis with transient elastography (FibroScan®): applying the cut-offs of M probe to XL probe.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY: Limited studies have aimed to define the cut-offs of XL probe (XL cut-offs) for different stages of liver fibrosis, whereas those of M probe (M cut-offs) may not be applicable to XL probe. We aimed to derive appropriate XL cut-offs in overweight patients. Patients with liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by both probes were recruited. XL cut-offs probe for corresponding M cut-offs were derived from an exploratory cohort, and subsequently validated in a subgroup patients also underwent liver biopsy. The diagnostic accuracy of XL cut-offs to diagnose advanced fibrosis was evaluated. RESULTS: Total 517 patients (63% male, mean age 58) who had reliable LSM by both probes were included in the exploratory cohort. There was a strong correlation between the LSM by M probe (LSM-M) and LSM by XL probe (LSM-XL) (r² = 0.89, p < 0.001). A decision tree using LSM-XL was learnt to predict the 3 categories of LSM-M (< 6.0kPa, 6.0-11.9kPa and ≥ 12.0kPa), and XL cut-offs at 4.8kPa and 10.7kPa were identified. These cut-offs were subsequently validated in a cohort of 147 patients who underwent liver biopsy. The overall accuracy was 89% among 62 patients whose LSM-XL < 4.8kPa or ≥ 10.7kPa. These cut-offs would have avoided under-staging of fibrosis among patients with body mass index (BMI) > 25-30 kg/m2 but not > 30 kg/m2. CONCLUSIONS: XL cut-offs at 4.8kPa and 10.7kPa were the best estimates of 6.0kPa and 12.0kPa of M probe for patients with BMI > 25-30 kg/m2. Patients with BMI > 30 kg/m² might use M probe cut-offs for XL probe.

Liver fibrosis: noninvasive assessment with acoustic radiation force impulse elastography--comparison with FibroScan M and XL probes and FibroTest in patients with chronic liver disease.

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography with that of FibroScan M and XL probes and FibroTest in the staging of fibrosis in patients with chronic liver disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study received ethics approval, and all participants provided written informed consent. A total of 321 consecutive patients with chronic liver disease who underwent liver biopsy were prospectively enrolled from April 2010 to May 2012. Liver disease was caused by viral hepatitis (n = 136), alcoholic or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis disorders (n = 113), or some other disease (n = 72). In each patient, liver stiffness was evaluated with ARFI elastography, M and XL probes, and FibroTest within 1 month before liver biopsy. Histologic staging of liver fibrosis served as the reference standard. RESULTS: Liver stiffness measurement failure rates were 11.2% with the M probe (36 of 321 patients), 2.3% with the XL probe (six of 260 patients), and 0% with ARFI elastography (0 of 321 patients). Unreliable results with ARFI elastography were more frequent in obese patients (those with a body mass index of 30 kg/m(2) or more) (42 of 86 patients [48.8%] vs 34 of 235 patients [14.5%], P < .0001). No significant difference was found between ARFI elastography and the M probe in the diagnosis of cirrhosis (area under under the receiver operating characteristic curve [Az], 0.88 vs 0.91; P = .12) or severe fibrosis (Az, 0.85 vs 0.89; P = .15); however, the M probe demonstrated better results in the diagnosis of moderate fibrosis (Az, 0.81 vs 0.88; P = .008). No significant difference was found between ARFI elastography and the XL probe in the diagnosis of moderate fibrosis, severe fibrosis, or cirrhosis. The diagnostic performance of ARFI elastography improved when it was applied in nonobese patients (Az of ARFI for cirrhosis and severe fibrosis = 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, in nonobese patients [P = .0002] and 0.63 and 0.63, respectively, in obese patients [P < .0001]). CONCLUSION: ARFI elastography is reliable in the assessment of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic liver disease, especially nonobese patients.

Longitudinal liver stiffness assessment in patients with chronic hepatitis C undergoing antiviral therapy.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Liver stiffness (LS) measurement by means of transient elastography (TE) is accurate to predict fibrosis stage. The effect of antiviral treatment and virologic response on LS was assessed and compared with untreated patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC). METHODS: TE was performed at baseline, and at weeks 24, 48, and 72 in 515 patients with CHC. RESULTS: 323 treated (62.7%) and 192 untreated patients (37.3%) were assessed. LS experienced a significant decline in treated patients and remained stable in untreated patients at the end of study (P<0.0001). The decline was significant for patients with baseline LS ≥ 7.1 kPa (P<0.0001 and P 0.03, for LS ≥ 9.5 and ≥ 7.1 kPa vs lower values, respectively). Sustained virological responders and relapsers had a significant LS improvement whereas a trend was observed in nonresponders (mean percent change -16%, -10% and -2%, for SVR, RR and NR, respectively, P 0.03 for SVR vs NR). In multivariate analysis, high baseline LS (P<0.0001) and ALT levels, antiviral therapy and non-1 genotype were independent predictors of LS improvement. CONCLUSIONS: LS decreases during and after antiviral treatment in patients with CHC. The decrease is significant in sustained responders and relapsers (particularly in those with high baseline LS) and suggests an improvement in liver damage.

Prospective comparison of transient elastography, Fibrotest, APRI, and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Transient elastography (FibroScan; Echosens, Paris, France) is a novel, noninvasive, and rapid bedside method to assess liver fibrosis by measuring liver stiffness. We prospectively assessed the performance of FibroScan in patients with chronic hepatitis C, in comparison with and combined with currently available biochemical markers (Fibrotest; Biopredictive; and the aspartate transaminase to platelets ratio index [APRI]); a liver biopsy examination performed the same day served as the reference. METHODS: We studied 183 consecutive patients with chronic hepatitis C (METAVIR fibrosis stage F1, n = 47; F2, n = 53; F3, n = 37; F4, n = 46). RESULTS: FibroScan values ranged from 2.4 to 75.4 kilopascals (median, 7.4 kilopascals). Cut-off values were 7.1 kPa for F > or = 2, 9.5 kPa for F > or = 3, and 12.5 kPa for F = 4. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of FibroScan, FibroTest, and APRI values were of the same order (.83, .85, and .78, respectively, for F > or = 2; .90, .90, and .84, respectively, for F > or = 3; and .95, .87, and .83, respectively, for F = 4). The best performance was obtained by combining the FibroScan and FibroTest, with areas under the ROC curve of .88 for F > or = 2, .95 for F > or = 3, and .95 for F = 4. When the FibroScan and FibroTest results agreed, liver biopsy examination confirmed them in 84% of cases for F > or = 2, in 95% for F > or = 3, and in 94% for F = 4. CONCLUSIONS: FibroScan is a simple and effective method for assessing liver fibrosis, with similar performance to FibroTest and APRI. The combined use of FibroScan and FibroTest to evaluate liver fibrosis could avoid a biopsy procedure in most patients with chronic hepatitis C.