Simple blood fibrosis tests reduce unnecessary referrals for specialized evaluations of liver fibrosis in NAFLD and ALD patients

BACKGROUND: Liver fibrosis evaluation is mandatory in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and alcoholic liver disease (ALD) to decide the patient management. Patients with these diseases are usually under the care of non-liver specialists who refer them to specialized centers where the most accurate fibrosis tests are available. We aimed to evaluate whether simple blood fibrosis tests available to all physicians help to reduce the rate of unnecessary referral of NAFLD and ALD patients without advanced fibrosis. METHODS: NAFLD and/or ALD patients newly referred to our center for a non-invasive evaluation of liver fibrosis were retrospectively included. The FibroMeter (FM, combination of blood markers and Fibroscan results) was defined as the reference test for specialized evaluation of liver fibrosis. A FM result <0.384 indicated the absence of advanced fibrosis and thus an "unnecessary referral". RESULTS: 558 patients were included (NAFLD: 283, ALD: 156, mixed NAFLD+ALD: 119). FM was <0.384 (unnecessary referral) in 58.8% of patients. FIB4 was <1.30 in 45.2% and eLIFT <8 in 47.7% of the patients. 84.9% of patients with FIB4 <1.30 and 85.3% of patients with eLIFT <8 had also FM <0.384. Therefore, using FIB4 or eLIFT as first-line evaluation of liver fibrosis decreased by three-fold the rate of unnecessary referral. The negative predictive value of FIB4 and eLIFT was >80% whatever the underlying cause of chronic liver disease. CONCLUSION: The use of eLIFT by non-liver specialists for NAFLD and ALD patients can improve the relevance of referrals for specialized evaluation of liver fibrosis

Combination of blood tests for significant fibrosis and cirrhosis improves the assessment of liver-prognosis in chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND: Recent longitudinal studies have emphasised the prognostic value of noninvasive tests of liver fibrosis and cross-sectional studies have shown their combination significantly improves diagnostic accuracy. AIM: To compare the prognostic accuracy of six blood fibrosis tests and liver biopsy, and evaluate if test combination improves the liver-prognosis assessment in chronic hepatitis C (CHC). METHODS: A total of 373 patients with compensated CHC, liver biopsy (Metavir F) and blood tests targeting fibrosis (APRI, FIB4, Fibrotest, Hepascore, FibroMeter) or cirrhosis (CirrhoMeter) were included. Significant liver-related events (SLRE) and liver-related deaths were recorded during follow-up (started the day of biopsy). RESULTS: During the median follow-up of 9.5 years (3508 person-years), 47 patients had a SLRE and 23 patients died from liver-related causes. For the prediction of first SLRE, most blood tests allowed higher prognostication than Metavir F [Harrell C-index: 0.811 (95% CI: 0.751-0.868)] with a significant increase for FIB4: 0.879 [0.832-0.919] (P = 0.002), FibroMeter: 0.870 [0.812-0.922] (P = 0.005) and APRI: 0.861 [0.813-0.902] (P = 0.039). Multivariate analysis identified FibroMeter, CirrhoMeter and sustained viral response as independent predictors of first SLRE. CirrhoMeter was the only independent predictor of liver-related death. The combination of FibroMeter and CirrhoMeter classifications into a new FM/CM classification improved the liver-prognosis assessment compared to Metavir F staging or single tests by identifying five subgroups of patients with significantly different prognoses. CONCLUSIONS: Some blood fibrosis tests are more accurate than liver biopsy for determining liver prognosis in CHC. A new combination of two complementary blood tests, one targeted for fibrosis and the other for cirrhosis, optimises assessment of liver-prognosis

Acoustic radiation force impulse: a new ultrasonographic technology for the widespread noninvasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis:

Background/aims: As a module of a standard ultrasound imaging device, acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) is a new technology for liver stiffness evaluation (LSE). We aimed to evaluate accuracy, feasibility, reproducibility, and training effect of ARFI for liver fibrosis evaluation.Methods: One hundred and one patients with chronic liver disease had LSE by Fibroscan and ARFI. LSE by ARFI was performed in the two liver lobes by two operators: an expert and a novice. Correlation and agreement were evaluated by the Pearson (Rp) and intraclass (Ric) correlation coefficients. The independent reference for liver fibrosis was fibrosis blood tests. Results: ARFI results, ranging from 0.7 to 4.6 m/s, were well correlated with Fibroscan results (Rp=0.76). Fibroscan had a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) than ARFI for the perprotocol diagnosis of significant fibrosis: 0.890±0.034 versus 0.795±0.047 (P=0.04). However, LSE failure occurred in zero patients using ARFI versus six patients using Fibroscan (P=0.03). Thus, on an intention-to-diagnose basis, Fibroscan and ARFI AUROCs for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis were not different: 0.791±0.049 versus 0.793±0.046 (P=0.98). Interobserver agreement was very good (Ric=0.84) and excellent for ARFI interquartile range (IQR)≤0.30 (Ric=0.91). Indeed, agreement was independently predicted only by ARFI IQR, but not by LSE result as earlier observed for Fibroscan. ARFI AUROC was 0.876±0.057 in patients with ARFI IQR ratio≤0.30, and Fibroscan AUROC was 0.912±0.034 in patients with Fibroscan IQR ratio less than 0.21 (P=0.59). Intersite ARFI agreement between the two liver lobes was fair (Ric=0.60). There was no training effect for LSE by ARFI. Conclusion: ARFI is highly feasible and reproducible, and provides diagnostic accuracy similar to Fibroscan. This new device seems noteworthy for the widespread noninvasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis

Radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: Mono or multipolar?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Thermo-ablation by radiofrequency is recognized as a curative treatment for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. However, local recurrence may occur because of incomplete peripheral tumor destruction. Multipolar radiofrequency has been developed to increase the size of the maximal ablation zone. We aimed to compare the efficacy of monopolar and multipolar radiofrequency for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and determine factors predicting failure. METHODS: A total of 171 consecutive patients with 214 hepatocellular carcinomas were retrospectively included. One hundred fifty-eight tumors were treated with an expandable monopolar electrode and 56 with a multipolar technique using several linear bipolar electrodes. Imaging studies at 6 weeks after treatment, then every 3 months, assessed local effectiveness. Radiofrequency failure was defined as persistent residual tumor after two sessions (primary radiofrequency failure) or local tumor recurrence during follow-up. This study received institutional review board approval (number 2014/77). RESULTS: Imaging showed complete tumor ablation in 207 of 214 lesions after the first session of radiofrequency. After a second session, only two cases of residual viable tumor were observed. During follow-up, there were 46 local tumor recurrences. Thus, radiofrequency failure occurred in 48/214 (22.4%) cases. By multivariate analysis, technique (P < 0.001) and tumor size (P = 0.023) were independent predictors of radiofrequency failure. Failure rate was lower with the multipolar technique for tumors < 25 mm (P = 0.023) and for tumors between 25 and 45 mm (P = 0.082). There was no difference for tumors ≥ 45 mm (P = 0.552). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to monopolar radiofrequency, multipolar radiofrequency improves tumor ablation with a subsequent lower rate of local tumor recurrence

Liver fibrosis diagnosis by blood test and elastography in chronic hepatitis C: agreement or combination?

BACKGROUND: In chronic hepatitis C, the European Association for the Study of the Liver and the Asociacion Latinoamericana para el Estudio del Higado recommend performing transient elastography plus a blood test to diagnose significant fibrosis; test concordance confirms the diagnosis. AIM: To validate this rule and improve it by combining a blood test, FibroMeter (virus second generation, Echosens, Paris, France) and transient elastography (constitutive tests) into a single combined test, as suggested by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. METHODS: A total of 1199 patients were included in an exploratory set (HCV, n = 679) or in two validation sets (HCV ± HIV, HBV, n = 520). Accuracy was mainly evaluated by correct diagnosis rate for severe fibrosis (pathological Metavir F ≥ 3, primary outcome) by classical test scores or a fibrosis classification, reflecting Metavir staging, as a function of test concordance. RESULTS: Score accuracy: there were no significant differences between the blood test (75.7%), elastography (79.1%) and the combined test (79.4%) (P = 0.066); the score accuracy of each test was significantly (P < 0.001) decreased in discordant vs. concordant tests. Classification accuracy: combined test accuracy (91.7%) was significantly (P < 0.001) increased vs. the blood test (84.1%) and elastography (88.2%); accuracy of each constitutive test was significantly (P < 0.001) decreased in discordant vs. concordant tests but not with combined test: 89.0 vs. 92.7% (P = 0.118). Multivariate analysis for accuracy showed an interaction between concordance and fibrosis level: in the 1% of patients with full classification discordance and severe fibrosis, non-invasive tests were unreliable. The advantage of combined test classification was confirmed in the validation sets. CONCLUSIONS: The concordance recommendation is validated. A combined test, expressed in classification instead of score, improves this rule and validates the recommendation of a combined test, avoiding 99% of biopsies, and offering precise staging

Determination of reliability criteria for liver stiffness evaluation by transient elastography

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)

Comparison of eight diagnostic algorithms for liver fibrosis in hepatitis C: new algorithms are more precise and entirely noninvasive

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

Liver Stiffness Measurement With FibroScan: Use the Right Probe in the Right Conditions!

INTRODUCTION: FibroScan\u27s M and XL probes give significantly different results, which could lead to misevaluation of liver fibrosis if the correct probe is not chosen. According to the manufacturer, the M probe should be used when the skin-liver capsule distance (SCD) is <25 mm, and the XL probe should be used when SCD is ≥25 mm. We aimed at validating this recommendation and defining the conditions of use for FibroScan probes in clinical practice. METHODS: Four hundred thirty-nine patients with biopsy-proven chronic liver disease were included. Of them, 382 had successful examinations with both M and XL probes. Advanced fibrosis was defined as Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network (NASH CRN) F ≥3 or Metavir F ≥2. RESULTS: In a same patient, XL probe results were significantly lower than M probe results: 7.9 (5.6-11.7) vs 9.5 (6.7-14.6) kPa, respectively (P < 0.001). After matching for age, sex, liver fibrosis, and serum transaminases, M probe results in patients with SCD <25 mm and XL probe results in those with SCD ≥25 mm did not significantly differ: 8.8 (6.0-12.0) vs 9.1 (6.7-12.8) kPa, respectively (P = 0.175). Of note, 81.4% of patients with body mass index (BMI) <32 kg/m had SCD <25 mm, and 77.7% of patients with BMI ≥32 kg/m had SCD ≥25 mm. A practical algorithm using BMI first and then the FibroScan Automatic Probe Selection tool was proposed to help physicians accurately choose which probe to use in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant difference in results between M and XL probes when they are used in the right conditions. In clinical practice, the probe should be selected according to the BMI and the Automatic Probe Selection tool

Reproducibility of Liver Stiffness Measurement by Ultrasonographic Elastometry

Background & AimsFibroscan is a noninvasive device that assesses liver fibrosis by liver stiffness evaluation (LSE) with ultrasonographic elastometry. We evaluated LSE reproducibility and its influencing factors. Methods LSE was performed by 4 experienced physicians (>100 LSEs) in 46 patients with chronic liver disease at 4 different anatomic sites. Additional LSEs were performed for ancillary aims, so that 534 LSEs were available. Results Overall interobserver agreement for LSE results was considered as excellent, with intraclass coefficient correlation (Ric) of 0.93. Low LSE level, nonrecommended sites, LSE interquartile range > 25%, and body mass index ≥25 independently decreased agreement. Thus, agreement was fair (Ric = 0.53) for LSE < 9 kilopascals and excellent (Ric = 0.90) beyond. The best measurement site for LSE reproducibility was the median axillary line on the first intercostal space under the liver dullness upper limit, with the patient lying in dorsal decubitus. When LSE results were categorized into fibrosis Metavir stages, interobserver discordance was noticed in about 25% of the cases and was the highest for F2 and F3 stages and the lowest for F4. Intraobserver (Ric = 0.94), intersite (Ric = 0.92–0.98), and interequipment (Ric = 0.92) agreements for LSE results were excellent. Preliminary standard ultrasonography or probe pressure changes did not improve interobserver agreement. Conclusions The best measurement site for LSE is the one generally used for liver biopsy. Reproducibility of LSE is globally excellent but is fair in patient with low liver stiffness. The fibrosis diagnosis by ultrasonographic elastometry in low stages or categorized into fibrosis Metavir stages must be interpreted with caution