Cirrhosis Diagnosis and Liver Fibrosis Staging: Transient Elastometry Versus Cirrhosis Blood Test.

INTRODUCTION: Elastometry is more accurate than blood tests for cirrhosis diagnosis. However, blood tests were developed for significant fibrosis, with the exception of CirrhoMeter developed for cirrhosis. We compared the performance of Fibroscan and CirrhoMeter, and classic binary cirrhosis diagnosis versus new fibrosis staging for cirrhosis diagnosis. METHODS: The diagnostic population included 679 patients with hepatitis C and liver biopsy (Metavir staging and morphometry), Fibroscan, and CirrhoMeter. The prognostic population included 1110 patients with chronic liver disease and both tests. RESULTS: Binary diagnosis: AUROCs for cirrhosis were: Fibroscan: 0.905; CirrhoMeter: 0.857; and P=0.041. Accuracy (Youden cutoff) was: Fibroscan: 85.4%; CirrhoMeter: 79.2%; and P<0.001. Fibrosis classification provided 6 classes (F0/1, F1/2, F2±1, F3±1, F3/4, and F4). Accuracy was: Fibroscan: 88.2%; CirrhoMeter: 88.8%; and P=0.77. A simplified fibrosis classification comprised 3 categories: discrete (F1±1), moderate (F2±1), and severe (F3/4) fibrosis. Using this simplified classification, CirrhoMeter predicted survival better than Fibroscan (respectively, χ=37.9 and 19.7 by log-rank test), but both predicted it well (P<0.001 by log-rank test). Comparison: binary diagnosis versus fibrosis classification, respectively, overall accuracy: CirrhoMeter: 79.2% versus 88.8% (P<0.001); Fibroscan: 85.4% versus 88.2% (P=0.127); positive predictive value for cirrhosis by Fibroscan: Youden cutoff (11.1 kPa): 49.1% versus cutoffs of F3/4 (17.6 kPa): 67.6% and F4 classes (25.7 kPa): 82.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Fibroscan\u27s usual binary cutoffs for cirrhosis diagnosis are not sufficiently accurate. Fibrosis classification should be preferred over binary diagnosis. A cirrhosis-specific blood test markedly attenuates the accuracy deficit for cirrhosis diagnosis of usual blood tests versus transient elastometry, and may offer better prognostication

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

The combination of a blood test and Fibroscan improves the non-invasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis

Background and aims: Blood tests and liver stiffness evaluation (LSE) by ultrasonographic elastometry are accurate tools for diagnosing liver fibrosis. We evaluated whether their synchronous combination in new scores could improve the diagnostic accuracy and reduce liver biopsy requirement in algorithm. Methods: Three hundred and ninety patients with chronic liver disease of miscellaneous causes were included. Five blood fibrosis tests were evaluated: APRI, FIB-4, Hepascore, Fibrotest and FibroMeter. The reference was fibrosis Metavir staging. Results: Diagnosis of significant fibrosis (Metavir F≥2). The most accurate synchronous combination was FibroMeter+LSE, which provided a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.892) than LSE alone (0.867, P=0.011) or Fibrometer (0.834, P<10−3). An algorithm using the FibroMeter+LSE combination and then a liver biopsy in indeterminate cases had 91.9% diagnostic accuracy and required significantly fewer biopsies (20.2%) than previously published Bordeaux algorithm (28.6%, P=0.02) or sequential algorithm for fibrosis evaluation (SAFE) (55.7%, P<10−3). The Angers algorithm performance was not significantly different between viral hepatitis and other causes. Diagnosis of cirrhosis. The most accurate synchronous combination was LSE+FibroMeter, which provided ≥90% predictive values for cirrhosis in 90.6% of patients vs 87.4% for LSE (P=0.02) and 57.9% for FibroMeter (P<10−3). An algorithm including the LSE+FibroMeter combination, and then a liver biopsy in indeterminate cases, had a significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than the SAFE algorithm (91.0 vs 79.8%, P<10−3), and required significantly fewer biopsies than the Bordeaux algorithm (9.3 vs 25.3%, P<10−3). Conclusion: The synchronous combination of a blood test plus LSE improves the accuracy of the non-invasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis and, consequently, markedly decreases the biopsy requirement in the diagnostic algorithm, notably to <10% in cirrhosis 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

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

Improved fibrosis staging by elastometry and blood test in chronic hepatitis C.

AIMS: Our main objective was to improve non-invasive fibrosis staging accuracy by resolving the limits of previous methods via new test combinations. Our secondary objectives were to improve staging precision, by developing a detailed fibrosis classification, and reliability (personalized accuracy) determination. METHODS: All patients (729) included in the derivation population had chronic hepatitis C, liver biopsy, 6 blood tests and Fibroscan. Validation populations included 1584 patients. RESULTS: The most accurate combination was provided by using most markers of FibroMeter and Fibroscan results targeted for significant fibrosis, i.e. \u27E-FibroMeter\u27. Its classification accuracy (91.7%) and precision (assessed by F difference with Metavir: 0.62 ± 0.57) were better than those of FibroMeter (84.1%, P < 0.001; 0.72 ± 0.57, P < 0.001), Fibroscan (88.2%, P = 0.011; 0.68 ± 0.57, P = 0.020), and a previous CSF-SF classification of FibroMeter + Fibroscan (86.7%, P < 0.001; 0.65 ± 0.57, P = 0.044). The accuracy for fibrosis absence (F0) was increased, e.g. from 16.0% with Fibroscan to 75.0% with E-FibroMeter (P < 0.001). Cirrhosis sensitivity was improved, e.g. E-FibroMeter: 92.7% vs. Fibroscan: 83.3%, P = 0.004. The combination improved reliability by deleting unreliable results (accuracy <50%) observed with a single test (1.2% of patients) and increasing optimal reliability (accuracy ≥85%) from 80.4% of patients with Fibroscan (accuracy: 90.9%) to 94.2% of patients with E-FibroMeter (accuracy: 92.9%), P < 0.001. The patient rate with 100% predictive values for cirrhosis by the best combination was twice (36.2%) that of the best single test (FibroMeter: 16.2%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The new test combination increased: accuracy, globally and especially in patients without fibrosis, staging precision, cirrhosis prediction, and even reliability, thus offering improved fibrosis staging

Practical diagnosis of cirrhosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease using currently available non-invasive fibrosis tests

Unlike for advanced liver fibrosis, the practical rules for the early non-invasive diagnosis of cirrhosis in NAFLD remain not well defined. Here, we report the derivation and validation of a stepwise diagnostic algorithm in 1568 patients with NAFLD and liver biopsy coming from four independent cohorts. The study algorithm, using first the elastography-based tests Agile3+ and Agile4 and then the specialized blood tests FibroMeterV3G and CirrhoMeterV3G, provides stratification in four groups, the last of which is enriched in cirrhosis (71% prevalence in the validation set). A risk prediction chart is also derived to allow estimation of the individual probability of cirrhosis. The predicted risk shows excellent calibration in the validation set, and mean difference with perfect prediction is only −2.9%. These tools improve the personalized non-invasive diagnosis of cirrhosis in NAFLD

Un diagnostic fiable de fibrose hépatique ou de cirrhose peut être fait avec un seul test sanguin et sans biopsie nécessaire

Date du colloque&nbsp;: 09/2008</p