Two-dimensional shear wave elastography and ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter for progressive non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
13
01
2021
accepted:
19
03
2021
entrez:
7
4
2021
pubmed:
8
4
2021
medline:
18
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We investigated the usefulness of combining two-dimensional shear wave elastography and the ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter for assessing the risk of progressive non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, defined as non-alcoholic steatohepatitis with a non-alcoholic fatty liver disease activity score of ≥4 and a fibrosis stage of ≥2. This prospective study included 202 patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease who underwent two-dimensional shear wave elastography, ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter, vibration-controlled transient elastography, the controlled attenuation parameter, and liver biopsy on the same day. Patients were grouped according to liver stiffness measurement using two-dimensional shear wave elastography and the attenuation coefficient, assessed using the ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter: A, low liver stiffness measurement/low attenuation coefficient; B, low liver stiffness measurement/high attenuation coefficient; C, high liver stiffness measurement/low attenuation coefficient; and D, high liver stiffness measurement/high attenuation coefficient. Two-dimensional shear wave elastography and vibration-controlled transient elastography had equivalent diagnostic performance for fibrosis. The areas under the curve of the ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter for identifying steatosis grades ≥S1, ≥S2, and S3 were 0.89, 0.91, and 0.92, respectively, which were significantly better than those of the controlled attenuation parameter (P<0.05). The percentages of progressive non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in Groups A, B, C, and D were 0.0%, 7.7%, 35.7%, and 50.0%, respectively (P<0.001). The prediction model was established as logit (p) = 0.5414 × liver stiffness measurement (kPa) + 7.791 × attenuation coefficient (dB/cm/MHz)-8.401, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, and specificity values of 0.832, 80.9%, and 74.6%, respectively; there was no significant difference from the FibroScan-aspartate aminotransferase score. Combined assessment by two-dimensional shear wave elastography and the ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter is useful for risk stratification of progressive non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and may be convenient for evaluating the necessity of specialist referral and liver biopsy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
We investigated the usefulness of combining two-dimensional shear wave elastography and the ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter for assessing the risk of progressive non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, defined as non-alcoholic steatohepatitis with a non-alcoholic fatty liver disease activity score of ≥4 and a fibrosis stage of ≥2.
METHODS
This prospective study included 202 patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease who underwent two-dimensional shear wave elastography, ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter, vibration-controlled transient elastography, the controlled attenuation parameter, and liver biopsy on the same day. Patients were grouped according to liver stiffness measurement using two-dimensional shear wave elastography and the attenuation coefficient, assessed using the ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter: A, low liver stiffness measurement/low attenuation coefficient; B, low liver stiffness measurement/high attenuation coefficient; C, high liver stiffness measurement/low attenuation coefficient; and D, high liver stiffness measurement/high attenuation coefficient.
RESULTS
Two-dimensional shear wave elastography and vibration-controlled transient elastography had equivalent diagnostic performance for fibrosis. The areas under the curve of the ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter for identifying steatosis grades ≥S1, ≥S2, and S3 were 0.89, 0.91, and 0.92, respectively, which were significantly better than those of the controlled attenuation parameter (P<0.05). The percentages of progressive non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in Groups A, B, C, and D were 0.0%, 7.7%, 35.7%, and 50.0%, respectively (P<0.001). The prediction model was established as logit (p) = 0.5414 × liver stiffness measurement (kPa) + 7.791 × attenuation coefficient (dB/cm/MHz)-8.401, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, and specificity values of 0.832, 80.9%, and 74.6%, respectively; there was no significant difference from the FibroScan-aspartate aminotransferase score.
CONCLUSION
Combined assessment by two-dimensional shear wave elastography and the ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter is useful for risk stratification of progressive non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and may be convenient for evaluating the necessity of specialist referral and liver biopsy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33826669
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249493
pii: PONE-D-21-01341
pmc: PMC8026049
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0249493Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have read the journal’s policy, and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: T.O., S.N. and N.K. are paid employees of GE Healthcare Japan. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. There are no products in development or marketing products to declare.
Références
Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken). 2019 Apr 30;13(4):114-116
pubmed: 31061705
Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 May;111(5):671-6
pubmed: 26925881
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Jan;214(1):W20-W26
pubmed: 31714842
Ultraschall Med. 2017 Aug;38(4):e16-e47
pubmed: 28407655
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Sep;29(9):1022-1030
pubmed: 28570343
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015 May;41(5):1161-79
pubmed: 25800942
J Hepatol. 2017 May;66(5):1022-1030
pubmed: 28039099
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jan 14;20(2):475-85
pubmed: 24574716
Hepatology. 2000 Apr;31(4):864-71
pubmed: 10733541
J Atheroscler Thromb. 2018 Sep 1;25(9):846-984
pubmed: 30135334
Gastroenterology. 2014 Oct;147(4):754-64
pubmed: 25109884
Ultrason Imaging. 1990 Jan;12(1):58-70
pubmed: 2184569
Hepatol Res. 2020 Jul;50(7):831-839
pubmed: 32337818
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29(7):1470-6
pubmed: 24548002
Clin Liver Dis. 2016 May;20(2):205-14
pubmed: 27063264
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Gastroenterology. 2003 Jan;124(1):91-6
pubmed: 12512033
J Hepatol. 2019 Mar;70(3):531-544
pubmed: 30414863
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jun;16(6):377-386
pubmed: 31024089
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Apr;31(4):848-55
pubmed: 26514665
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018 Nov;44(11):2223-2232
pubmed: 30077415
J Hepatol. 2019 Jan;70(1):151-171
pubmed: 30266282
Hepatology. 2014 Dec;60(6):1920-8
pubmed: 25103310
Hepatology. 2017 Nov;66(5):1486-1501
pubmed: 28586172
J Hepatol. 2016 Jun;64(6):1388-402
pubmed: 27062661
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jul;3(7):509-517
pubmed: 29893235
Hepatology. 2018 Jan;67(1):328-357
pubmed: 28714183
J Biomed Inform. 2014 Apr;48:193-204
pubmed: 24582925
World J Gastroenterol. 2019 Mar 21;25(11):1307-1326
pubmed: 30918425
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Apr;5(4):362-373
pubmed: 32027858
Hepatology. 2014 Aug;60(2):565-75
pubmed: 24753132
Clin Diabetes. 2019 Jan;37(1):11-34
pubmed: 30705493
Gastroenterology. 2019 Apr;156(5):1264-1281.e4
pubmed: 30660725
Gastroenterology. 2017 Feb;152(3):598-607.e2
pubmed: 27911262
Hypertens Res. 2019 Sep;42(9):1235-1481
pubmed: 31375757
Dig Dis Sci. 2016 May;61(5):1356-64
pubmed: 27017224
Semin Liver Dis. 2012 Feb;32(1):3-13
pubmed: 22418883