Noninvasive Diagnostic Methods for the Assessment of Hepatic Fibrosis in Liver Transplant Recipients.
Journal
Transplantation proceedings
ISSN: 1873-2623
Titre abrégé: Transplant Proc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0243532
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2022
May 2022
Historique:
received:
12
02
2022
accepted:
18
02
2022
pubmed:
7
6
2022
medline:
17
8
2022
entrez:
6
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Hepatic fibrosis in liver transplant recipients is the main predictive factor for graft function. Diagnostic methods for hepatic fibrosis staging should be available, reproducible, and noninvasive, if possible. We aimed to compare diagnostic methods for the assessment of hepatic fibrosis in transplant recipients: liver biopsy as a reference method, dynamic elastography, and direct and indirect blood markers (the ELF test [Enhanced Liver Fibrosis] test and the FibroTest). We sought to set a cutoff value for each method in order to assess significant liver fibrosis (F ≥2). The study involved 62 patients after liver transplantation. Fibrosis was assessed in biopsy specimens using the METAVIR Score System (F0-F4). To identify clinically significant cutoff values of hepatic fibrosis (F ≥2, F ≥3, F = 4) for each method compared, a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used. Area under ROC for the prediction of significant fibrosis (F ≥2), advanced fibrosis (F ≥3), and cirrhosis (F = 4) for the study group was 0.5938, 0.8952, and 0.9583 for dynamic elastography; 0.7295, 0.7072, and 0.8409 for the ELF test; and 0.4863, 0.8049, and 0.8723 for the FibroTest. The cutoff value for F ≥2 for dynamic elastography was 4.65 kPa; for the ELF test, 9.27; and for the FibroTest, 0.72. The sensitivity and specificity of the tests studied, as compared with biopsy results, increase with increasing severity of hepatic fibrosis. The noninvasive diagnostic methods are of limited value in the diagnosis of early fibrosis stages. In the diagnostic assessment of hepatic fibrosis in its advanced stages, dynamic elastography can be used in conjunction with ELF test as a noninvasive alternative to liver biopsy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hepatic fibrosis in liver transplant recipients is the main predictive factor for graft function. Diagnostic methods for hepatic fibrosis staging should be available, reproducible, and noninvasive, if possible. We aimed to compare diagnostic methods for the assessment of hepatic fibrosis in transplant recipients: liver biopsy as a reference method, dynamic elastography, and direct and indirect blood markers (the ELF test [Enhanced Liver Fibrosis] test and the FibroTest). We sought to set a cutoff value for each method in order to assess significant liver fibrosis (F ≥2).
METHODS
METHODS
The study involved 62 patients after liver transplantation. Fibrosis was assessed in biopsy specimens using the METAVIR Score System (F0-F4). To identify clinically significant cutoff values of hepatic fibrosis (F ≥2, F ≥3, F = 4) for each method compared, a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Area under ROC for the prediction of significant fibrosis (F ≥2), advanced fibrosis (F ≥3), and cirrhosis (F = 4) for the study group was 0.5938, 0.8952, and 0.9583 for dynamic elastography; 0.7295, 0.7072, and 0.8409 for the ELF test; and 0.4863, 0.8049, and 0.8723 for the FibroTest. The cutoff value for F ≥2 for dynamic elastography was 4.65 kPa; for the ELF test, 9.27; and for the FibroTest, 0.72.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The sensitivity and specificity of the tests studied, as compared with biopsy results, increase with increasing severity of hepatic fibrosis. The noninvasive diagnostic methods are of limited value in the diagnosis of early fibrosis stages. In the diagnostic assessment of hepatic fibrosis in its advanced stages, dynamic elastography can be used in conjunction with ELF test as a noninvasive alternative to liver biopsy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35660278
pii: S0041-1345(22)00185-3
doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2022.02.034
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1042-1048Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.