Ultrasound and FibroScan
Controlled attenuation parameter
Fibroscan® CAP
Metabolic associated fatty liver disease
Non alcoholic fatty liver disease
Steatosis
Ultrasound
Journal
Endocrine
ISSN: 1559-0100
Titre abrégé: Endocrine
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9434444
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
19
05
2022
accepted:
27
07
2022
pubmed:
19
8
2022
medline:
25
10
2022
entrez:
18
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) has been suggested as a new non-invasive measurement performed during transient elastography (TE) to assess liver steatosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate CAP values head to head with ultrasound (US) as reference standard. A consecutive cohort of patients attending abdominal US in an outpatient liver unit was included in this study with simultaneous CAP determination using the FibroScan Four hundred thirty-five patients were included in the analysis: 221 (51%) were male; 117 (26.9%) were in control group, 144 (33.1%) in group 2 with inactive HCV or HBV infection and at low-risk for MAFLD, 134 (30.8%) in group 3 at high-risk of MAFLD, 40 (9.2%) in group 4 at high-risk of MAFLD and concomitant inactive HCV or HBV infection. Liver steatosis detected with US evaluation was observed in the 41% of the entire cohort; in particular in the 3.4%, 20.1%, 83.6% and 87.4% of the group 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively (p < 0.001). In patients at high-risk factor for MAFLD (group 3 and 4), CAP median levels were found statistically different among the severity-grading groups for US steatosis (S0 [n.27], ≥S1 [n.59], ≥S2 + S3 [n.89]), observing higher CAP levels in patients with a higher steatosis grade (≥S2 + S3 327.5 [±40.6] vs ≥S1 277.7 [±45.6] vs S0 245.1 [±47.4]; p < 0.001 for the whole cohort analysis) (p < 0.001 between ≥S2 + S3 and ≥S1) (p < 0.001 between ≥S2 + S3 and S0) (p = 0.004 between ≥S1 and S0). ROC analysis showed that the global performance of the CAP median level ≥ 258 to predict liver steatosis (S0 vs S1-3), was excellent with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) value of 0.87 [CI 95% 0. 835-0.904] with an 84% of sensitivity and a 78% of specificity, and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 73% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 88%. A TE-kPa median value <8.0 was detected in the 100%, 84%, 83.6% and 60% of patients in group 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. A TE-kPa median value >13.0 was detected in the 0%, 4.2%, 5.2% and 17.5% of patients in group 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. CAP values are strongly associated with the standard US criteria for different degree of steatosis. Integrating TE up to 5% of patients may be identified at risk for advanced fibrosis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) has been suggested as a new non-invasive measurement performed during transient elastography (TE) to assess liver steatosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate CAP values head to head with ultrasound (US) as reference standard.
METHODS
A consecutive cohort of patients attending abdominal US in an outpatient liver unit was included in this study with simultaneous CAP determination using the FibroScan
RESULTS
Four hundred thirty-five patients were included in the analysis: 221 (51%) were male; 117 (26.9%) were in control group, 144 (33.1%) in group 2 with inactive HCV or HBV infection and at low-risk for MAFLD, 134 (30.8%) in group 3 at high-risk of MAFLD, 40 (9.2%) in group 4 at high-risk of MAFLD and concomitant inactive HCV or HBV infection. Liver steatosis detected with US evaluation was observed in the 41% of the entire cohort; in particular in the 3.4%, 20.1%, 83.6% and 87.4% of the group 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively (p < 0.001). In patients at high-risk factor for MAFLD (group 3 and 4), CAP median levels were found statistically different among the severity-grading groups for US steatosis (S0 [n.27], ≥S1 [n.59], ≥S2 + S3 [n.89]), observing higher CAP levels in patients with a higher steatosis grade (≥S2 + S3 327.5 [±40.6] vs ≥S1 277.7 [±45.6] vs S0 245.1 [±47.4]; p < 0.001 for the whole cohort analysis) (p < 0.001 between ≥S2 + S3 and ≥S1) (p < 0.001 between ≥S2 + S3 and S0) (p = 0.004 between ≥S1 and S0). ROC analysis showed that the global performance of the CAP median level ≥ 258 to predict liver steatosis (S0 vs S1-3), was excellent with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) value of 0.87 [CI 95% 0. 835-0.904] with an 84% of sensitivity and a 78% of specificity, and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 73% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 88%. A TE-kPa median value <8.0 was detected in the 100%, 84%, 83.6% and 60% of patients in group 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. A TE-kPa median value >13.0 was detected in the 0%, 4.2%, 5.2% and 17.5% of patients in group 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CAP values are strongly associated with the standard US criteria for different degree of steatosis. Integrating TE up to 5% of patients may be identified at risk for advanced fibrosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35980569
doi: 10.1007/s12020-022-03157-x
pii: 10.1007/s12020-022-03157-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
262-269Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL); European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD); European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO), EASL-EASD-EASO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J. Hepatol. 64(6), 1388–1402 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2015.11.004
D.E. Kleiner, E.M. Brunt, M. Van Natta et al. Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 41(6), 1313–1321 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.20701
doi: 10.1002/hep.20701
pubmed: 15915461
A. Lonardo, F. Nascimbeni, A. Mantovani, G. Targher, Hypertension, diabetes, atherosclerosis and NASH: cause or consequence. J. Hepatol. 68(2), 335–352 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2017.09.021
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.09.021
pubmed: 29122390
S. Bellentani, F. Scaglioni, M. Marino, G. Bedogni, Epidemiology of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Dig. Dis. 28(1), 155–161 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1159/000282080
doi: 10.1159/000282080
pubmed: 20460905
N. Chalasani, Z. Younossi, J.E. Lavine et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 67(1), 328–357 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29367
doi: 10.1002/hep.29367
pubmed: 28714183
J. Ma, S.J. Hwang, A. Pedley et al. Bi-directional analysis between fatty liver and cardiovascular disease risk factors. J. Hepatol. 66(2), 390–397 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2016.09.022
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.09.022
pubmed: 27729222
F. Bril, K. Cusi, Management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a call to action. Diabetes Care 40(3), 419–430 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-1787
doi: 10.2337/dc16-1787
pubmed: 28223446
K. Lau, R. Lorbeer, R. Haring et al. The association between fatty liver disease and blood pressure in a population-based prospective longitudinal study. J. Hypertens. 28(9), 1829–1835 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0b013e32833c211b
doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32833c211b
pubmed: 20577126
N. Assy, K. Kaita, D. Mymin, C. Levy, B. Rosser, G. Minuk, Fatty infiltration of liver in hyperlipidemic patients. Dig. Dis. Sci. 45(10), 1929–1934 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005661516165
doi: 10.1023/a:1005661516165
pubmed: 11117562
M. Eslam, P.N. Newsome, S.K. Sarin et al. A new definition for metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease: An international expert consensus statement. J. Hepatol. 73(1), 202–209 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2020.03.039
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.03.039
pubmed: 32278004
F. Bril, C. Ortiz-Lopez, R. Lomonaco et al. Clinical value of liver ultrasound for the diagnosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in overweight and obese patients. Liver Int. 35(9), 2139–2146 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.12840
doi: 10.1111/liv.12840
pubmed: 25847730
V. de Lédinghen, J. Vergniol, J. Foucher, W. Merrouche, B. le Bail, Non-invasive diagnosis of liver steatosis using controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) and transient elastography. Liver Int. 32(6), 911–918 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-3231.2012.02820.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2012.02820.x
pubmed: 22672642
European Association for the Study of the Liver, Electronic address: easloffice@easloffice.eu; Clinical Practice Guideline Panel; Chair:; EASL Governing Board representative:; Panel members:. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on non-invasive tests for evaluation of liver disease severity and prognosis - 2021 update. J. Hepatol. 75(3), 659–689 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2021.05.025
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.05.025
S.M. Grundy, J.I. Cleeman, S.R. Daniels, et al. Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome: an American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Scientific Statement [published correction appears in Circulation. 2005 Oct 25;112(17):e297] [published correction appears in Circulation. 2005 Oct 25;112(17):e298]. Circulation 112(17), 2735–2752 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.169404
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.169404
pubmed: 16157765
M. Hamaguchi, T. Kojima, Y. Itoh et al. The severity of ultrasonographic findings in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease reflects the metabolic syndrome and visceral fat accumulation. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 102(12), 2708–2715 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01526.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01526.x
pubmed: 17894848
Q. Li, M. Dhyani, J.R. Grajo, C. Sirlin, A.E. Samir, Current status of imaging in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. World J. Hepatol. 10(8), 530–542 (2018). https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v10.i8.530
doi: 10.4254/wjh.v10.i8.530
pubmed: 30190781
pmcid: 6120999
T. Karlas, D. Petroff, M. Sasso et al. Individual patient data meta-analysis of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) technology for assessing steatosis. J. Hepatol. 66(5), 1022–1030 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2016.12.022
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.12.022
pubmed: 28039099
P.J. Eddowes, M. Sasso, M. Allison et al. Accuracy of FibroScan controlled attenuation parameter and liver stiffness measurement in assessing steatosis and fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 156(6), 1717–1730 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.042
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.042
pubmed: 30689971
R. Hernaez, M. Lazo, S. Bonekamp et al. Diagnostic accuracy and reliability of ultrasonography for the detection of fatty liver: a meta-analysis. Hepatology 54(3), 1082–1090 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.24452
doi: 10.1002/hep.24452
pubmed: 21618575
Y.N. Zhang, K.J. Fowler, G. Hamilton et al. Liver fat imaging-a clinical overview of ultrasound, CT, and MR imaging. Br. J. Radio. 91(1089), 20170959 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170959
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20170959
G. Ferraioli, A. Berzigotti, R.G. Barr et al. Quantification of liver fat content with ultrasound: a WFUMB position paper. Ultrasound Med Biol. 47(10), 2803–2820 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.06.002
doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.06.002
pubmed: 34284932
K. Cusi, S. Isaacs, D. Barb et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Primary Care and Endocrinology Clinical Settings: Co-Sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD). Endocr. Pr. 28(5), 528–562 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eprac.2022.03.010
doi: 10.1016/j.eprac.2022.03.010
B.R. Chen, C.Q. Pan, Non-invasive assessment of fibrosis and steatosis in pediatric non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin. Res Hepatol. Gastroenterol. 46(1), 101755 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinre.2021.101755
doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2021.101755
pubmed: 34311134
G. Ferraioli, A. Berzigotti, R.G. Barr et al. Quantification of liver fat content with ultrasound: a WFUMB position paper. Ultrasound Med Biol. 47(10), 2803–2820 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.06.002
doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.06.002
pubmed: 34284932
M.S. Siddiqui, R. Vuppalanchi, M.L. Van Natta et al. Vibration-controlled transient elastography to assess fibrosis and steatosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 17(1), 156–163.e2 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2018.04.043
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.04.043
pubmed: 29705261
S.B. Ahn, D.W. Jun, B.K. Kang, M. Kim, M. Chang, E. Nam, Optimal cutoff value for assessing changes in intrahepatic fat amount by using the controlled attenuation parameter in a longitudinal setting. Med. (Baltim.) 97(50), e13636 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013636
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013636
V.W. Wong, S. Petta, J.B. Hiriart et al. Validity criteria for the diagnosis of fatty liver by M probe-based controlled attenuation parameter. J. Hepatol. 67(3), 577–584 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2017.05.005
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.05.005
pubmed: 28506907
V. Rosato, A. Ascione, R. Nevola et al. Factors affecting long-term changes of liver stiffness in direct-acting anti-hepatitis C virus therapy: a multicentre prospective study. J. Viral Hepat. 29(1), 26–34 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/jvh.13617
doi: 10.1111/jvh.13617
pubmed: 34582610
A. Salmi, One-minute liver “digitopsy” for point of care risk stratification of fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Minerva Gastroenterol. (Torino) 67(2), 209–210 (2021). https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5985.20.02700-2
doi: 10.23736/S2724-5985.20.02700-2
A. Salmi, G. Lanzani, P. Campagnola, L. Frulloni,, Teaching echoscopy for the early diagnosis of ascites in cirrhosis: assessment of an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). J. Ultrasound 20(2), 123–126 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-017-0250-9
doi: 10.1007/s40477-017-0250-9