4.4 Article

Usefulness of Enhanced Liver Fibrosis, Glycosylation Isomer of Mac-2 Binding Protein, Galectin-3, and Soluble Suppression of Tumorigenicity 2 for Assessing Liver Fibrosis in Chronic Liver Diseases

Journal

ANNALS OF LABORATORY MEDICINE
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 331-+

Publisher

KOREAN SOC LABORATORY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3343/alm.2018.38.4.331

Keywords

Liver fibrosis; Biomarker; ELF; M2BPGi; Galectin-3; sST2

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Liver biopsies have been partially replaced by noninvasive methods for assessing liver fibrosis. We explored the usefulness of four novel biomarkers, enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF), glycosylation isomer of Mac-2 binding protein (M2BPGi), galectin-3, and soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2), in association with liver fibrosis. Methods: ELF, M2BPGi, galectin-3, and sST2 were assayed in 173 patients with chronic liver diseases. The results were analyzed according to fibrosis grade (F0/1, F2, and F3/4) by transient elastography (TE). Results: ELF, M2BPGi, galectin-3, and sST2 values differed significantly according to TE grade; ELF and M2BPGi values were higher in F2 and F3/4 than in F0/1 (P <= 0.001, all), sST2 values were higher in F3/4 than in F0/1 and F2 (P < 0.05), and galectin-3 values were higher in F3/4 than in F0/1 (P = 0.0036). ELF and M2BPGi showed good TE fibrosis detection performance (area under the curves [AUC], 0.841 and 0.833 for >= F2; and 0.837 and 0.808 for >= F3). The sensitivity and specificity for predicting TE grade F >= 2 were 84.1% and 76.7% for ELF and 63.6% and 91.5% for M2BPGi. Conclusions: This is the first study to compare the liver fibrosis assessment of four novel biomarkers: ELF, M2BPGi, galectin-3, and sST2. The biomarkers varied significantly according to TE grade, and each biomarker showed a different trend. ELF and M2BPGi seem to have comparable good performance for detecting liver fibrosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available