4.8 Article

Accuracy of liver stiffness measurement for the diagnosis of cirrhosis in patients with chronic liver diseases

Journal

HEPATOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 6, Pages 1511-1517

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hep.21420

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A proper diagnosis of cirrhosis is essential for the management of patients with chronic liver diseases. We assessed the accuracy of liver stiffness measurement by Fibroscan for the diagnosis of cirrhosis in 1,257 patients with chronic liver diseases of various causes enrolled in a prospective multicenter study as well as clarified causes of discrepancies between liver histology and Fibroscan. One hundred thirty-two patients had unsuitable biopsy specimens, and 118 had unreliable liver stiffness measurements. Because 232 patients overlapped with a previous study, analysis was performed in the 775 new patients then derived in the whole population (1,007; 165 cirrhosis). Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis. Liver samples were re-analyzed in case of discrepancies. The area under the ROC (AUROC) was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.93-0.96) for the diagnosis of cirrhosis in either 775 or 1,007 patients. The cutoff value with optimal diagnosis accuracy was 14.6 kPa in 1,007 patients (positive and negative predictive values, 74% and 96%) with discrepancies among the etiological groups. Eighty patients were misclassified: (1) among 45 patients without cirrhosis with liver stiffness 14.6 kPa or greater, 27 (60%) had extensive fibrosis and 10 (22%) significant perisinusoidat fibrosis; and (2) among 35 patients with cirrhosis and liver stiffness less than 14.6 kPa, 10 (29%) had a macronodular pattern and 25 (71%) either none or mild activity. In conclusion, Fibroscan is a reliable method for the diagnosis of cirrhosis in patients with chronic liver diseases, better at excluding than at predicting cirrhosis using a threshold of 14.6 kPa. False-negatives are mainly attributable to inactive or macronodular cirrhosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available