4.2 Article

Diagnostic accuracy of a fibrosis serum panel (FIBROSpect II) compared with Knodell and Ishak liver biopsy scores in chronic hepatitis C patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF VIRAL HEPATITIS
Volume 13, Issue 10, Pages 652-658

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2893.2006.00743.x

Keywords

hepatitis C; liver biopsy; liver fibrosis; serodiagnostic panel

Funding

  1. PHS HHS [U19A148124] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Liver biopsy is the primary method of assessing liver injury in hepatitis C patients. FIBROSpect II (FS), a diagnostic panel of three extracellular matrix remodelling markers, may be useful as a noninvasive alternative to this procedure. The purpose of this study was to correlate FS results with liver fibrosis scores to determine if this test is sufficiently accurate to be a viable alternative to liver biopsy. A total of 142 serum specimens were evaluated for fibrosis with FS and were compared with Knodell and Ishak fibrosis scores. FS reports an index score ranging from 0.1 to 1.0, which corresponds to the probability of progressive liver fibrosis. Using a FS index cut-off of 0.42, 50 of 54 patients with Ishak 3-6 were classified as having advanced fibrosis (METAVIR F2-F4) and 58 of 88 patients with Ishak 0-2 as having no/mild fibrosis (METAVIR F0-F1), resulting in a sensitivity of 93%, specificity of 66%, and an overall test accuracy of 76%. With a 38% prevalence of advanced fibrosis, the negative predictive value was 94% and positive predictive value was 63%. A biopsy length of >= 2 cm was associated with higher concordance between FS results and liver fibrosis scores (P = 0.01). FS was clinically useful in ruling out advanced fibrosis in hepatitis C by identifying patients with mild disease in whom treatment could be deferred. The limitation of this test is its decreased sensitivity and specificity in the middle of the test's reporting range between scores of 0.42 and 0.80.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available