4.7 Article

Comparison of LecT-Hepa and FibroScan for assessment of liver fibrosis in hepatitis B virus infected patients with different ALT levels

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 413, Issue 21-22, Pages 1796-1799

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2012.07.005

Keywords

Liver fibrosis; Glycomarker; Hepatitis B; Cirrhosis; Alanine aminotransferase

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24590498] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: FibroScan is one of the noninvasive techniques based on the transient elastography that can assess the progression of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis patients in daily clinical practice. Recently, LecT-Hepa was validated as a serological glycomarker correlating well with the fibrosis stage determined by liver biopsy, and was superior to many other noninvasive biochemical markers and tests. We compared the reliability of LecT-Hepa with that of FibroScan for evaluation of liver fibrosis. Methods: The effects of increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT) activities on LecT-Hepa and FibroScan were investigated. Results: The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves, sensitivity and specificity for detecting cirrhosis, which is one of the outcomes of fibrosis estimation, were 0.82, 72.5% and 782% of LecT-Hepa, 0.85, 87.0% and 74.1% of FibroScan; these did not differ significantly. The count distribution of LecT-Hepa in non-cirrhosis group or cirrhosis group did not differ between the patients grouped according to their ALT levels, whereas that of FibroScan was substantially affected. Conclusion: LecT-Hepa was confirmed as a reliable noninvasive test for the evaluation of liver fibrosis in hepatitis B virus-infected patients with comparable performance to that of FibroScan and proved to be unaffected by inflammation. (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available