4.4 Article

How Can We Enhance the Performance of Liver Stiffness Measurement Using FibroScan in Diagnosing Liver Cirrhosis in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 44, 期 1, 页码 66-71

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181a95c7f

关键词

liver stiffness measurement; transient elastography; aminotransferase; chronic hepatitis B; cirrhosis

资金

  1. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea [A050021]
  2. Brain Korea 21 Project for Medical Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Goal: This study aimed to enhance the diagnostic accuracy by defining different cutoff liver stiffness measurement (LSM) values according to alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level and combining LSM with noninvasive models in patients with chronic hepatitis B (C H B). Background: Several studies have indicated that ALT influences LSM using FibroScan. Study: The study prospectively enrolled 200 patients (143 men, mean age 45.4 y) between June 2007 and November 2008 who had been diagnosed with CHB and underwent both liver biopsy and LSM on the same day. Results: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) of LSM for predicting cirrhosis in patients with ALT <= upper limit of normal (ULN) was higher than that of all patients or those with ALT > ULN and <= 2x ULN (AUROC = 0.884 vs. 0.849 and 0.867). The cutoff LSM values for >= F2, >= F3, and F4 were 6.0, 7.5, and 10.1 kPa, respectively, in patients with ALT :! ULN, whereas they were 8.9, 11.0, and 15.5 kPa, respectively, in those with ALT > ULN and <= 2x ULN. The combination of LSM and the age-spleen-platelet ratio index performed the best at predicting cirrhosis, regardless of ALT level (AUROC = 0.917 in patients with ALT <= ULN, 0.909 in those with ALT <= 2 x ULN, and 0.894 in all patients). Conclusions: Different cutoff LSM values according to ALT level and combination with age-spleen-platelet ratio index can enhance the performance of LSM in CHB, regardless of ALT level.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据