4.6 Article

Limited Utility of Plasma M30 in Discriminating Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis from Steatosis - A Comparison with Routine Biochemical Markers

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105903

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Malaya [RG536-13HTM]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The utility of Cytokeratin-18 fragment, namely CK18Asp396 (M30), for the diagnosis of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is currently uncertain. We aimed to provide further data in this area among multi-ethnic Asian subjects with NAFLD. Materials and Methods: The accuracy of M30 for detecting NASH was compared with serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) levels in consecutive adult subjects with biopsy-proven non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Results: Data for 93 NAFLD subjects (mean age 51.0 +/- 11.1 years old and 51.6% males) and 20 healthy controls (mean age 50.2 +/- 16.4 years old and 33.3% males) were analyzed. There were 39 NASH subjects (41.9%) and 54 non-NASH subjects (58.1%) among the NAFLD subjects. Plasma M30 (349 U/L vs. 162 U/L), and serum ALT (70 IU/L vs. 26 IU/L), AST (41 IU/L vs. 20 IU/L) and GGT (75 IU/L vs. 33 IU/L) were significantly higher in NAFLD subjects than in healthy controls. Serum ALT (86 IU/L vs. 61 IU/L), AST (58 IU/L vs. 34 IU/L) and GGT (97 IU/L vs. 56 IU/L) were significantly higher in NASH subjects compared to non-NASH subjects, but no significant difference was observed with plasma M30 (435 U/L vs. 331 U/L). The accuracy of plasma M30, and serum ALT, AST and GGT was good for predicting NAFLD (AUROC 0.91, 0.95, 0.87 and 0.85, respectively) but less so for NASH (AUROC 0.59, 0.64, 0.75 and 0.68, respectively). Serum ALT and AST, but not plasma M30 showed a significant trend with increasing grades of ballooning and lobular inflammation. Conclusion: The utility of M30 in the detection of NASH in clinical practice appears limited, in comparison to routine biochemical markers.

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

4.6
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