Abstract

Background and aimsAccurate biomarkers for quantifying liver fibrosis are important for clinical practice and trial end-points. We compared the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including gadoxetate-enhanced MRI and 31P-MR spectroscopy, with fibrosis stage and serum fibrosis algorithms in a clinical setting. Also, in a subset of patients, MR- and transient elastography (MRE and TE) was evaluated when available.MethodsPatients were recruited prospectively if they were scheduled to undergo liver biopsy on a clinical indication due to elevated liver enzyme levels without decompensated cirrhosis. Within a month of the clinical work-up, an MR-examination and liver needle biopsy were performed on the same day. Based on late-phase gadoxetate-enhanced MRI, a mathematical model calculated hepatobiliary function (relating to OATP1 and MRP2). The hepatocyte gadoxetate uptake rate (KHep) and the normalised liver-to-spleen contrast ratio (LSC_N10) were also calculated. Nine serum fibrosis algorithms were investigated (GUCI, King’s Score, APRI, FIB-4, Lok-Index, NIKEI, NASH-CRN regression score, Forns' score, and NAFLD-fibrosis score).ResultsThe diagnostic performance (AUROC) for identification of significant fibrosis (F2–4) was 0.78, 0.80, 0.69, and 0.78 for MRE, TE, LSC_N10, and GUCI, respectively. For the identification of advanced fibrosis (F3–4), the AUROCs were 0.93, 0.84, 0.81, and 0.82 respectively.ConclusionMRE and TE were superior for non-invasive identification of significant fibrosis. Serum fibrosis algorithms developed for specific liver diseases are applicable in this cohort of diverse liver diseases aetiologies. Gadoxetate-MRI was sufficiently sensitive to detect the low function losses associated with fibrosis. None was able to efficiently distinguish between stages within the low fibrosis stages.Lay summaryExcessive accumulation of scar tissue, fibrosis, in the liver is an important aspect in chronic liver disease. To replace the invasive needle biopsy, we have explored non-invasive methods to assess liver fibrosis. In our study we found that elastographic methods, which assess the mechanical properties of the liver, are superior in assessing fibrosis in a clinical setting. Of interest from a clinical trial point-of-view, none of the tested methods was sufficiently accurate to distinguish between adjacent moderate fibrosis stages.

Highlights

  • Chronic liver disease (CLD) is one of the leading causes of public health burden in the Western world [1]

  • We have evaluated the diagnostic performance of a wide range of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based methods, transient elastography (TE), as well as serum fibrosis algorithms for staging liver fibrosis in liver disease with various aetiologies and fibrosis stages

  • We show that none of the used methods were sufficient for distinguishing between adjacent fibrosis stages based on same-day histopathology determined fibrosis stages

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Chronic liver disease (CLD) is one of the leading causes of public health burden in the Western world [1]. The most common causes of CLD in Europe and the US are alcoholic liver disease (ALD), hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) [3]. Advanced liver fibrosis results in cirrhosis, liver failure, and portal hypertension, with the risk of decompensation and development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [6]. The risk of developing cirrhosis differs between different causes of CLD, irrespective of aetiology, the histopathological fibrosis stage portends a dismal prognosis with an increased risk of HCC as well as liver-related and all-cause mortality [9]. Results: The diagnostic performance (AUROC) for identification of significant fibrosis (F2–4) was 0.78, 0.80, 0.69, and 0.78 for MRE, TE, LSC_N10, and GUCI, respectively. None was able to efficiently distinguish between stages within the low fibrosis stages

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.