Cargando…

Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients

BACKGROUND: A novel Fibroscan XL probe has recently been introduced and validated for obese patients, and has a diagnostic accuracy comparable with that of the standard M probe. The aim of this study was to analyze and understand the differences between these two probes in nonobese patients, to iden...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Durango, Esteban, Dietrich, Christian, Seitz, Helmut Karl, Kunz, Cornelia Ursula, Pomier-Layrargues, Gilles T, Duarte-Rojo, Andres, Beaton, Melanie, Elkhashab, Magdy, Myers, Robert P, Mueller, Sebastian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3953737/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24696623
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/HMER.S45234
_version_ 1782307408130867200
author Durango, Esteban
Dietrich, Christian
Seitz, Helmut Karl
Kunz, Cornelia Ursula
Pomier-Layrargues, Gilles T
Duarte-Rojo, Andres
Beaton, Melanie
Elkhashab, Magdy
Myers, Robert P
Mueller, Sebastian
author_facet Durango, Esteban
Dietrich, Christian
Seitz, Helmut Karl
Kunz, Cornelia Ursula
Pomier-Layrargues, Gilles T
Duarte-Rojo, Andres
Beaton, Melanie
Elkhashab, Magdy
Myers, Robert P
Mueller, Sebastian
author_sort Durango, Esteban
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A novel Fibroscan XL probe has recently been introduced and validated for obese patients, and has a diagnostic accuracy comparable with that of the standard M probe. The aim of this study was to analyze and understand the differences between these two probes in nonobese patients, to identify underlying causes for these differences, and to develop a practical algorithm to translate results for the XL probe to those for the M probe. METHODS AND RESULTS: Both probes were directly compared first in copolymer phantoms of varying stiffness (4.8, 11, and 40 kPa) and then in 371 obese and nonobese patients (body mass index, range 17.2–72.4) from German (n = 129) and Canadian (n = 242) centers. Liver stiffness values for both probes correlated better in phantoms than in patients (r = 0.98 versus 0.82, P < 0.001). Significantly more patients could be measured successfully using the XL probe than the M probe (98.4% versus 85.2%, respectively, P < 0.001) while the M probe produced a smaller interquartile range (21% versus 32%). Failure of the M probe to measure liver stiffness was not only observed in patients with a high body mass index and long skin-liver capsule distance but also in some nonobese patients (n = 10) due to quenching of the signal from subcutaneous fat tissue. In contrast with the phantoms, the XL probe consistently produced approximately 20% lower liver stiffness values in humans compared with the M probe. A long skin-liver capsule distance and a high degree of steatosis were responsible for this discordance. Adjustment of cutoff values for the XL probe (<5.5, 5.5–7, 7–10, and >10 kPa for F0, F1–2, F3, and F4 fibrosis, respectively) significantly improved agreement between the two probes from r = 0.655 to 0.679. CONCLUSION: Liver stiffness can be measured in significantly more obese and nonobese patients using the XL probe than the M probe. However, the XL probe is less accurate and adjusted cutoff values are required.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3953737
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39537372014-04-02 Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients Durango, Esteban Dietrich, Christian Seitz, Helmut Karl Kunz, Cornelia Ursula Pomier-Layrargues, Gilles T Duarte-Rojo, Andres Beaton, Melanie Elkhashab, Magdy Myers, Robert P Mueller, Sebastian Hepat Med Original Research BACKGROUND: A novel Fibroscan XL probe has recently been introduced and validated for obese patients, and has a diagnostic accuracy comparable with that of the standard M probe. The aim of this study was to analyze and understand the differences between these two probes in nonobese patients, to identify underlying causes for these differences, and to develop a practical algorithm to translate results for the XL probe to those for the M probe. METHODS AND RESULTS: Both probes were directly compared first in copolymer phantoms of varying stiffness (4.8, 11, and 40 kPa) and then in 371 obese and nonobese patients (body mass index, range 17.2–72.4) from German (n = 129) and Canadian (n = 242) centers. Liver stiffness values for both probes correlated better in phantoms than in patients (r = 0.98 versus 0.82, P < 0.001). Significantly more patients could be measured successfully using the XL probe than the M probe (98.4% versus 85.2%, respectively, P < 0.001) while the M probe produced a smaller interquartile range (21% versus 32%). Failure of the M probe to measure liver stiffness was not only observed in patients with a high body mass index and long skin-liver capsule distance but also in some nonobese patients (n = 10) due to quenching of the signal from subcutaneous fat tissue. In contrast with the phantoms, the XL probe consistently produced approximately 20% lower liver stiffness values in humans compared with the M probe. A long skin-liver capsule distance and a high degree of steatosis were responsible for this discordance. Adjustment of cutoff values for the XL probe (<5.5, 5.5–7, 7–10, and >10 kPa for F0, F1–2, F3, and F4 fibrosis, respectively) significantly improved agreement between the two probes from r = 0.655 to 0.679. CONCLUSION: Liver stiffness can be measured in significantly more obese and nonobese patients using the XL probe than the M probe. However, the XL probe is less accurate and adjusted cutoff values are required. Dove Medical Press 2013-07-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3953737/ /pubmed/24696623 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/HMER.S45234 Text en © 2013 Durango et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Durango, Esteban
Dietrich, Christian
Seitz, Helmut Karl
Kunz, Cornelia Ursula
Pomier-Layrargues, Gilles T
Duarte-Rojo, Andres
Beaton, Melanie
Elkhashab, Magdy
Myers, Robert P
Mueller, Sebastian
Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients
title Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients
title_full Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients
title_fullStr Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients
title_full_unstemmed Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients
title_short Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients
title_sort direct comparison of the fibroscan xl and m probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3953737/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24696623
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/HMER.S45234
work_keys_str_mv AT durangoesteban directcomparisonofthefibroscanxlandmprobesforassessmentofliverfibrosisinobeseandnonobesepatients
AT dietrichchristian directcomparisonofthefibroscanxlandmprobesforassessmentofliverfibrosisinobeseandnonobesepatients
AT seitzhelmutkarl directcomparisonofthefibroscanxlandmprobesforassessmentofliverfibrosisinobeseandnonobesepatients
AT kunzcorneliaursula directcomparisonofthefibroscanxlandmprobesforassessmentofliverfibrosisinobeseandnonobesepatients
AT pomierlayrarguesgillest directcomparisonofthefibroscanxlandmprobesforassessmentofliverfibrosisinobeseandnonobesepatients
AT duarterojoandres directcomparisonofthefibroscanxlandmprobesforassessmentofliverfibrosisinobeseandnonobesepatients
AT beatonmelanie directcomparisonofthefibroscanxlandmprobesforassessmentofliverfibrosisinobeseandnonobesepatients
AT elkhashabmagdy directcomparisonofthefibroscanxlandmprobesforassessmentofliverfibrosisinobeseandnonobesepatients
AT myersrobertp directcomparisonofthefibroscanxlandmprobesforassessmentofliverfibrosisinobeseandnonobesepatients
AT muellersebastian directcomparisonofthefibroscanxlandmprobesforassessmentofliverfibrosisinobeseandnonobesepatients