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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |