Cargando…
Diagnostic Accuracy of FibroScan and Factors Affecting Measurements
Evaluating liver steatosis and fibrosis is important for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Although liver biopsy and pathological assessment is the gold standard for these conditions, this technique has several disadvantages. The evaluation of steatosis and fibrosis using ultrasound B...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7696616/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33198092 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10110940 |
_version_ | 1783615446025502720 |
---|---|
author | Oeda, Satoshi Tanaka, Kenichi Oshima, Ayaka Matsumoto, Yasue Sueoka, Eisaburo Takahashi, Hirokazu |
author_facet | Oeda, Satoshi Tanaka, Kenichi Oshima, Ayaka Matsumoto, Yasue Sueoka, Eisaburo Takahashi, Hirokazu |
author_sort | Oeda, Satoshi |
collection | PubMed |
description | Evaluating liver steatosis and fibrosis is important for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Although liver biopsy and pathological assessment is the gold standard for these conditions, this technique has several disadvantages. The evaluation of steatosis and fibrosis using ultrasound B-mode imaging is qualitative and subjective. The liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) determined using FibroScan are the evidence-based non-invasive measures of liver fibrosis and steatosis, respectively. The LSM and CAP measurements are carried out simultaneously, and the median values of more than ten valid measurements are used to quantify liver fibrosis and steatosis. Here, we demonstrate that the reliability of the LSM depends on the interquartile range to median ratio (IQR/Med), but CAP values do not depend on IQR/Med. In addition, the LSM is affected by inflammation, congestion, and cholestasis in addition to fibrosis, while CAP values are affected by the body mass index in addition to steatosis. We also show that the M probe provides higher LSM values but lower CAP values than the XL probe in the same population. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the diagnostic accuracies of the two probes. These findings are important to understand the reliability of FibroScan measurements and the factors influencing measurement values for all patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7696616 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76966162020-11-29 Diagnostic Accuracy of FibroScan and Factors Affecting Measurements Oeda, Satoshi Tanaka, Kenichi Oshima, Ayaka Matsumoto, Yasue Sueoka, Eisaburo Takahashi, Hirokazu Diagnostics (Basel) Review Evaluating liver steatosis and fibrosis is important for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Although liver biopsy and pathological assessment is the gold standard for these conditions, this technique has several disadvantages. The evaluation of steatosis and fibrosis using ultrasound B-mode imaging is qualitative and subjective. The liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) determined using FibroScan are the evidence-based non-invasive measures of liver fibrosis and steatosis, respectively. The LSM and CAP measurements are carried out simultaneously, and the median values of more than ten valid measurements are used to quantify liver fibrosis and steatosis. Here, we demonstrate that the reliability of the LSM depends on the interquartile range to median ratio (IQR/Med), but CAP values do not depend on IQR/Med. In addition, the LSM is affected by inflammation, congestion, and cholestasis in addition to fibrosis, while CAP values are affected by the body mass index in addition to steatosis. We also show that the M probe provides higher LSM values but lower CAP values than the XL probe in the same population. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the diagnostic accuracies of the two probes. These findings are important to understand the reliability of FibroScan measurements and the factors influencing measurement values for all patients. MDPI 2020-11-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7696616/ /pubmed/33198092 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10110940 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Oeda, Satoshi Tanaka, Kenichi Oshima, Ayaka Matsumoto, Yasue Sueoka, Eisaburo Takahashi, Hirokazu Diagnostic Accuracy of FibroScan and Factors Affecting Measurements |
title | Diagnostic Accuracy of FibroScan and Factors Affecting Measurements |
title_full | Diagnostic Accuracy of FibroScan and Factors Affecting Measurements |
title_fullStr | Diagnostic Accuracy of FibroScan and Factors Affecting Measurements |
title_full_unstemmed | Diagnostic Accuracy of FibroScan and Factors Affecting Measurements |
title_short | Diagnostic Accuracy of FibroScan and Factors Affecting Measurements |
title_sort | diagnostic accuracy of fibroscan and factors affecting measurements |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7696616/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33198092 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10110940 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT oedasatoshi diagnosticaccuracyoffibroscanandfactorsaffectingmeasurements AT tanakakenichi diagnosticaccuracyoffibroscanandfactorsaffectingmeasurements AT oshimaayaka diagnosticaccuracyoffibroscanandfactorsaffectingmeasurements AT matsumotoyasue diagnosticaccuracyoffibroscanandfactorsaffectingmeasurements AT sueokaeisaburo diagnosticaccuracyoffibroscanandfactorsaffectingmeasurements AT takahashihirokazu diagnosticaccuracyoffibroscanandfactorsaffectingmeasurements |