Cargando…

A comparison of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) to biomarker testing for staging fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)

BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the world’s most prevalent chronic liver disease. In advanced stages, it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and scoring panels Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) and NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS) are use...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kaplan, Joseph M., Alexis, Jamil, Grimaldi, Gregory, Islam, Mohammed, Izard, Stephanie M., Lee, Tai-Ping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9813653/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36704653
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tgh-22-27
_version_ 1784863966488428544
author Kaplan, Joseph M.
Alexis, Jamil
Grimaldi, Gregory
Islam, Mohammed
Izard, Stephanie M.
Lee, Tai-Ping
author_facet Kaplan, Joseph M.
Alexis, Jamil
Grimaldi, Gregory
Islam, Mohammed
Izard, Stephanie M.
Lee, Tai-Ping
author_sort Kaplan, Joseph M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the world’s most prevalent chronic liver disease. In advanced stages, it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and scoring panels Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) and NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS) are useful noninvasive alternatives to liver biopsy for fibrosis staging. Our study aimed to determine how well MRE corresponds with both FIB-4 and NFS at different stages of fibrosis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients age ≥18 with NAFLD as their only known liver disease who underwent MRE within six months of a lab draw. MRE stratified patients into fibrosis stages using kPa values. FIB-4 categorized patients as Advanced Fibrosis Excluded, Further Investigation Needed or Advanced Fibrosis Likely. NFS categorized them as F0-2, Indeterminate or F3-4. MRE fibrosis staging was compared to FIB-4 and NFS for both ruling out advanced fibrosis and identifying advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis. RESULTS: Overall, 193 patients met inclusion criteria. Our statistical analysis included calculating positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs), which are the proportions of positive and negative fibrosis screening results that correspond to positive and negative MRE results respectively. NPV for FIB-4 (0.84) and NFS (0.89) in the ‘rule out advanced fibrosis’ category signify that 84% and 89% of respective biomarker scores correspond to MRE in early stage disease. The PPV for FIB-4 and NFS in the ‘identify advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis’ category signify 63% and 72% of respective biomarker scores correspond to MRE in late stage disease. CONCLUSIONS: FIB-4 and NFS scores indicating little to no fibrosis correspond extremely well with MRE, while scores suggesting advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis correspond less convincingly. MRE shows promise as an effective alternative to liver biopsy, however our study suggests FIB-4 and NFS alone may be sufficient for fibrosis staging, particularly in early stage NAFLD.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9813653
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98136532023-01-25 A comparison of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) to biomarker testing for staging fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) Kaplan, Joseph M. Alexis, Jamil Grimaldi, Gregory Islam, Mohammed Izard, Stephanie M. Lee, Tai-Ping Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol Original Article BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the world’s most prevalent chronic liver disease. In advanced stages, it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and scoring panels Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) and NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS) are useful noninvasive alternatives to liver biopsy for fibrosis staging. Our study aimed to determine how well MRE corresponds with both FIB-4 and NFS at different stages of fibrosis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients age ≥18 with NAFLD as their only known liver disease who underwent MRE within six months of a lab draw. MRE stratified patients into fibrosis stages using kPa values. FIB-4 categorized patients as Advanced Fibrosis Excluded, Further Investigation Needed or Advanced Fibrosis Likely. NFS categorized them as F0-2, Indeterminate or F3-4. MRE fibrosis staging was compared to FIB-4 and NFS for both ruling out advanced fibrosis and identifying advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis. RESULTS: Overall, 193 patients met inclusion criteria. Our statistical analysis included calculating positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs), which are the proportions of positive and negative fibrosis screening results that correspond to positive and negative MRE results respectively. NPV for FIB-4 (0.84) and NFS (0.89) in the ‘rule out advanced fibrosis’ category signify that 84% and 89% of respective biomarker scores correspond to MRE in early stage disease. The PPV for FIB-4 and NFS in the ‘identify advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis’ category signify 63% and 72% of respective biomarker scores correspond to MRE in late stage disease. CONCLUSIONS: FIB-4 and NFS scores indicating little to no fibrosis correspond extremely well with MRE, while scores suggesting advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis correspond less convincingly. MRE shows promise as an effective alternative to liver biopsy, however our study suggests FIB-4 and NFS alone may be sufficient for fibrosis staging, particularly in early stage NAFLD. AME Publishing Company 2023-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9813653/ /pubmed/36704653 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tgh-22-27 Text en 2023 Translational Gastroenterology and Hepatology. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Kaplan, Joseph M.
Alexis, Jamil
Grimaldi, Gregory
Islam, Mohammed
Izard, Stephanie M.
Lee, Tai-Ping
A comparison of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) to biomarker testing for staging fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)
title A comparison of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) to biomarker testing for staging fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)
title_full A comparison of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) to biomarker testing for staging fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)
title_fullStr A comparison of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) to biomarker testing for staging fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) to biomarker testing for staging fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)
title_short A comparison of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) to biomarker testing for staging fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)
title_sort comparison of magnetic resonance elastography (mre) to biomarker testing for staging fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (nafld)
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9813653/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36704653
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tgh-22-27
work_keys_str_mv AT kaplanjosephm acomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographymretobiomarkertestingforstagingfibrosisinnonalcoholicfattyliverdiseasenafld
AT alexisjamil acomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographymretobiomarkertestingforstagingfibrosisinnonalcoholicfattyliverdiseasenafld
AT grimaldigregory acomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographymretobiomarkertestingforstagingfibrosisinnonalcoholicfattyliverdiseasenafld
AT islammohammed acomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographymretobiomarkertestingforstagingfibrosisinnonalcoholicfattyliverdiseasenafld
AT izardstephaniem acomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographymretobiomarkertestingforstagingfibrosisinnonalcoholicfattyliverdiseasenafld
AT leetaiping acomparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographymretobiomarkertestingforstagingfibrosisinnonalcoholicfattyliverdiseasenafld
AT kaplanjosephm comparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographymretobiomarkertestingforstagingfibrosisinnonalcoholicfattyliverdiseasenafld
AT alexisjamil comparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographymretobiomarkertestingforstagingfibrosisinnonalcoholicfattyliverdiseasenafld
AT grimaldigregory comparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographymretobiomarkertestingforstagingfibrosisinnonalcoholicfattyliverdiseasenafld
AT islammohammed comparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographymretobiomarkertestingforstagingfibrosisinnonalcoholicfattyliverdiseasenafld
AT izardstephaniem comparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographymretobiomarkertestingforstagingfibrosisinnonalcoholicfattyliverdiseasenafld
AT leetaiping comparisonofmagneticresonanceelastographymretobiomarkertestingforstagingfibrosisinnonalcoholicfattyliverdiseasenafld