4.7 Article

Association between Wisteria floribunda agglutinin-positive Mac-2 binding protein and the fibrosis stage of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 50, 期 7, 页码 776-784

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-014-1007-2

关键词

Mac-2 binding protein; Glycoprotein; Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; Fibrosis marker; Cirrhosis

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K09007, 26293179] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurately evaluating liver fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is important for identifying those who may develop complications. The aims of this study were (1) to measure serum Wisteria floribunda agglutinin-positive Mac-2 binding protein (WFA(+)-M2BP) using the glycan sugar chain-based immunoassay and (2) to compare the results with clinical assessments of fibrosis. Serum WFA(+)-M2BP values were retrospectively evaluated in 289 patients with NAFLD who had undergone liver biopsy. Histological findings were evaluated by three blinded, experienced liver-specific pathologists. For stages 0 (n = 35), 1 (n = 113), 2 (n = 49), 3 (n = 41), and 4 (n = 51) of liver fibrosis, the serum WFA(+)-M2BP cutoff indexes were 0.57, 0.70, 1.02, 1.57, and 2.96, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis showed that serum WFA(+)-M2BP values were associated with the stage of fibrosis (a parts per thousand yenstage 2). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity of serum WFA(+)-M2BP were 0.876, 85.9, and 74.6 %, respectively, for severe fibrosis (a parts per thousand yenstage 3) and were 0.879, 74.6, and 87.0 %, respectively, for cirrhosis. When compared with six non-invasive conventional markers, serum WFA(+)-M2BP had the greatest AUROC for diagnosing severe fibrosis and cirrhosis. Serum WFA(+)-M2BP values are useful for assessing the stage of liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据