4.3 Article

Combining transient elastography with FIB4 enhances sensitivity in detecting advanced fibrosis of the liver

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 48, 期 1, 页码 93-100

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2012.746389

关键词

elastography; FIB4; liver cirrhosis; noninvasive markers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To evaluate the predictive value of transient elastography (TE), easy available biochemical scores and a combination of these to detect advanced liver fibrosis (i.e. fibrosis stage >= F3) in patients with chronic liver disease of different etiologies. Material and methods. A valid TE was obtained in 418 patients with chronic liver disease of mixed etiologies during the period of 2007-2010. Reliable fibrosis staging and biochemical data for calculation of APRI, FIB4, and AST/ALT-ratio (AAR) were available in 187 cases of which 50 had clinical obvious cirrhosis. Logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate if biochemical scores were significant predictors of advanced fibrosis independent of TE. Results. In the whole group, TE correlated significantly with APRI and FIB4 but not with AAR. In patients with TE >= 7 kPa, a new formula combining TE and FIB4 improved the accuracy for detecting advanced fibrosis. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and sensitivity for the combined formula was 0.94 and 0.92, respectively, as opposed to 0.90 and 0.87 for TE alone. After exclusion of cases with clinical obvious cirrhosis, only FIB4 was a significant predictor of advanced liver fibrosis independent of TE. A combined formula gave a marginally improved AUROC in this group. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that the combination of TE and FIB4 is useful in the prediction of advanced fibrosis. The effect of this combination was marginal when only asymptomatic patients were included. Larger studies are needed to see if this effect is statistically significant and to detect possible differences according to etiology.

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

4.3
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