FibroTest and Fibroscan performances revisited in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Impact of the spectrum effect and the applicability rate
- PMID: 21852224
- DOI: 10.1016/j.clinre.2011.07.003
FibroTest and Fibroscan performances revisited in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Impact of the spectrum effect and the applicability rate
Abstract
Background: Two widely used biomarkers of fibrosis, FibroTest and liver stiffness measurement (LSM), have been mostly validated in patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) using the standard area under the ROC curve (sAUROC) which is not the most appropriate method due to the risk of fibrosis spectrum effect. Furthermore the performance of these biomarkers have not been assessed in "intention to diagnose" which takes into account the failures and non-reliable results.
Aim: The aim was to compare the accuracy of FibroTest and LSM for the diagnosis of fibrosis using sAUROC, the pairwise comparison of fibrosis stages by Obuchowski measure (wAUROC), and these AUROCs reassessed after taking into account the applicability rates.
Methods: One thousand two hundred and eighty-nine patients with CHC and 604 healthy volunteers were analyzed. The performances of biomarkers assessed were compared in a patients-only group (P1: n=1289), in a population combining both patients and healthy volunteers (P2: n=1893) and in a simulated population (P3: n=1893) with the prevalence of stages observed in a reference population, to demonstrate the impact of spectrum effect. Applicability rates were estimated prospectively in 24,872 consecutive FibroTest and in 13,669 consecutive LSM examinations.
Results: Using wAUROC, the conclusions of studies with reliable results in P1 were different than in those of P2 and in P3. There was a lower performance of FibroTest versus LSM in P1 (0.864 [0.855-0.873] vs. 0.883 [0.874-0.892]; P=0.002) which was not found in P2 (0.893 [0.887-0.900] vs. 0.894 [0.887-0.901]; P=0.86) and in P3 (0.899 [0.893-0.905] vs 0.902 [0.895-0.909]; P=0.60). Using the sAUROC, in P1, P2 and P3, there was no significant difference between FibroTest and LSM performance for advanced fibrosis and a lower performance of FibroTest versus LSM for cirrhosis. In intention to diagnose, using wAUROCs performances were higher for FibroTest vs. LSM in P1 (0.857 [0.848-0.866] vs. 0.814 [0.807-0.821]; P<0.0001) and P2 (0.885 [0.879-0.892] vs. 0.743 [0.737-0.749]; P<0.0001), without difference in P3 (0.891 [0.885-0.897] vs. 0.894 [0.887-0.901]; P=0.90). Using sAUROC, the significant differences in favor of FibroTest vs LSM persisted also for the diagnosis of advanced fibrosis, both in P1 and P2 (P<0.0001) and for the diagnosis of cirrhosis in P1 (P<0.001).
Conclusion: When the spectrum effects and applicability rates were taken into account, LSM had lower performance results than FibroTest for the diagnosis of fibrosis stages.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Performances of Elasto-FibroTest(®), a combination between FibroTest(®) and liver stiffness measurements for assessing the stage of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C.Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2012 Oct;36(5):455-63. doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2012.08.002. Epub 2012 Sep 5. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2012. PMID: 22959098
-
Relative performances of FibroTest, Fibroscan, and biopsy for the assessment of the stage of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C: a step toward the truth in the absence of a gold standard.J Hepatol. 2012 Mar;56(3):541-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2011.08.007. Epub 2011 Sep 1. J Hepatol. 2012. PMID: 21889468
-
Reliability of transient elastography for the detection of fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and chronic viral hepatitis.J Hepatol. 2011 Jan;54(1):64-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2010.06.022. Epub 2010 Aug 21. J Hepatol. 2011. PMID: 20932598
-
[Non-invasive evaluation of liver fibrosis in hepatitis C].Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2008 Mar;32(3 Pt 2):S90-5. doi: 10.1016/S0399-8320(08)73271-8. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2008. PMID: 18675186 Review. French.
-
Diagnosis of fibrosis and cirrhosis. Liver biopsy is not always necessary.Prescrire Int. 2010 Feb;19(105):38-42. Prescrire Int. 2010. PMID: 20455345 Review.
Cited by
-
Factors That Could Impact on Liver Fibrosis Staging by Transient Elastography.Int J Hepatol. 2015;2015:624596. doi: 10.1155/2015/624596. Epub 2015 Dec 6. Int J Hepatol. 2015. PMID: 26770833 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Systematic review with meta-analysis: direct comparisons of biomarkers for the diagnosis of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C and B.Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Jan;43(1):16-29. doi: 10.1111/apt.13446. Epub 2015 Oct 30. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016. PMID: 26516104 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Diagnostic performance of FibroTest, SteatoTest and ActiTest in patients with NAFLD using the SAF score as histological reference.Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Oct;44(8):877-89. doi: 10.1111/apt.13770. Epub 2016 Aug 23. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016. PMID: 27549244 Free PMC article.
-
Targeting Hepatic Fibrosis in Autoimmune Hepatitis.Dig Dis Sci. 2016 Nov;61(11):3118-3139. doi: 10.1007/s10620-016-4254-7. Epub 2016 Jul 19. Dig Dis Sci. 2016. PMID: 27435327 Review.
-
Critical comparison of elastography methods to assess chronic liver disease.Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jul;13(7):402-11. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2016.86. Epub 2016 Jun 8. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016. PMID: 27273167 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical