Euroasian Journal of Hepato-Gastroenterology

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE S1 ( July, 2022 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Vibration-controlled Transient Elastography in NAFLD: Review Study

Abdullah M Ozercan, Hasan Ozkan

Keywords : Fibrosis, Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, Steatosis, Transient elastography

Citation Information : Ozercan AM, Ozkan H. Vibration-controlled Transient Elastography in NAFLD: Review Study. Euroasian J Hepatogastroenterol 2022; 12 (S1):S41-S45.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10018-1365

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 10-08-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: In this study, we aimed to provide information about transient elastography, a noninvasive method that shows liver steatosis and fibrosis, and to review diagnostic accuracy studies in the literature. Background: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common cause of chronic liver diseases. It has a wide clinical spectrum, ranging from asymptomatic steatosis to cirrhosis with complications that can lead to mortality. Although its frequency varies geographically, it is believed that one out of every four people in the world has NAFLD. Recently, the number of studies about the noninvasive diagnosis of NAFLD and liver fibrosis is increasing. Vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) is a method used for about two decades and provides important information in determining steatosis and fibrosis in the liver. Review results: Area under curve (AUC) levels for ≥S1 are between 0.8 and 0.95 in studies showing the accuracy of the CAP score in detecting steatosis. Sensitivity is between 68 and 87% and specificity is 74 and 91%. AUC levels for steatosis ≥S2 range from 0.73 to 0.88. Sensitivity is between 77 and 85% and specificity is 59 and 81%. For detecting ≥S3, AUC levels were 0.69 to 0.94 and the sensitivity and specificity were 71 to 88%, and 58 to 89%, respectively. In studies, evaluating the effectiveness of elastography in determining the level of fibrosis in patients with NAFLD: AUC was between 0.79 and 0.87, sensitivity was 62 and 94%, and specificity was 61 and 100% for F ≥2. Area under curve was 0.76 to 0.98, sensitivity was 65 to 100% and specificity was 75 to 97% for ≥F3. Area under curve was ranged from 0.91 to 0.99 and sensitivity was 78 to 100% and specificity was 76 to 98% for ≥F4. The studies about the comparison of FibroScan and novel transient elastography device (FibroTouch) reported that results are correlated (r = 0.5–0.6) and the AUC of FibroTouch to detect fibrosis is nearly 0.8. Conclusion: AUROC in studies are mostly above 0.80 in detecting steatosis and detecting the presence of fibrosis in patients diagnosed with NAFLD indicates the reliability of the data obtained. Transient elastography is suggested by the international guidelines for diagnosing NAFLD, especially the decision of biopsy. FibroTouch was found correlated with FibroScan but further studies are necessary to indicate that FibroTouch can be used instead of FibroScan.


PDF Share
  1. Ekstedt M, Hagström H, Nasr P, et al. Fibrosis stage is the strongest predictor for disease-specific mortality in NAFLD after up to 33 years of follow-up. Hepatology 2015;61(5):1547–1554. DOI: 10.1002/hep.27368.
  2. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2018;67(1):328–357. DOI: 10.1002/hep.29367.
  3. Younossi Z, Tacke F, Arrese M, et al. Global perspectives on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology 2019;69(6):2672–2682. DOI: 10.1002/hep.30251.
  4. Li J, Zou B, Yeo YH, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and outcome of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in Asia, 1999–2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;4(5):389–398. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30039-1.
  5. Dulai PS, Singh S, Patel J, et al. Increased risk of mortality by fibrosis stage in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatology 2017;65(5):1557–1565. DOI: 10.1002/hep.29085.
  6. Blais P, Husain N, Kramer JR, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is underrecognized in the primary care setting. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110(1):10–14. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.134.
  7. Thampanitchawong P, Piratvisuth T. Liver biopsy: complications and risk factors. World J Gastroenterol 1999;5(4):301–304. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v5.i4.301.
  8. Kuwashiro T, Takahashi H, Hyogo H, et al. Discordant pathological diagnosis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a prospective multicenter study. JGH Open 2020;4(3):497–502. DOI: 10.1002/jgh3.12289.
  9. Castera L, Friedrich-Rust M, Loomba R. Noninvasive assessment of liver disease in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 2019;156(5):1264–1281. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.12.036.
  10. Castera L. Non-invasive tests for liver fibrosis in NAFLD: creating pathways between primary healthcare and liver clinics. Liver Int 2020;40:77–81. DOI: 10.1111/liv.14347.
  11. Berzigotti A, Tsochatzis E, Boursier J, et al. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on non-invasive tests for evaluation of liver disease severity and prognosis–2021 update. J Hepatol 2021;75(3):659–689. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.05.025.
  12. Imajo K, Kessoku T, Honda Y, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging more accurately classifies steatosis and fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease than transient elastography. Gastroenterology 2016;150(3):626–637. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.11.048.
  13. Sirli R, Sporea I. Controlled attenuation parameter for quantification of steatosis: which cut-offs to use? Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;2021:6662760, 7 p. DOI: 10.1155/2021/6662760.
  14. Yoneda M, Fujita K, Inamori M, et al. Transient elastography in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Gut 2007;56(9): 1330–1331. DOI: 10.1136/gut.2007.126417.
  15. Tapper EB, Loomba R. Noninvasive imaging biomarker assessment of liver fibrosis by elastography in NAFLD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;15(5):274–282. DOI: 10.1038/nrgastro.2018.10.
  16. Honda Y, Yoneda M, Imajo K, et al. Elastography techniques for the assessment of liver fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21(11):4039. DOI: 10.3390/ijms21114039.
  17. Fraquelli M, Rigamonti C, Casazza G, et al. Reproducibility of transient elastography in the evaluation of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic liver disease. Gut 2007;56(7):968–973. DOI: 10.1136/gut.2006.111302.
  18. Zhang X, Wong GLH, Wong VWS. Application of transient elastography in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Mol Hepatol 2020;26(2):128–141. DOI: 10.3350/cmh.2019.0001n.
  19. Semmler G, Wöran K, Scheiner B, et al. Novel reliability criteria for controlled attenuation parameter assessments for non-invasive evaluation of hepatic steatosis. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2020;8(3):321–331. DOI: 10.1177/2050640619900820.
  20. Eddowes PJ, Sasso M, Allison M, et al. Accuracy of FibroScan controlled attenuation parameter and liver stiffness measurement in assessing steatosis and fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 2019;156(6):1717–1730. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.042.
  21. Boursier J, Zarski JP, De Ledinghen V, et al. Multicentric Group from ANRS/HC/EP23 FIBROSTAR Studies. Determination of reliability criteria for liver stiffness evaluation by transient elastography. Hepatology 2013;57(3):1182–1191. DOI: 10.1002/hep.25993.
  22. Wong VWS, Petta S, Hiriart JB, et al. Validity criteria for the diagnosis of fatty liver by M probe-based controlled attenuation parameter. J Hepatol 2017;67(3):577–584. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.05.005.
  23. Castéra L, Foucher J, Bernard PH, et al. Pitfalls of liver stiffness measurement: a 5-year prospective study of 13,369 examinations. Hepatology 2010;51(3):828–835. DOI: 10.1002/hep.23425.
  24. Tapper EB, Challies T, Nasser I, et al. The performance of vibration controlled transient elastography in a US cohort of patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111(5):677–684. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2016.49.
  25. Petroff D, Blank V, Newsome PN, et al. Assessment of hepatic steatosis by controlled attenuation parameter using the M and XL probes: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;6(3):185–198. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30357-5.
  26. Pu K, Wang Y, Bai S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) as a non-invasive test for steatosis in suspected non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol 2019;19(1):1–11. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-019-0961-9.
  27. Shi KQ, Tang JZ, Zhu XL, et al. Controlled attenuation parameter for the detection of steatosis severity in chronic liver disease: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;29(6):1149–1158. DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12519.
  28. Karlas T, Petroff D, Sasso M, et al. Individual patient data meta-analysis of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) technology for assessing steatosis. J Hepatol 2017;66(5):1022–1030. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.12.022.
  29. Wang Y, Fan Q, Wang T, et al. Controlled attenuation parameter for assessment of hepatic steatosis grades: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8(10):17654. PMID: 26770355.
  30. Kwok R, Tse YK, Wong GH, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: non-invasive assessment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease–the role of transient elastography and plasma cytokeratin-18 fragments. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014;39(3):254–269. DOI: 10.1111/apt.12569.
  31. Jiang W, Huang S, Teng H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of point shear wave elastography and transient elastography for staging hepatic fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2018;8(8):e021787. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021787.
  32. De Franchis R. Expanding consensus in portal hypertension: report of the Baveno VI Consensus Workshop: Stratifying risk and individualizing care for portal hypertension. J Hepatol 2015;63(3): 743–752. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2015.05.022.
  33. Serra JT, Mueller J, Teng H, et al. Prospective comparison of transient elastography using two different devices: Performance of FibroScan and FibroTouch. Hepat Med 2020;12:41–48. DOI: 10.2147/HMER.S245455.
  34. Chen GF, Ping J, Gu HT, et al. Correlation of liver stiffness measured by FibroTouch and FibroScan with Ishak fibrosis score in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Chin J Hepatol 2017;25(2):145–150. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-3418.2017.02.013.
  35. Zeng J, Sun WL, Chen GY, et al. Efficiency of FibroScan and FibroTouch in liver stiffness measurement and fat quantification: a comparative analysis. Chin J Hepatol 2016;24(9):652–658. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-3418.2016.09.004.
  36. Ng YZ, Lai LL, Wong SW, et al. Attenuation parameter and liver stiffness measurement using FibroTouch vs Fibroscan in patients with chronic liver disease. PLoS One 2021;16(5):e0250300. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250300.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.