Dataset Information

Diagnostic Performance of Vibration-Controlled Transient Elastography in Liver Transplant Recipients.

ABSTRACT:

Background & aims

Vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) is a non-invasive tool for detecting hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in patients who have not received liver transplants. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of VCTE in detection of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in patients who have undergone liver transplantation.

Methods

We performed a prospective study of 99 liver transplant recipients assessed by VCTE using a standard protocol. Controlled attenuation parameter cutoff values for pairwise steatosis grade and liver stiffness measurements (LSM) and cutoff values for pairwise fibrosis stage were determined using cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve analyses. We calculated sensitivity (fixed at 90%) and specificity (fixed at 90%) values.

Results

A controlled attenuation parameter cutoff value of 270 dB/m detected any hepatic steatosis with an AUROC of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78-0.93). VCTE detected steatosis grades 2-3 vs 0-1 with an AUROC of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99) and steatosis grade 3 vs 0-2 was similar and AUROC of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96). When we used an LSM cutoff value of 10.5 kPa, VCTE identified patients with advanced fibrosis (fibrosis stages ≥ 3) with an AUROC of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88-0.99). At fixed sensitivity, the cutoff LSM value of 10.5k Pa excluded advanced fibrosis with a negative predictive value of 0.99. At fixed specificity, the cutoff LSM value of 16.9 kPa detected advanced fibrosis with a sensitivity of 0.86, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.40, and a negative predictive value of 0.99.

Conclusions

VCTE accurately detects hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in recipients of liver transplants. This non-invasive method might be used to identify patients in need of confirmatory liver biopsy analysis.

SUBMITTER: Siddiqui MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7541402 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance and examination success rate of magnetic resonance (MR) elastography and vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) in the detection of hepatic fibrosis in patients with severe to morbid obesity. Materials and Methods This prospective and HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the institutional review board. A total of 111 patients (71 women, 40 men) participated. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Patients underwent MR elastography with two readers and VCTE with three observers to acquire liver stiffness measurements for liver fibrosis assessment. The results were compared with those from liver biopsy. Each pathology specimen was evaluated by two hepatopathologists according to the METAVIR scoring system or Brunt classification when appropriate. All imaging observers were blinded to the biopsy results, and all hepatopathologists were blinded to the imaging results. Examination success rate, interobserver agreement, and diagnostic accuracy for fibrosis detection were assessed. Results In this obese patient population (mean body mass index = 40.3 kg/m2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 38.7 kg/m2, 41.8 kg/m2]), the examination success rate was 95.8% (92 of 96 patients) for MR elastography and 81.3% (78 of 96 patients) or 88.5% (85 of 96 patients) for VCTE. Interobserver agreement was higher with MR elastography than with biopsy (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.95 vs 0.89). In patients with successful MR elastography and VCTE examinations (excluding unreliable VCTE examinations), both MR elastography and VCTE had excellent diagnostic accuracy in the detection of clinically significant hepatic fibrosis (stage F2-F4) (mean area under the curve: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.85, 0.97] vs 0.91 [95% CI: 0.83, 0.96]; P = .551). Conclusion In this obese patient population, both MR elastography and VCTE had excellent diagnostic performance for assessing hepatic fibrosis; MR elastography was more technically reliable than VCTE and had a higher interobserver agreement than liver biopsy. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article. An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on January 25, 2017.