Novel reliability criteria for controlled attenuation parameter assessments for non-invasive evaluation of hepatic steatosis

Background There is conflicting evidence regarding reliability criteria for the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP; a marker for hepatic steatosis [HS]). Thus, we assessed the diagnostic performance of CAP according to different reliability criteria based on real-world data from an academic centr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:United European gastroenterology journal 2020-04, Vol.8 (3), p.321-331
Hauptverfasser: Semmler, Georg, Wöran, Katharina, Scheiner, Bernhard, Unger, Lukas Walter, Paternostro, Rafael, Stift, Judith, Schwabl, Philipp, Bucsics, Theresa, Bauer, David, Simbrunner, Benedikt, Stättermayer, Albert Friedrich, Pinter, Matthias, Trauner, Michael, Reiberger, Thomas, Mandorfer, Mattias
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background There is conflicting evidence regarding reliability criteria for the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP; a marker for hepatic steatosis [HS]). Thus, we assessed the diagnostic performance of CAP according to different reliability criteria based on real-world data from an academic centre. Methods Patients undergoing measurement of CAP and liver biopsy (±6 months) at the Medical University of Vienna were included. HS was assessed according to SAF score. Results In total 319 patients were included. The main aetiologies were non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD, n = 177, 55.5%), viral hepatitis (n = 49, 15.4%), and alcoholic liver disease (ALD, n = 29, 9.1%). Histological steatosis and fibrosis stages were: S0: 93 (29.2%), S1: 100 (31.3%), S2: 67 (21.0%), and S3: 59 (18.5%); F0/F1: 150 (47.0%), F2: 47 (14.7%), and F3/F4: 122 (48.3%). In the overall cohort, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of CAP was 0.843 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.798–0.887) for diagnosing HS ≥ S1), 0.789 (95%CI: 0.740–0.839) for ≥S2, and 0.767 (95%CI: 0.712–0.823) for S3. CAP corrections as suggested by Karlas et al. did not improve the diagnostic performance. Importantly, the AUC of CAP for HS ≥ S1 was numerically highest in patients with CAP-IQR/median
ISSN:2050-6406
2050-6414
DOI:10.1177/2050640619900820