FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2065851022> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2065851022 endingPage "782" @default.
• W2065851022 startingPage "780" @default.
• W2065851022 abstract "The staging of hepatic fibrosis is a cornerstone of the prognosis and assessment of disease progression in patients with chronic liver diseases including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). This is because a histologic assessment of fibrosis has been the only clinically applicable read-out of such progression over the past century. The past 10 years, however, have seen numerous changes that have challenged classic paradigms and are creating new norms for the evaluation of progression and regression of chronic liver diseases. Much of the impetus for the development of newer ways to assess disease progression comes from the inadequacies of liver biopsies as the gold standard for evaluating hepatic fibrosis.1Bedossa P. Carrat F. Liver biopsy: the best, not the gold standard.J Hepatol. 2009; 50: 1-3Google Scholar Liver biopsies often yield a core of 1 to 2 mm diameter and a length varying from 1 to 2 cm.2Vuppalanchi R. Unalp A. Van Natta M.L. et al.Effects of liver biopsy sample length and number of readings on sampling variability in nonalcoholic Fatty liver disease.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009; 7: 481-486Google Scholar Although there has been tacit acceptance that this reflects what is happening in the entire liver, it is now well established that there is substantial sampling variability associated with biopsies in routine settings.2Vuppalanchi R. Unalp A. Van Natta M.L. et al.Effects of liver biopsy sample length and number of readings on sampling variability in nonalcoholic Fatty liver disease.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009; 7: 481-486Google Scholar Specifically, in patients with NASH, it has been shown that 2 biopsies performed at the same location can be associated with a 1-stage variability in fibrosis in 36% of patients, and a 2-stage variation is the assessment of fibrosis in 35% of patients.3Ratziu V. Charlotte F. Heurtier A. et al.Sampling variability of liver biopsy in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.Gastroenterology. 2005; 128: 1898-1906Google Scholar In addition, the biopsy length is a critical determinant of the risk of underassessment or overassessment of hepatic fibrosis with cores less than 1 cm in length, often providing uninterpretable information.2Vuppalanchi R. Unalp A. Van Natta M.L. et al.Effects of liver biopsy sample length and number of readings on sampling variability in nonalcoholic Fatty liver disease.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009; 7: 481-486Google Scholar, 3Ratziu V. Charlotte F. Heurtier A. et al.Sampling variability of liver biopsy in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.Gastroenterology. 2005; 128: 1898-1906Google Scholar On the other hand, when the core approaches 4 cm in length and an asymptote in error rate is reached, there remains substantial baseline variability in fibrosis assessment.4Bedossa P. Utility and appropriateness of the fatty liver inhibition of progression (FLIP) algorithm and steatosis, activity, and fibrosis (SAF) score in the evaluation of biopsies of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.Hepatology. 2014; 60: 565-575Google Scholar Liver biopsies also are uncomfortable and occasionally are accompanied by severe morbidity and, rarely, mortality. These factors have hindered widespread use of this technique for the evaluation of abnormal liver enzyme levels in the general population. With the growing epidemic of NASH, which is estimated to affect 3% to 5% of the general population,5Williams C.D. Stengel J. Asike M.I. et al.Prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis among a largely middle-aged population utilizing ultrasound and liver biopsy: a prospective study.Gastroenterology. 2011; 140: 124-131Google Scholar there is also a lack of a trained workforce that can perform and evaluate biopsies even when they are performed. From a clinician’s perspective, the key question is whether a given patient is progressing toward cirrhosis and how close they are to having a liver-related adverse event. Answering this question drives management of the patient to prevent complications of advanced liver disease. Vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) by Fibroscan (Echosens, Paris, France) is one such promising technology that has been available for use over the past decade.6Mueller S. Sandrin L. Liver stiffness: a novel parameter for the diagnosis of liver disease.Hepat Med. 2010; 2: 49-67Google Scholar However, it only recently was approved by the regulatory authorities for use through a 510(k) clearance by the US Food and Drug Administration. To overcome the learning curve effect, the US Food and Drug Administration manufacturer agreement requires that an operator undergo course training and perform a minimum of 10 cases under the supervision of a proctor before being able to use the device independently. The Fibroscan device works on the simple concept of transmitting a vibration of mild amplitude at low frequency to induce an elastic shear wave and measure the speed of propagation using a pulse-echo ultrasonic acquisition.6Mueller S. Sandrin L. Liver stiffness: a novel parameter for the diagnosis of liver disease.Hepat Med. 2010; 2: 49-67Google Scholar In simple terms, the velocity of the wave propagation directly relates to the tissue stiffness. The device also acquires information from approximately 100 times more sample tissue than a liver biopsy, potentially minimizing the risk of sampling error.6Mueller S. Sandrin L. Liver stiffness: a novel parameter for the diagnosis of liver disease.Hepat Med. 2010; 2: 49-67Google Scholar It also is rapid, noninvasive, and can be performed easily at the bedside. The availability of the results for immediate discussion with the patient during the visit is very convenient and offers an opportunity for the patient to be involved in the decision process. Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by VCTE using Fibroscan serves as a surrogate for degree of fibrosis.6Mueller S. Sandrin L. Liver stiffness: a novel parameter for the diagnosis of liver disease.Hepat Med. 2010; 2: 49-67Google Scholar It generally is considered to be reproducible,7Sandrin L. Fourquet B. Hasquenoph J.M. et al.Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis.Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003; 29: 1705-1713Google Scholar and several cross-sectional studies have reported good correlation with underlying liver fibrosis with disease-specific cut-off values.8Wong G.L. Wong V.W. Choi P.C. et al.Assessment of fibrosis by transient elastography compared with liver biopsy and morphometry in chronic liver diseases.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008; 6: 1027-1035Google Scholar, 9Naveau S. Lamouri K. Pourcher G. et al.The diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis in bariatric surgery candidates with suspected NAFLD.Obes Surg. 2014; 24: 1693-1701Google Scholar, 10Corpechot C. Gaouar F. El Naggar A. et al.Baseline values and changes in liver stiffness measured by transient elastography are associated with severity of fibrosis and outcomes of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis.Gastroenterology. 2014; 146 (quiz e15–16): 970-979Google Scholar, 11Sporea I. Sirli R.L. Deleanu A. et al.What did we learn from the first 3,459 cases of liver stiffness measurement by transient elastography (FibroScan(R))?.Ultraschall Med. 2011; 32: 40-45Google Scholar A recent study not only showed good correlation with severity of primary sclerosing cholangitis at baseline, but also showed that the incremental change in the LSM (ΔLSM/delta time) was predictive of disease progression and clinical outcomes.10Corpechot C. Gaouar F. El Naggar A. et al.Baseline values and changes in liver stiffness measured by transient elastography are associated with severity of fibrosis and outcomes of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis.Gastroenterology. 2014; 146 (quiz e15–16): 970-979Google Scholar Serial measurements of LSM thus may become an integral part of the management of chronic liver disease, both for the assessment of severity and monitoring the response. It is in this context that the current study by Nascimbeni et al12Nascimbeni F. Lebray P. Fedchuk L. et al.Significant variations in elastometry measurements made within short-term in patients with chronic liver diseases.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 13: 763-771Google Scholar is critically relevant. In this retrospective analysis of an existing database of VCTEs performed using Fibroscan at the investigator’s institution over several years, Nascimbeni et al12Nascimbeni F. Lebray P. Fedchuk L. et al.Significant variations in elastometry measurements made within short-term in patients with chronic liver diseases.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 13: 763-771Google Scholar examined the short-term variability (>1 d and <1 y) in LSM in 531 pairs of LSMs obtained in 432 untreated, clinically stable, immunocompetent patients with various chronic liver diseases. The 2 measurements (ie, first LSM [LSM1] and second LSM [LSM2]) were not statistically significantly different to raise concern about the variability in the LSM measurement not related to disease progression. Although reassuring at the study population level, a variability of more than 20% was seen in almost half, a variability of more than 30% was seen in one third, and a variability of more than 50% was seen in up to 12% in the paired measurements. This variability was constant across the spectrum of LSM1 values. This variability resulted in fibrosis classification change by 1 stage in 30% and by 2 or more stages in up to 10%. Predictors of variability were as follows: 2 different operators, at least 1 nonsenior operator, the interquartile range/median ratio, LSM1 showing 7 kPa or higher, baseline body mass index, and doubling of alanine aminotransferase between paired measurements. The authors conclude that monitoring fibrosis by VCTE using Fibroscan could be altered by clinically significant variability unrelated to the natural course of the disease and associated with operator- and patient-related factors. The lowest variability was seen in patients with no/early fibrosis and when VCTE was performed by a single experienced operator. There could be several potential causes of the reported intra-individual variability in the VCTE results reported in this study.12Nascimbeni F. Lebray P. Fedchuk L. et al.Significant variations in elastometry measurements made within short-term in patients with chronic liver diseases.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 13: 763-771Google Scholar There is both intrareporter and inter-reporter variability in the assessment of fibrosis.12Nascimbeni F. Lebray P. Fedchuk L. et al.Significant variations in elastometry measurements made within short-term in patients with chronic liver diseases.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 13: 763-771Google Scholar This may be owing in part to varying periods of fasting before the studies, and variability in positioning both the subject and the probe. In addition, in the context of NASH, the impact of changing hepatic fat content on the fibrosis read-out by VCTE is not well characterized and may have contributed to the observed variability. There are also other conditions that can affect the VCTE results including hepatic congestion caused by heart disease, infiltrative disorders, and so forth.13Millonig G. Friedrich S. Adolf S. et al.Liver stiffness is directly influenced by central venous pressure.J Hepatol. 2010; 52: 206-210Google Scholar An in-depth review of these factors was published recently.14Afdhal N.H. Bacon B.R. Patel K. Accuracy of fibroscan, compared with histology, in analysis of liver fibrosis in patients with hepatitis B or C: A United States multicenter study.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 13: 772-779Google Scholar Finally, the study was performed only with the medium probe in a variety of liver disorders and no disease-specific cut-off values were implemented in staging the fibrosis. These factors highlight the need to develop standardized protocols for performance of VCTE and the reporting of metrics associated with the quality of the study procedure.14Afdhal N.H. Bacon B.R. Patel K. Accuracy of fibroscan, compared with histology, in analysis of liver fibrosis in patients with hepatitis B or C: A United States multicenter study.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 13: 772-779Google Scholar Normally, VCTE should be performed with the patient in a fasting condition for 2 hours before the procedure, lying in supine position with normal breathing, and with the right arm in maximum abduction to allow optimal exposure of the right lateral abdomen. It also is important to maximize the amount of liver tissue interrogated and to avoid the lower edge of the liver. It is possible that for patients in whom multiple studies were anticipated, the location of where the probe was placed was noted in the report to help the next operator perform the study optimally. Furthermore, the median and interquartile range of results must be reported; every attempt should be made to keep the variance in VCTE measurements to a minimum, and ideally under 10%.14Afdhal N.H. Bacon B.R. Patel K. Accuracy of fibroscan, compared with histology, in analysis of liver fibrosis in patients with hepatitis B or C: A United States multicenter study.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 13: 772-779Google Scholar There is increasing use of VCTE in the everyday management of patients with chronic liver disease from varied etiologies.9Naveau S. Lamouri K. Pourcher G. et al.The diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis in bariatric surgery candidates with suspected NAFLD.Obes Surg. 2014; 24: 1693-1701Google Scholar, 15Kitson M.T. Kemp W.W. Iser D.M. et al.Utility of transient elastography in the non-invasive evaluation of cystic fibrosis liver disease.Liver Int. 2013; 33: 698-705Google Scholar, 16Kim J.K. Ma D.W. Lee K.S. et al.Assessment of hepatic fibrosis regression by transient elastography in patients with chronic hepatitis B treated with oral antiviral agents.J Korean Med Sci. 2014; 29: 570-575Google Scholar The variability reported in the current study should be of concern to clinicians who are using LSM to make decisions with meaningful impact.12Nascimbeni F. Lebray P. Fedchuk L. et al.Significant variations in elastometry measurements made within short-term in patients with chronic liver diseases.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 13: 763-771Google Scholar The current study highlights the short-term variability in LSM measurements but does not account for many of the variables related to the 4 variables in the table that begin with T (Table 1). With this study, the assumption (myth) of reproducibility of VCTE has been challenged, bringing attention to the gaps in knowledge (mystery) that need to be resolved to establish the use of VCTE in clinical practice. Until such time, we recommend that a good clinical and medication history followed by an imaging study, hepatic panel, and etiology-specific serologic work-up be available to pursue a context-related interpretation of LSM (wand) and the selective use of liver biopsies to maximize their diagnostic yield in a manner that will guide management.Table 1The 4Ts: List of Variables That Could Affect the Liver Stiffness Measurement or its Interpretation When Using Vibration-Controlled Transient ElastographyTechnologyTechnician/techniqueTissueTablets/tonicsShear wave propagationOperator experienceProbe to liver distanceMedication useTM modeVariability17Roca B. Resino E. Torres V. et al.Interobserver discrepancy in liver fibrosis using transient elastography.J Viral Hepat. 2012; 19: 711-715Google Scholar Ascites β-blockers18Reiberger T. Ferlitsch A. Payer B.A. et al.Non-selective beta-blockers improve the correlation of liver stiffness and portal pressure in advanced cirrhosis.J Gastroenterol. 2012; 47: 561-568Google ScholarA mode Intra-operator AdiposityEtiology-specific therapyAlgorithm Interoperator Altered anatomySignificant weight lossSoftwareAcute hepatitis19Arena U. Vizzutti F. Corti G. et al.Acute viral hepatitis increases liver stiffness values measured by transient elastography.Hepatology. 2008; 47: 380-384Google Scholar Bariatric surgeryProbe size20Sirli R. Sporea I. Deleanu A. et al.Comparison between the M and XL probes for liver fibrosis assessment by transient elastography.Med Ultrason. 2014; 16: 119-122Google ScholarCholestasis21Millonig G. Reimann F.M. Friedrich S. et al.Extrahepatic cholestasis increases liver stiffness (FibroScan) irrespective of fibrosis.Hepatology. 2008; 48: 1718-1723Google ScholarExcessive alcohol use22Trabut J.B. Thepot V. Nalpas B. et al.Rapid decline of liver stiffness following alcohol withdrawal in heavy drinkers.Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2012; 36: 1407-1411Google Scholar MediumPortal flow Extra-large Postprandial state23Arena U. Lupsor Platon M. Stasi C. et al.Liver stiffness is influenced by a standardized meal in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus at different stages of fibrotic evolution.Hepatology. 2013; 58: 65-72Google ScholarTIPSSTumorCystsInfiltrative liver diseaseHemangioma24Aalaei-Andabili S.H. Mehrnoush L. Salimi S. et al.Liver hemangioma might lead to overestimation of liver fibrosis by Fibroscan; a missed issue in two cases.Hepat Mon. 2012; 12: 408-410Google ScholarCongestive hepatopathy13Millonig G. Friedrich S. Adolf S. et al.Liver stiffness is directly influenced by central venous pressure.J Hepatol. 2010; 52: 206-210Google ScholarHepatic steatosisHCV, hepatitis C virus; TIPSS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Open table in a new tab HCV, hepatitis C virus; TIPSS, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Accuracy of Fibroscan, Compared With Histology, in Analysis of Liver Fibrosis in Patients With Hepatitis B or C: A United States Multicenter StudyClinical Gastroenterology and HepatologyVol. 13Issue 4PreviewLiver biopsy is invasive and associated with complications, sampling errors, and observer variability. Vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) with FibroScan can be used to immediately assess liver stiffness. We aimed to define optimal levels of liver stiffness to identify patients with chronic viral hepatitis and significant fibrosis, advanced fibrosis, or cirrhosis. Full-Text PDF Significant Variations in Elastometry Measurements Made Within Short-term in Patients With Chronic Liver DiseasesClinical Gastroenterology and HepatologyVol. 13Issue 4PreviewTransient elastometry is a noninvasive procedure used to measure fibrosis when patients are diagnosed with liver disease; it might be used to monitor changes over time. We investigated whether there are short-term variations in stiffness measurements that are not attributable to changes in fibrosis by studying patients with stable liver disease. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2065851022 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2065851022 creator A5037649284 @default.
• W2065851022 creator A5070639714 @default.
• W2065851022 date "2015-04-01" @default.
• W2065851022 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2065851022 title "Myths and Mysteries About Staging Hepatic Fibrosis by Fibroscan" @default.
• W2065851022 cites W1970900189 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W1977829284 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2024399215 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2030892928 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2046913258 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2057865401 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2059251195 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2061279748 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2081814295 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2088361040 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2095851283 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2106678626 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2110403671 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2110580470 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2114757306 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2115337246 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2128366104 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2139654088 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2145652468 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2146286872 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2152712521 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2156792510 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2166947839 @default.
• W2065851022 cites W2325813965 @default.
• W2065851022 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2014.10.030" @default.
• W2065851022 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4900149" @default.
• W2065851022 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25451885" @default.
• W2065851022 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2065851022 type Work @default.
• W2065851022 sameAs 2065851022 @default.
• W2065851022 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W2065851022 countsByYear W20658510222015 @default.
• W2065851022 countsByYear W20658510222019 @default.
• W2065851022 countsByYear W20658510222020 @default.
• W2065851022 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2065851022 hasAuthorship W2065851022A5037649284 @default.
• W2065851022 hasAuthorship W2065851022A5070639714 @default.
• W2065851022 hasBestOaLocation W20658510222 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConcept C2780559512 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConcept C2993667909 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConcept C519517224 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConcept C90924648 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConceptScore W2065851022C126322002 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConceptScore W2065851022C138885662 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConceptScore W2065851022C27206212 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConceptScore W2065851022C2780559512 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConceptScore W2065851022C2993667909 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConceptScore W2065851022C519517224 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConceptScore W2065851022C61434518 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConceptScore W2065851022C71924100 @default.
• W2065851022 hasConceptScore W2065851022C90924648 @default.
• W2065851022 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2065851022 hasLocation W20658510221 @default.
• W2065851022 hasLocation W20658510222 @default.
• W2065851022 hasLocation W20658510223 @default.
• W2065851022 hasLocation W20658510224 @default.
• W2065851022 hasLocation W20658510225 @default.
• W2065851022 hasOpenAccess W2065851022 @default.
• W2065851022 hasPrimaryLocation W20658510221 @default.
• W2065851022 hasRelatedWork W103547024 @default.
• W2065851022 hasRelatedWork W1985060580 @default.
• W2065851022 hasRelatedWork W2054812545 @default.
• W2065851022 hasRelatedWork W2074029461 @default.
• W2065851022 hasRelatedWork W2156004361 @default.
• W2065851022 hasRelatedWork W2379176186 @default.
• W2065851022 hasRelatedWork W2418806392 @default.
• W2065851022 hasRelatedWork W2769309401 @default.
• W2065851022 hasRelatedWork W2979963019 @default.
• W2065851022 hasRelatedWork W3029950337 @default.
• W2065851022 hasVolume "13" @default.
• W2065851022 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2065851022 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2065851022 magId "2065851022" @default.
• W2065851022 workType "article" @default.