Published online Aug 28, 2007. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i32.4287
Revised: April 19, 2007
Accepted: April 20, 2007
Published online: August 28, 2007
Assessment of hepatic fibrosis is important for determining prognosis, guiding management decisions, and monitoring disease. Histological evaluation of liver biopsy specimens is currently considered the reference test for staging hepatic fibrosis. Since liver biopsy carries a small but significant risk, noninvasive tests to assess hepatic fibrosis are desirable. This editorial gives an overview on noninvasive methods currently available to determine hepatic fibrosis and their diagnostic accuracy for predicting significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in chronic hepatitis C. Based on available data, the performance of simple tests derived from routine laboratory parameters appears to be similar to that of more complex and expensive fibrosis panels. Transient elastography seems more accurate than blood tests for diagnosing cirrhosis.
- Citation: Stauber RE, Lackner C. Noninvasive diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13(32): 4287-4294
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v13/i32/4287.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v13.i32.4287
Hepatic fibrosis is the basis for the development of portal hypertension, complications of chronic liver disease including esophageal varices and/or ascites, and liver failure. Assessment of the degree of hepatic fibrosis (i.e. staging) is important for several reasons: (1) to determine the prognosis of chronic liver disease, (2) to select patients for specific (antifibrotic) treatment, and (3) to monitor the success of treatment.
Assessment of hepatic fibrosis is especially relevant in the context of chronic hepatitis C. In developed countries, chronic hepatitis C is one of the leading causes of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver transplantation. The stage of fibrosis carries important prognostic information as it is closely related to the risk for development of cirrhosis[1]. Antiviral treatment of chronic hepatitis C aims at viral eradication and/or prevention of fibrosis progression. However, current standard treatment with peginterferon/ribavirin has limited efficacy and is associated with severe side effects. Especially in difficult-to-treat patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection and average cure rates of only 50%, the indication for antiviral treatment is selective and based on several factors such as age, concomitant diseases, and fibrosis stage. Hence, in HCV genotype 1 patients antiviral treatment has been primarily recommended for patients with at least significant fibrosis[2].
Currently, histological scoring is the reference test for staging of hepatic fibrosis. However, since liver biopsy is associated with complications, noninvasive methods for assessment of hepatic fibrosis are desired by both clinicians and patients. Different approaches to estimate liver fibrosis noninvasively have been pursued, including indirect fibrosis tests based on routine liver function parameters, direct fibrosis tests based on extracellular matrix proteins, and physical methods that estimate fibrosis by measuring hepatic stiffness.
These noninvasive fibrosis tests are being intensely investigated in liver disease of various etiologies and several comprehensive reviews have been published recently[3-6]. However, the clinical impact of the numerous proposed methods remains unclear at present. This Editorial is intended to give an overview on currently available blood tests and physical methods for assessment of hepatic fibrosis and focuses on comparison of their diagnostic accuracies for predicting clinically relevant stages (significant fibrosis, cirrhosis) of chronic HCV infection.
Histological evaluation of percutaneous liver biopsy specimens is currently used as a gold standard for assessment of hepatic fibrosis in chronic HCV infection. Fibrosis is usually staged semi-quantitatively by the pathologist using one of several published scoring systems. However, liver biopsy carries a significant risk and histological staging has several shortcomings as outlined below that limit its diagnostic accuracy.
Among the complications of percutaneous liver biopsy are pain (10%-30%), bleeding (which may be severe and necessitate blood transfusion or emergency surgery), biliary peritonitis, and pneumothorax. In large series, mortality has been reported to range from 0.1%-0.01%[7,8]. Percutaneous liver biopsy is contraindicated in the presence of coagulopathy, thrombocytopenia, and ascites. These contraindications may be in part obviated by transjugular liver biopsy; however, this method is not widely available.
An average needle biopsy specimen represents only 1/50 000 of a human liver. Sampling error thus may play an important role in diseases that exhibit a patchy rather than homogenous distribution within the liver. In a study investigating simultaneous biopsies from the left and right liver lobes during laparoscopy, fibrosis scores obtained in both biopsy sites differed by at least one stage in 33% of the patients[9]. Furthermore, Bedossa et al[10] demonstrated that the length of the biopsy core is positively related to the precision of fibrosis scoring. Likewise, Colloredo et al[11] reported that in liver biopsy specimens of inadequate size stage is likely to be underscored in chronic viral hepatitis. Based on these studies, liver biopsy cylinders with a length of ≥ 20 mm (at a width of 1.4 mm) and/or at least 11 complete portal tracts have been identified as minimal requirements for optimal histological evaluation of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. However, with respect to the evaluation of noninvasive fibrosis tests, most studies did not accurately report whether these requirements for adequate liver biopsy specimens were met[12].
As scoring is subjective, observer error also plays an important role. Interobserver variation is largely dependent on the experience of the pathologist. In a study evaluating interobserver variation between 10 different experienced pathologists, substantial agreement was found for staging fibrosis (kappa 0.78) while variation was considerably higher for grading inflammatory activity[13,14].
The interpretation of studies assessing hepatic fibrosis is further hampered by the lack of standardization of hepatic fibrosis scores. Several scoring systems have been developed that classify the degree of hepatic fibrosis either on a 5-step scale (F0-F4) including the Knodell fibrosis score[15], the Scheuer fibrosis score[16], and the METAVIR fibrosis score[13], or on a 7-step scale (F0-F6) such as the Ishak fibrosis score[17]. Significant fibrosis has been defined as F2-F4 or F3-F6 and cirrhosis as F4 or F5-F6, respectively. To date, liver pathologists have not reached a universal consensus on the standardization of scoring systems. However, histopathological scoring of fibrosis by different systems appears to be quite robust as comparison of the Ishak and METAVIR fibrosis scores yielded excellent agreement (weighted kappa 0.998)[14].
Several indirect fibrosis tests (indices composed of routine laboratory parameters that reflect changes in liver function) have been suggested as surrogate marker of hepatic fibrosis. Most of them are readily available at no additional cost, albeit they may require the use of a pocket calculator or access to the internet.
Almost three decades ago, the ratio of aspartate aminotransferase to alanine aminotransferase (AST/ALT ratio, AAR) has been proposed as a surrogate marker of hepatic fibrosis, with values > 1 being suggestive of cirrhosis[18]. This finding is related to an increased release of mitochondrial AST, decreased AST clearance and/or impaired synthesis of ALT in advanced liver disease. However, discrepant results have been published on the diagnostic accuracy of the AAR. Giannini et al[19] reported high diagnostic accuracy of the AAR for prediction of cirrhosis and significant fibrosis[20]. In contrast, Lackner et al[21] found the diagnostic accuracy of AAR to be clearly inferior to that of other indirect fibrosis tests based on routine laboratory parameters.
Hepatic fibrosis may lead to thrombocytopenia as a consequence of impaired synthesis of thrombopoietin and/or sequestering of platelets in an enlarged spleen. Surprisingly, few data exist on the diagnostic value of platelet count per se although the platelet count has been included in several composite fibrosis scores. Ono et al[22] reported the use of platelet count could discriminate F4 from F1-F3 in 75%-80% of patients with chronic hepatitis C. In our own study, a platelet count of < 150 × 109/L had a positive predictive value (PPV) > 90% for significant fibrosis, whereas at a cut-off of ≥ 150 × 109/L it had a negative predictive value (NPV) > 90% for cirrhosis[21].
Platelet count has been combined with age in the age-platelet index[23] or with AAR and prothrombin time in the cirrhosis discriminant score (CDS)[24] but the diagnostic accuracy of these composite scores was not superior to platelet count per se[21]. In addition, platelet count is a component of AST to platelet ratio index (APRI), model 3, Forns index, Fibrometer, and FibroIndex.
The APRI was described by Wai et al[25] from Anna Lok’s group at Ann Arbor University. It is calculated as
APRI = [(AST/Upper limit of normal)/platelet count (109/L)] × 100
This test is derived from readily available laboratory parameters and usually requires a pocket calculator. Its diagnostic accuracy for both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis has been confirmed by several external studies[21,26-30]. Using the cut-offs proposed by Wai et al, approximately 50% of the patients can be correctly classified without a liver biopsy.
Lok et al[31] proposed another prognostic model for prediction/exclusion of cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C which is based on platelet count, AST, and prothrombin time expressed as international normalized ratio (INR). This index may be derived from the regression formula:
log odds = -5.56 - 0.0089 × platelet (× 109/L) + 1.26 ×AST/ALT ratio + 5.27 × INR
or by a calculator available at the web site of the HALT-C trial (http://www.haltctrial.org). Using model 3 at a cut-off of < 0.20, cirrhosis could be excluded with an NPV of 99%.
Forns et al[32] developed an index derived from age, gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), cholesterol, and platelet count in a study of 476 untreated HCV patients, which is calculated as follows:
7.811 - 3.131 × ln (platelet count) + 0.781 × ln (GGT) + 3.467 × ln (age) - 0.014 × (cholesterol [mg/dL])
In their study, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for prediction of significant fibrosis (F2-F4 according to the Scheuer classification) was 0.86 in the test set and 0.81 in the validation set. The diagnostic accuracy of this index has been confirmed in patients with HIV-HCV coinfection[33].
French investigators analyzed an extensive array of biochemical tests in 339 patients with chronic hepatitis C and identified a panel of 5 markers which could best predict the stage of fibrosis: α2-macroglobulin, haptoglobin, apolipoprotein A1, GGT, and total bilirubin[34]. This test has been marketed as FibrotestTM (Biopredictive, Paris, France) in Europe and as FibrosureTM (LabCorp, Burlington, NC) in the United States. In contrast to the above mentioned indirect fibrosis tests, calculation of the Fibrotest by a patented algorithm is subject to payment of a fee to the manufacturer. The Fibrotest has been validated internally and externally in several studies in patients with chronic hepatitis C[35-38]. Interestingly, a recent study suggested that Fibrotest was a better predictor than histologic staging for complications of chronic hepatitis C[39]. Fibrotest was also found to predict fibrosis in alcoholic[40] and non-alcoholic[41] fatty liver disease. The diagnostic accuracy of this test is limited by hemolysis (leading to a reduction in haptoglobin), Gilbert’s syndrome (increasing the bilirubin level), and recent or ongoing infection (leading to elevations of α2-macroglobulin and haptoglobin).
Recently, Japanese investigators proposed another index composed of platelet count, AST, and gamma globulin:
1.738 - 0.064 (platelets [× 104/mm3]) + 0.005 (AST [IU/L]) + 0.463 (gamma globulin [g/dL])
The AUROC for prediction of significant fibrosis was 0.83 (0.82 in the validation set) which was slightly superior to APRI or the Forns index assessed in the same study[29].
Serum levels of extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins reflect the balance between hepatic fibrogenesis and fibrolysis and have been proposed as direct markers (biomarkers) of hepatic fibrosis. In addition, several fibrosis panels (i.e. combinations of such biomarkers) have been developed and some of them are now available for commercial use. While these biomarkers or panels thereof are directly related to the deposition of fibrotic material, their diagnostic performance in hepatic fibrosis may be limited by extrahepatic confounding factors such as systemic inflammation or renal failure.
Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a polysaccharide present in ECM and elevated in serum in patients with hepatic fibrosis. Commercial test kits are available from Corgenix (Westminster, Colorado). The diagnostic accuracy of HA was found to be superior to that of procollagen type III N-terminal peptide (PIIINP)[42] and its diagnostic accuracy was confirmed in a large study of 486 HCV patients[43]. HA was also found to be an accurate marker of severe hepatic fibrosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease[44].
Procollagen peptides: PIIINP is a product of cleavage of procollagen and has been proposed as a serum marker of hepatic fibrosis more than two decades ago[45]. However, in several studies in patients with chronic HCV infection, this biomarker showed only moderate diagnostic accuracy[42,46,47].
Matrix metalloproteinases and inhibitors: Excess ECM proteins are degraded by matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) which are in turn inhibited by tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs). Since both MMPs and TIMPs are related to matrix protein turnover, their serum levels have been used as fibrosis markers. However, studies on the correlation of MMP-1, MMP-2, MMP-9, TIMP-1, and TIMP-2 with hepatic fibrosis have produced conflicting results[48-50]. TIMP-1 is a component of several composite fibrosis panels (see below).
YKL-40: YKL-40 is a glycoprotein believed to play a role in ECM degradation. In a study of 109 patients with chronic HCV infection, this biomarker showed similar diagnostic accuracy to HA for significant fibrosis, while its ability to diagnose cirrhosis was inferior to that of HA[51].
Combinations of one or more biomarkers with indirect fibrosis tests have been suggested as noninvasive fibrosis tests.
The Fibrospect II assay (Prometheus Laboratories Inc., San Diego, CA) uses HA, TIMP-1 and α2-macroglobulin. This test was found to accurately predict significant fibrosis in a study of 294 HCV patients and validated in an external cohort of 402 HCV patients[52]. This test was further validated in a study comparing the diagnostic accuracies of APRI, Forns index, Fibrotest, and Fibrometer[26].
In a European multicenter study of 1021 patients with chronic liver disease of different etiologies, an algorithm consisting of age, HA, PIIINP, and TIMP-1 was developed[53]. Using the Scheuer fibrosis score as a reference test, its overall diagnostic accuracy was similar to that of other noninvasive fibrosis tests (AUROC 0.78 for significant fibrosis, 0.89 for cirrhosis). Performance of the algorithm was slightly lower in a subgroup of patients with chronic hepatitis C (n = 325, AUROC 0.77 for prediction of F3-F4). This test is being marketed as Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELFTM) test by Siemens Medical Solutions Diagnostics (Tarrytown, NY).
This model was developed by Australian investigators and is derived from bilirubin, GGT, HA, α2-macroglobulin, age and sex. High diagnostic performance was reported for both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis[54], but external validation yielded somewhat lower diagnostic accuracies[30].
The Fibrometer test incorporates α2-macroglobulin, HA, AST, platelet count, prothrombin index, urea, and age. Cales et al[26] reported superior diagnostic accuracy of Fibrometer to Forns index, Fibrotest, and APRI. However, this finding was not confirmed in an external validation study[30]. Several Fibrometers are now commercially available at BioLiveScale (Angers, France) for assessment of fibrosis in chronic viral hepatitis (Fibrometer V), alcoholic liver disease (Fibrometer A), and metabolic steatopathy (Fibrometer S).
Radiological techniques such as ultrasound, CT scan or MRI can accurately detect cirrhosis at advanced stages with hepatic nodularity or signs of portal hypertension such as splenomegaly, presence of portosystemic collaterals or ascites. However, these techniques fail to detect earlier stages of hepatic fibrosis or cirrhosis. Recently, special techniques for assessment of liver stiffness (elastography) have been developed.
Transient elastography by FibroscanTM (Echosens, Paris, France) is a promising technique that estimates the degree of hepatic fibrosis by measuring liver stiffness[55]. The Fibroscan transmits a vibration of low frequency into the liver from a probe that includes an ultrasonic transducer. The vibration waves induce an elastic shear wave whose velocity is proportional to the stiffness of the tissue. Shear wave velocity is measured by pulse-echo ultrasound and results are expressed in kPa. In cirrhotic patients, liver stiffness measurements (LSM) show a wide range from approximately 12 to 75 kPa. The Fibroscan samples a volume of approximately 4 cm3 which is considered more representative of the entire liver than a needle biopsy specimen. Measurements can be quickly performed in 5 min and are highly reproducible. However, steatosis may confound its value to estimate fibrosis. Furthermore, measurement is heavily limited or impossible in obesity, ascites or in patients with narrow intercostal spaces.
The Fibroscan has been studied in various liver diseases including chronic hepatitis C[56] and primary biliary cirrhosis[57] demonstrating good diagnostic accuracy. A small study in patients with chronic HCV infection and persistently normal transaminases even reported values of 100% for sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV, respectively[58]. In a study of 711 patients with chronic liver disease of various etiologies, LSM was closely related to fibrosis stage (r = 0.73) and high diagnostic accuracy was found for the diagnosis of cirrhosis (AUROC 0.96)[59]. Ganne-Carrie et al[60] further elaborated LSM for diagnosing cirrhosis and confirmed high diagnostic accuracy (AUROC 0.95) at a cut-off value of 14.6 kPa with some false-negative results due to inactive or macronodular cirrhosis. Another large study evaluated the success rate and performance of LSM in 935 patients with chronic HCV infection and reported successful measurements in 97% of the patients, while fatty thoracic belt was the major limiting factor[61]. Interestingly, recent data indicate a close correlation between LSM and portal pressure as estimated by the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) in patients with HCV-related cirrhosis[62] as well as recurring hepatitis C following liver transplantation[63]. Vizzutti et al[62] reported a good correlation between LSM and HVPG (r = 0.82) at lower portal pressures (< 12 mmHg) and suggested that, at a cut-off of 13.6 kPa, LSM could reliably predict or exclude clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, i.e. a portal pressure of ≥ 10 mmHg) which is the prerequisite for the formation of esophageal varices. Thus, LSM may be the method of choice to characterize the severity of cirrhosis in patients without CSPH while at the same time it could be used to identify patients with CSPH that may benefit from portal pressure measurement by hepatic vein catheterization. This approach should be prospectively tested in future studies.
Another attractive approach is the development of real-time ultrasound systems equipped with special elastography modules that allow estimation of liver fibrosis with conventional ultrasound probes during a routine sonography examination. First results obtained with the Hitachi EUB-8500 system were recently presented[64]. In 79 patients with chronic viral hepatitis, the AUROC for diagnosis of significant fibrosis was 0.75 (elasticity score) or 0.93 (combined elasticity-laboratory score).
Aguirre et al[65] from the University of California at San Diego proposed noninvasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis using double contrast material-enhanced MR imaging. In a retrospective study in 101 patients, this method could detect advanced fibrosis (METAVIR fibrosis score ≥ 3) with a sensitivity and specificity of > 90%.
The highest diagnostic accuracies have to date been reported with the combined use of different methods with synergistic performance.
Castera et al[66] investigated APRI, Fibrotest, Fibroscan and combinations thereof in 183 patients with chronic hepatitis C. For significant fibrosis (but not cirrhosis), the combination of Fibroscan and Fibrotest had superior diagnostic accuracy (AUROC 0.88) to that of respective individual tests.
The sequential use of several markers may overcome some of the limitations of individual markers. Sebastiani et al[67] developed three different sequential algorithms (including APRI, Fibrotest and/or Forns index) for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis with elevated ALT, significant fibrosis with persistently normal ALT, and cirrhosis, respectively, which allowed to classify 100% of the patients for each entity.
Table 1 gives an overview of the diagnostic accuracies of various noninvasive tests for assessment of clinically relevant stages of hepatic fibrosis. All tests showed a better performance for diagnosing cirrhosis (AUROC 0.90-0.95) than for significant fibrosis (AUROC clustering around 0.80). With respect to significant fibrosis, the diagnostic accuracy of complex biomarker panels or newer physical methods was not superior to that of simple tests based on routine laboratory parameters. However, transient elastography appears more accurate than blood tests for diagnosing cirrhosis and may be especially useful for detection of clinically significant portal hypertension.
| n | Significantfibrosis | Cirrhosis | Author | |
| (AUROC) | (AUROC) | |||
| Indirect fibrosis tests | ||||
| AST/ALT ratio | 194 | 0.57 | 0.73 | Lackner[21] |
| 409 | 0.75 | - | Giannini[20] | |
| Platelet count | 194 | 0.71 | 0.89 | Lackner[21] |
| 409 | 0.73 | - | Giannini[20] | |
| APRI | 270 | 0.80 (0.881) | 0.89 (0.941) | Wai[25] |
| 194 | 0.8 | 0.9 | Lackner[21] | |
| 503 | 0.79 | - | Cales[26] | |
| 235 | 0.71 | 0.81 | Bourliere[27] | |
| 206 | 0.82 | 0.84 | Parise[28] | |
| 360 | 0.79 (0.821) | - | Koda[29] | |
| 356 | 0.76 | 0.92 | Halfon[30] | |
| Model 3 | 1141 | - | 0.78 (0.811) | Lok[31] |
| Forns index | 476 | 0.86 (0.811) | - | Forns[32] |
| 503 | 0.82 | - | Cales[26] | |
| 235 | 0.76 | - | Bourliere[27] | |
| 360 | 0.79 (0.841) | - | Koda[29] | |
| Fibrotest/Fibrosure | 339 | 0.84 (0.871) | 0.92 | Imbert-Bismut[34] |
| 352 | 0.73 | - | Poynard[36] | |
| 323 | 0.84 | - | Myers[35] | |
| 125 | 0.74 | - | Rossi[37] | |
| 503 | 0.81 | - | Cales[26] | |
| 519 | 0.79 | - | Halfon[38] | |
| 235 | 0.81 | 0.82 | Bourliere[27] | |
| 356 | 0.79 | 0.86 | Halfon[30] | |
| FibroIndex | 360 | 0.83 (0.861) | - | Koda[29] |
| Direct fibrosis tests | ||||
| Hyaluronic acid | 326 | 0.86 | 0.92 | Guechot[42] |
| 206 | 0.88 | 0.91 | Parise[28] | |
| PIIINP | 326 | 0.69 | 0.73 | Guechot[42] |
| TIMP-1 | 78 | 0.71 | 0.90 | Boeker[49] |
| YKL-40 | 109 | 0.81 | 0.80 | Saitou[51] |
| Composite fibrosis panels | ||||
| Fibrospect II | 696 | 0.83 (0.821) | - | Patel[52] |
| 503 | 0.87 | - | Cales[26] | |
| ELF | 10212 | 0.78 | 0.89 | Rosenberg[53] |
| 503 | 0.83 | - | Cales[26] | |
| Hepascore | 221 | 0.85 (0.821) | 0.94 (0.891) | Adams[54] |
| 356 | 0.76 | 0.89 | Halfon[30] | |
| Fibrometer | 503 | 0.88 | - | Cales[26] |
| 356 | 0.78 | 0.94 | Halfon[30] | |
| Elastography | ||||
| Transient elastography | 327 | 0.79 | 0.97 | Ziol[56] |
| (Fibroscan) | 7112 | 0.80 | 0.96 | Foucher[59] |
| 403 | 1.00 | - | Colletta[58] | |
| 7752 | - | 0.95 | Ganne-Carrie[60] | |
| 935 | 0.79 | 0.91 | Kettaneh[61] | |
| Real-time elastography | 79 | 0.75 | 0.69 | Friedrich-Rust[64] |
| Combined tests | ||||
| Fibroscan + Fibrotest | 183 | 0.88 | 0.95 | Castera[66] |
It should be noted that many of the reported tests have not yet undergone adequate external validation. Besides, direct comparison of different studies is hampered by variation in the reference test (sampling error, observer variation, use of different scoring systems) and different distribution of fibrosis stages within the study populations. In a recent study, Poynard et al[68] reported an important influence of biopsy size and fragmentation on the diagnostic accuracy of the Fibrotest. Such variation of the ‘gold standard’ may lead to underestimation of the diagnostic performance of noninvasive tests.
Few trials have directly compared different tests in the same populations of patients with chronic hepatitis C. Lackner et al[21] evaluated several noninvasive fibrosis tests based on routine laboratory parameters and found superior diagnostic accuracy of APRI to AST/ALT ratio. Bourliere et al[27] reported similar performance of Fibrotest, APRI, and Forns index while Cales et al[26] found superior diagnostic accuracy of Fibrometer to APRI, Forns index, and Fibrotest. In contrast, in 356 patients with chronic hepatitis C, Halfon et al[30] reported similar diagnostic accuracies of Fibrotest, Fibrometer, APRI, and Hepascore for significant fibrosis (AUROC 0.79, 0.78, 0.76, 0.76, respectively). Based on these comparative studies, the diagnostic accuracy of simple noninvasive fibrosis tests such as APRI appears to be similar to that of more complex and expensive fibrosis panels.
The main advantages of noninvasive fibrosis tests are the absence of risks and the potential to reflect the status of the entire liver. However, while optimal results are obtained at both ends of the spectrum of liver fibrosis, their most important limitation is the lack of discrimination at intermediate stages of fibrosis. Parkes et al[5] evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of several direct and indirect noninvasive fibrosis tests at cut-off levels giving high predictive values (PPV ≥ 90%, NPV ≥ 95%) and concluded that serum markers can reliably predict fibrosis only in a minority (about 35%) of patients with chronic hepatitis C. Besides, liver biopsy is still needed to rule out concomitant pathologies known to influence response to antiviral treatment, such as steatosis, steatohepatitis and/or iron overload. Future practice guidelines should address the role of noninvasive tests in assessing the stage of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C[69].
S- Editor Zhu LH L- Editor Zhu LH E- Editor Liu Y
| 1. | Yano M, Kumada H, Kage M, Ikeda K, Shimamatsu K, Inoue O, Hashimoto E, Lefkowitch JH, Ludwig J, Okuda K. The long-term pathological evolution of chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology. 1996;23:1334-1340. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 364] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 375] [Article Influence: 13.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 2. | Strader DB, Wright T, Thomas DL, Seeff LB. Diagnosis, management, and treatment of hepatitis C. Hepatology. 2004;39:1147-1171. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1283] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1348] [Article Influence: 67.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 3. | Rockey DC, Bissell DM. Noninvasive measures of liver fibrosis. Hepatology. 2006;43:S113-S120. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 243] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 245] [Article Influence: 13.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 4. | Mukherjee S, Sorrell MF. Noninvasive tests for liver fibrosis. Semin Liver Dis. 2006;26:337-347. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 13] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 5. | Parkes J, Guha IN, Roderick P, Rosenberg W. Performance of serum marker panels for liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol. 2006;44:462-474. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 173] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 178] [Article Influence: 9.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 6. | Nguyen-Khac E, Capron D. Noninvasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis by ultrasonic transient elastography (Fibroscan). Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;18:1321-1325. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 51] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 49] [Article Influence: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 7. | McGill DB, Rakela J, Zinsmeister AR, Ott BJ. A 21-year experience with major hemorrhage after percutaneous liver biopsy. Gastroenterology. 1990;99:1396-1400. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 8. | Van Thiel DH, Gavaler JS, Wright H, Tzakis A. Liver biopsy. Its safety and complications as seen at a liver transplant center. Transplantation. 1993;55:1087-1090. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 90] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 79] [Article Influence: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 9. | Regev A, Berho M, Jeffers LJ, Milikowski C, Molina EG, Pyrsopoulos NT, Feng ZZ, Reddy KR, Schiff ER. Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:2614-2618. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1504] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1522] [Article Influence: 69.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 10. | Bedossa P, Dargère D, Paradis V. Sampling variability of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology. 2003;38:1449-1457. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1193] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1366] [Article Influence: 65.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 11. | Colloredo G, Guido M, Sonzogni A, Leandro G. Impact of liver biopsy size on histological evaluation of chronic viral hepatitis: the smaller the sample, the milder the disease. J Hepatol. 2003;39:239-244. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 623] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 577] [Article Influence: 27.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 12. | Cholongitas E, Senzolo M, Standish R, Marelli L, Quaglia A, Patch D, Dhillon AP, Burroughs AK. A systematic review of the quality of liver biopsy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125:710-721. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 163] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 105] [Article Influence: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 13. | Intraobserver and interobserver variations in liver biopsy interpretation in patients with chronic hepatitis C. The French METAVIR Cooperative Study Group. Hepatology. 1994;20:15-20. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1406] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1387] [Article Influence: 46.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 14. | Rozario R, Ramakrishna B. Histopathological study of chronic hepatitis B and C: a comparison of two scoring systems. J Hepatol. 2003;38:223-229. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 87] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 89] [Article Influence: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 15. | Knodell RG, Ishak KG, Black WC, Chen TS, Craig R, Kaplowitz N, Kiernan TW, Wollman J. Formulation and application of a numerical scoring system for assessing histological activity in asymptomatic chronic active hepatitis. Hepatology. 1981;1:431-435. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 2558] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2460] [Article Influence: 57.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 16. | Desmet VJ, Gerber M, Hoofnagle JH, Manns M, Scheuer PJ. Classification of chronic hepatitis: diagnosis, grading and staging. Hepatology. 1994;19:1513-1520. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1582] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1470] [Article Influence: 49.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 17. | Ishak K, Baptista A, Bianchi L, Callea F, De Groote J, Gudat F, Denk H, Desmet V, Korb G, MacSween RN. Histological grading and staging of chronic hepatitis. J Hepatol. 1995;22:696-699. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 3521] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3667] [Article Influence: 126.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (1)] |
| 18. | Williams AL, Hoofnagle JH. Ratio of serum aspartate to alanine aminotransferase in chronic hepatitis. Relationship to cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 1988;95:734-739. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 19. | Giannini E, Risso D, Botta F, Chiarbonello B, Fasoli A, Malfatti F, Romagnoli P, Testa E, Ceppa P, Testa R. Validity and clinical utility of the aspartate aminotransferase-alanine aminotransferase ratio in assessing disease severity and prognosis in patients with hepatitis C virus-related chronic liver disease. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:218-224. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 236] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 227] [Article Influence: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 20. | Giannini EG, Zaman A, Ceppa P, Mastracci L, Risso D, Testa R. A simple approach to noninvasively identifying significant fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C patients in clinical practice. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;40:521-527. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 23] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 21] [Article Influence: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 21. | Lackner C, Struber G, Liegl B, Leibl S, Ofner P, Bankuti C, Bauer B, Stauber RE. Comparison and validation of simple noninvasive tests for prediction of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology. 2005;41:1376-1382. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 240] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 246] [Article Influence: 12.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 22. | Ono E, Shiratori Y, Okudaira T, Imamura M, Teratani T, Kanai F, Kato N, Yoshida H, Shiina S, Omata M. Platelet count reflects stage of chronic hepatitis C. Hepatol Res. 1999;15:192-200. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 23. | Poynard T, Bedossa P. Age and platelet count: a simple index for predicting the presence of histological lesions in patients with antibodies to hepatitis C virus. METAVIR and CLINIVIR Cooperative Study Groups. J Viral Hepat. 1997;4:199-208. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 187] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 191] [Article Influence: 7.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 24. | Bonacini M, Hadi G, Govindarajan S, Lindsay KL. Utility of a discriminant score for diagnosing advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997;92:1302-1304. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 25. | Wai CT, Greenson JK, Fontana RJ, Kalbfleisch JD, Marrero JA, Conjeevaram HS, Lok AS. A simple noninvasive index can predict both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology. 2003;38:518-526. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 2762] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3105] [Article Influence: 147.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 26. | Calès P, Oberti F, Michalak S, Hubert-Fouchard I, Rousselet MC, Konaté A, Gallois Y, Ternisien C, Chevailler A, Lunel F. A novel panel of blood markers to assess the degree of liver fibrosis. Hepatology. 2005;42:1373-1381. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 392] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 370] [Article Influence: 19.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 27. | Bourliere M, Penaranda G, Renou C, Botta-Fridlund D, Tran A, Portal I, Lecomte L, Castellani P, Rosenthal-Allieri MA, Gerolami R. Validation and comparison of indexes for fibrosis and cirrhosis prediction in chronic hepatitis C patients: proposal for a pragmatic approach classification without liver biopsies. J Viral Hepat. 2006;13:659-670. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 103] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 90] [Article Influence: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 28. | Parise ER, Oliveira AC, Figueiredo-Mendes C, Lanzoni V, Martins J, Nader H, Ferraz ML. Noninvasive serum markers in the diagnosis of structural liver damage in chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Liver Int. 2006;26:1095-1099. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 44] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 47] [Article Influence: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 29. | Koda M, Matunaga Y, Kawakami M, Kishimoto Y, Suou T, Murawaki Y. FibroIndex, a practical index for predicting significant fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology. 2007;45:297-306. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 175] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 176] [Article Influence: 10.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 30. | Halfon P, Bacq Y, De Muret A, Penaranda G, Bourliere M, Ouzan D, Tran A, Botta D, Renou C, Bréchot MC. Comparison of test performance profile for blood tests of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol. 2007;46:395-402. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 98] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 104] [Article Influence: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 31. | Lok AS, Ghany MG, Goodman ZD, Wright EC, Everson GT, Sterling RK, Everhart JE, Lindsay KL, Bonkovsky HL, Di Bisceglie AM. Predicting cirrhosis in patients with hepatitis C based on standard laboratory tests: results of the HALT-C cohort. Hepatology. 2005;42:282-292. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 239] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 232] [Article Influence: 12.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 32. | Forns X, Ampurdanès S, Llovet JM, Aponte J, Quintó L, Martínez-Bauer E, Bruguera M, Sánchez-Tapias JM, Rodés J. Identification of chronic hepatitis C patients without hepatic fibrosis by a simple predictive model. Hepatology. 2002;36:986-992. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 672] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 693] [Article Influence: 31.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 33. | Macías J, Girón-González JA, González-Serrano M, Merino D, Cano P, Mira JA, Arizcorreta-Yarza A, Ruíz-Morales J, Lomas-Cabeza JM, García-García JA. Prediction of liver fibrosis in human immunodeficiency virus/hepatitis C virus coinfected patients by simple non-invasive indexes. Gut. 2006;55:409-414. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 98] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 102] [Article Influence: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 34. | Imbert-Bismut F, Ratziu V, Pieroni L, Charlotte F, Benhamou Y, Poynard T. Biochemical markers of liver fibrosis in patients with hepatitis C virus infection: a prospective study. Lancet. 2001;357:1069-1075. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1066] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1011] [Article Influence: 44.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 35. | Myers RP, De Torres M, Imbert-Bismut F, Ratziu V, Charlotte F, Poynard T. Biochemical markers of fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C: a comparison with prothrombin time, platelet count, and age-platelet index. Dig Dis Sci. 2003;48:146-153. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 59] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 64] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 36. | Poynard T, McHutchison J, Manns M, Myers RP, Albrecht J. Biochemical surrogate markers of liver fibrosis and activity in a randomized trial of peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin. Hepatology. 2003;38:481-492. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 188] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 197] [Article Influence: 9.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 37. | Rossi E, Adams L, Prins A, Bulsara M, de Boer B, Garas G, MacQuillan G, Speers D, Jeffrey G. Validation of the FibroTest biochemical markers score in assessing liver fibrosis in hepatitis C patients. Clin Chem. 2003;49:450-454. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 174] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 182] [Article Influence: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 38. | Halfon P, Bourliere M, Deydier R, Botta-Fridlund D, Renou C, Tran A, Portal I, Allemand I, Bertrand JJ, Rosenthal-Allieri A. Independent prospective multicenter validation of biochemical markers (fibrotest-actitest) for the prediction of liver fibrosis and activity in patients with chronic hepatitis C: the fibropaca study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:547-555. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 101] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 107] [Article Influence: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 39. | Ngo Y, Munteanu M, Messous D, Charlotte F, Imbert-Bismut F, Thabut D, Lebray P, Thibault V, Benhamou Y, Moussalli J. A prospective analysis of the prognostic value of biomarkers (FibroTest) in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Clin Chem. 2006;52:1887-1896. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 176] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 191] [Article Influence: 10.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 40. | Naveau S, Raynard B, Ratziu V, Abella A, Imbert-Bismut F, Messous D, Beuzen F, Capron F, Thabut D, Munteanu M. Biomarkers for the prediction of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic alcoholic liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:167-174. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 105] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 96] [Article Influence: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 41. | Ratziu V, Massard J, Charlotte F, Messous D, Imbert-Bismut F, Bonyhay L, Tahiri M, Munteanu M, Thabut D, Cadranel JF. Diagnostic value of biochemical markers (FibroTest-FibroSURE) for the prediction of liver fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. BMC Gastroenterol. 2006;6:6. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 311] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 313] [Article Influence: 17.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 42. | Guéchot J, Laudat A, Loria A, Serfaty L, Poupon R, Giboudeau J. Diagnostic accuracy of hyaluronan and type III procollagen amino-terminal peptide serum assays as markers of liver fibrosis in chronic viral hepatitis C evaluated by ROC curve analysis. Clin Chem. 1996;42:558-563. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 43. | McHutchison JG, Blatt LM, de Medina M, Craig JR, Conrad A, Schiff ER, Tong MJ. Measurement of serum hyaluronic acid in patients with chronic hepatitis C and its relationship to liver histology. Consensus Interferon Study Group. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;15:945-951. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 168] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 173] [Article Influence: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 44. | Suzuki A, Angulo P, Lymp J, Li D, Satomura S, Lindor K. Hyaluronic acid, an accurate serum marker for severe hepatic fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Liver Int. 2005;25:779-786. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 146] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 143] [Article Influence: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 45. | Rohde H, Vargas L, Hahn E, Kalbfleisch H, Bruguera M, Timpl R. Radioimmunoassay for type III procollagen peptide and its application to human liver disease. Eur J Clin Invest. 1979;9:451-459. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 304] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 302] [Article Influence: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 46. | Walsh KM, Fletcher A, MacSween RN, Morris AJ. Comparison of assays for N-amino terminal propeptide of type III procollagen in chronic hepatitis C by using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1999;11:827-831. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 12] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 47. | Serejo F, Costa A, Oliveira AG, Ramalho F, Batista A, De Moura MC. Alpha-interferon improves liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C: clinical significance of the serum N-terminal propeptide of procollagen type III. Dig Dis Sci. 2001;46:1684-1689. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 48. | Walsh KM, Timms P, Campbell S, MacSween RN, Morris AJ. Plasma levels of matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases -1 and -2 (TIMP-1 and TIMP-2) as noninvasive markers of liver disease in chronic hepatitis C: comparison using ROC analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 1999;44:624-630. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 103] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 102] [Article Influence: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 49. | Boeker KH, Haberkorn CI, Michels D, Flemming P, Manns MP, Lichtinghagen R. Diagnostic potential of circulating TIMP-1 and MMP-2 as markers of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Clin Chim Acta. 2002;316:71-81. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 104] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 104] [Article Influence: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 50. | Leroy V, Monier F, Bottari S, Trocme C, Sturm N, Hilleret MN, Morel F, Zarski JP. Circulating matrix metalloproteinases 1, 2, 9 and their inhibitors TIMP-1 and TIMP-2 as serum markers of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C: comparison with PIIINP and hyaluronic acid. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:271-279. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 184] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 182] [Article Influence: 9.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 51. | Saitou Y, Shiraki K, Yamanaka Y, Yamaguchi Y, Kawakita T, Yamamoto N, Sugimoto K, Murata K, Nakano T. Noninvasive estimation of liver fibrosis and response to interferon therapy by a serum fibrogenesis marker, YKL-40, in patients with HCV-associated liver disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2005;11:476-481. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 52. | Patel K, Gordon SC, Jacobson I, Hézode C, Oh E, Smith KM, Pawlotsky JM, McHutchison JG. Evaluation of a panel of non-invasive serum markers to differentiate mild from moderate-to-advanced liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C patients. J Hepatol. 2004;41:935-942. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 242] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 229] [Article Influence: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 53. | Rosenberg WM, Voelker M, Thiel R, Becka M, Burt A, Schuppan D, Hubscher S, Roskams T, Pinzani M, Arthur MJ. Serum markers detect the presence of liver fibrosis: a cohort study. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1704-1713. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 756] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 724] [Article Influence: 36.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 54. | Adams LA, Bulsara M, Rossi E, DeBoer B, Speers D, George J, Kench J, Farrell G, McCaughan GW, Jeffrey GP. Hepascore: an accurate validated predictor of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C infection. Clin Chem. 2005;51:1867-1873. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 387] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 374] [Article Influence: 19.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 55. | Sandrin L, Fourquet B, Hasquenoph JM, Yon S, Fournier C, Mal F, Christidis C, Ziol M, Poulet B, Kazemi F. Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003;29:1705-1713. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1967] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1857] [Article Influence: 88.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 56. | Ziol M, Handra-Luca A, Kettaneh A, Christidis C, Mal F, Kazemi F, de Lédinghen V, Marcellin P, Dhumeaux D, Trinchet JC. Noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis by measurement of stiffness in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology. 2005;41:48-54. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1090] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1067] [Article Influence: 56.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 57. | Corpechot C, El Naggar A, Poujol-Robert A, Ziol M, Wendum D, Chazouillères O, de Lédinghen V, Dhumeaux D, Marcellin P, Beaugrand M. Assessment of biliary fibrosis by transient elastography in patients with PBC and PSC. Hepatology. 2006;43:1118-1124. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 319] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 316] [Article Influence: 17.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 58. | Colletta C, Smirne C, Fabris C, Toniutto P, Rapetti R, Minisini R, Pirisi M. Value of two noninvasive methods to detect progression of fibrosis among HCV carriers with normal aminotransferases. Hepatology. 2005;42:838-845. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 149] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 169] [Article Influence: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 59. | Foucher J, Chanteloup E, Vergniol J, Castéra L, Le Bail B, Adhoute X, Bertet J, Couzigou P, de Lédinghen V. Diagnosis of cirrhosis by transient elastography (FibroScan): a prospective study. Gut. 2006;55:403-408. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 897] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 918] [Article Influence: 51.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 60. | Ganne-Carrié N, Ziol M, de Ledinghen V, Douvin C, Marcellin P, Castera L, Dhumeaux D, Trinchet JC, Beaugrand M. Accuracy of liver stiffness measurement for the diagnosis of cirrhosis in patients with chronic liver diseases. Hepatology. 2006;44:1511-1517. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 369] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 372] [Article Influence: 20.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 61. | Kettaneh A, Marcellin P, Douvin C, Poupon R, Ziol M, Beaugrand M, de Lédinghen V. Features associated with success rate and performance of FibroScan measurements for the diagnosis of cirrhosis in HCV patients: a prospective study of 935 patients. J Hepatol. 2007;46:628-634. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 187] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 208] [Article Influence: 12.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 62. | Vizzutti F, Arena U, Romanelli RG, Rega L, Foschi M, Colagrande S, Petrarca A, Moscarella S, Belli G, Zignego AL. Liver stiffness measurement predicts severe portal hypertension in patients with HCV-related cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2007;45:1290-1297. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 527] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 493] [Article Influence: 29.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 63. | Carrión JA, Navasa M, Bosch J, Bruguera M, Gilabert R, Forns X. Transient elastography for diagnosis of advanced fibrosis and portal hypertension in patients with hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2006;12:1791-1798. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 314] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 302] [Article Influence: 16.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 64. | Friedrich-Rust M, Ong MF, Herrmann E, Dries V, Samaras P, Zeuzem S, Sarrazin C. Real-time elastography for noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis in chronic viral hepatitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:758-764. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 229] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 257] [Article Influence: 15.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 65. | Aguirre DA, Behling CA, Alpert E, Hassanein TI, Sirlin CB. Liver fibrosis: noninvasive diagnosis with double contrast material-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2006;239:425-437. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 148] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 157] [Article Influence: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 66. | Castéra L, Vergniol J, Foucher J, Le Bail B, Chanteloup E, Haaser M, Darriet M, Couzigou P, De Lédinghen V. Prospective comparison of transient elastography, Fibrotest, APRI, and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:343-350. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1796] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1778] [Article Influence: 93.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 67. | Sebastiani G, Vario A, Guido M, Noventa F, Plebani M, Pistis R, Ferrari A, Alberti A. Stepwise combination algorithms of non-invasive markers to diagnose significant fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol. 2006;44:686-693. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 197] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 202] [Article Influence: 11.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 68. | Poynard T, Halfon P, Castera L, Charlotte F, Le Bail B, Munteanu M, Messous D, Ratziu V, Benhamou Y, Bourlière M. Variability of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves in the diagnostic evaluation of liver fibrosis markers: impact of biopsy length and fragmentation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;25:733-739. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 70] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 71] [Article Influence: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 69. | Castera L, Denis J, Babany G, Roudot-Thoraval F. Evolving practices of non-invasive markers of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C in France: time for new guidelines? J Hepatol. 2007;46:528-529; author reply 528-529;. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 64] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 76] [Article Influence: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |