Skip to main content

Assessment of hepatic fibrosis and steatosis by vibration-controlled transient elastography and controlled attenuation parameter versus non-invasive assessment scores in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Abstract

Background

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is regarded as the most common liver disease in the twenty-first century, and a condition leaving individuals at increased risk of extra-hepatic morbidity. Liver biopsy has long been regarded as the gold standard for diagnosis and prognostication of patients with NAFLD. However, due to its invasive nature and potential complications (e.g., bleeding), other methods for non-invasive laboratory and radiological assessment of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in NAFLD have evolved and include scores such as AST/Platelet Ratio Index (APRI), Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS), and fatty liver index (FLI), in addition to radiological methods such as transient elastography (TE), which is a well-validated non-invasive ultrasound-based technique for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Recently, novel development of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) in TE allowed simultaneous assessment of hepatic steatosis. This provided a chance to assess both hepatic fibrosis and steatosis in the same setting and without any unwanted complications. This study aimed at assessing the role of TE and CAP versus other non-invasive assessment scores for liver fibrosis and steatosis in patients with NAFLD.

Results

This study included 90 patients diagnosed with NAFLD based on abdominal ultrasonography, body mass index, and serum liver enzymes. All patients were assessed with TE and non-invasive scores (APRI score, FIB-4 score, NFS, and FLI). There was a highly significant positive correlation between fibrosis and steatosis grades assessed by TE and other non-invasive respective scores. Both TE and CAP achieved acceptable sensitivity and specificity compared to other non-invasive assessment methods.

Conclusions

TE with CAP can be used as a screening method for patients suspected with NAFLD or patients without a clear indication for liver biopsy. CAP allows a non-invasive method of assessment of hepatic steatosis in patients with NAFLD.

Background

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is regarded as the most common liver disease in the twenty-first century [1], a growing risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a leading indication for liver transplantation [2], and a condition leaving individuals at increased risk of extra-hepatic morbidity and mortality [3].

Over the past 2 decades, NAFLD has grown from a relatively unknown disease to the most common cause of chronic liver disease in the world. In fact, 25% of the world’s population is currently thought to have NAFLD [4]. The clinical spectrum of NAFLD ranges from a relatively benign fatty infiltration to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) that can progress to liver cirrhosis, liver cell failure, or HCC [5]. NAFLD is also associated with an increased risk of mortality due to liver disease and cardio-vascular disease. The distinction of different forms of NAFLD is important in the clinical management of patients due to very different prognoses. Furthermore, liver fibrosis has emerged as the strongest predictor of long-term outcomes in patients with NAFLD [6].

The evaluation of liver fibrosis severity has become the main issue to verify the prognosis of NAFLD patients, and liver biopsy has long been regarded as the gold standard in this aspect. However, histological interpretation of liver biopsy is subject to micro-inhomogeneity, sampling errors, presence of un-fragmented cores, and observer variability among pathologists. Moreover, the invasive nature of this procedure in addition to its potential life-threatening complications such as bleeding, hematoma, and pain necessitated the identification of alternative non-invasive tools to replace liver biopsy in diagnosis and prognostication of NAFLD patients [7].

Non-invasive laboratory and radiological assessment methods for hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in NAFLD have evolved during the past decade, and these methods may be able to overcome the limitations of liver biopsy. These methods include scores such as AST/platelet ratio index (APRI) score, fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS), and fatty liver index (FLI), in addition to radiological methods such as transient elastography (TE), which is an ultrasound-based technique and considered as one of the most extensively used and well-validated non-invasive methods for assessment of hepatic fibrosis [8].

Presently, non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis may be conducted using both combined biochemical markers such as cytokeratin 18 (CK18) and specific devices such as TE [9]. Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by TE (FibroScan, Echosens, Paris) uses ultrasound-based technology for quantitative assessment of hepatic fibrosis. It has been shown to be sufficiently accurate to predict the fibrosis stage in NAFLD patients [10].

Vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) measures the speed of a mechanically induced shear wave using pulse-echo ultrasonic acquisitions in a much larger portion of the tissue, approximately 100 times more than a liver biopsy core. However, prior studies evaluating the performance of VCTE in NAFLD have been limited by medium (M) size probes with an ultrasound probe frequency of 3.5 MHz to measure LSM at a depth of 2.5 and 6.5 cm from the skin. LSM assessed by VCTE has been shown to be an easy to perform, non-invasive test to reliably estimate the degree of liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD [11].

The newer version of VCTE had several features that not only overcome its prior limitations, but also enhance its role as a diagnostic tool in the evaluation of patients with NAFLD. It is currently approved by the regulatory authorities to measure a 3.5 MHz ultrasound coefficient of attenuation, known as the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP).

CAP is a new technology based on the principle of the ultrasonic attenuation of transient elastography depending on the viscosity [fat] of the medium [liver] and the distance of propagation of the ultrasonic signals into the liver, providing a useful method for the quantitative detection of liver fat content and is considered a better assessment method for hepatic steatosis. Compared with ultrasound, this technology improves the sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of fatty liver and can be used for universal screening, diagnosis, and follow-up in NAFLD patients [12].

While LSM is measured in kilopascals (KPa), CAP is measured in decibels per meter (dB/m) and reflects the decrease in the amplitude of ultrasound signal in the liver [13]. Therefore, a higher CAP is reflective of the higher degree of steatosis. CAP is displayed only when LSM is valid, as it is only computed from the ultrasound signals used for acquiring LSM. The shear wave speed with an estimation of stiffness and CAP currently allows for simultaneous assessment of both liver fibrosis and steatosis [14].

This study aimed at the evaluation of the role of TE and CAP in the assessment of both liver fibrosis and steatosis in comparison to other non-invasive assessment scores such as APRI, FIB-4, NFS, and FLI in patients with NAFLD.

Methods

This study included 90 patients with NAFLD recruited from the outpatient clinics of Ain Shams University Hospitals and Theodor Bilharz Research Institute over a 6-month period from June to December 2019. All participants provided written informed consent prior to enrollment. Written consents were approved by the ethical committee of both institutions.

All patients were subjected to thorough history taking and clinical examination with special emphasis on the presence of risk factors, previous history, signs or symptoms, or complications of chronic liver disease or viral hepatitis. All patients with causes of liver disease other than NAFLD (e.g., viral hepatitis, hepatocellular carcinoma, Wilson’s disease, and hemochromatosis) were excluded. Physical measurements were done and included:

  • Body mass index (BMI): weight (kg)/height (m)2 (normal: < 25)

  • Waist circumference (WC): measured horizontally at the level of the navel without compressing the skin. (Normal: males 78:94 cm, females 64:80 cm).

Routine laboratory investigations were done for all patients participating in the study, including complete blood count, liver function tests, renal function tests, lipid profile, blood glucose levels, thyroid function tests, and coagulation profiles.

Pelviabdominal ultrasound was done to all patients using the Philips Envisor C HD device. Measurements were performed after overnight fasting with the patient in a supine position with emphasis on measuring the span of the right hepatic lobe in the mid-clavicular line on oblique view and classified as shrunken (< 11 cm), average (11–15 cm), or enlarged (> 15 cm). Hepatic texture as regards fat infiltration was also noted.

The diagnosis of NAFLD in recruited patients depended on high BMI, abnormalities in liver enzymes, detection of hepatic steatosis on pelviabdominal ultrasonography, features of metabolic syndrome, and non-invasive assessment scores for hepatic fibrosis, e.g., FIB-4, APRI, NFS, and hepatic steatosis, e.g., FLI [15].

VCTE was done for all patients using FibroScan 502 (Echosens, Paris, France) device using two probes: M+ and XL+, which was available at the participating institutions, for measuring LSM and CAP.

All studies were performed by a dedicated study coordinator using standardized protocols as provided by the manufacturer. Two scans were performed during the same visit several minutes apart by the same coordinator (intra-operator assessment) or by a second coordinator (inter-operator assessment) in a subset of participants. Only patients with 10 valid measures were included, and poor results were excluded from the analysis. According to the manufacturer’s instructions, in addition to previous studies, the stages of fibrosis (F0: 1–6, F1: 6.1–7, F2: 7–9, F3: 9.1–10.3, and F4: ≥ 10.4) were defined in kPa [15, 16]. Moreover, steatosis stages (S0: < 215, S1: 216–252, S2: 253–296, S3: > 296) were defined in dB/m [17].

Fibrosis and steatosis scores were also calculated for each patient using standardized equations (APRI [18], FIB-4 [19], NFS [20], and FLI [21]).

The results were tabulated and statistically analyzed using computer software (SPSS version 25 for Windows, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Descriptive statistics included mean and standard deviation for quantitative variables, in addition to number and percentage for qualitative variables. Correlation between dependent and independent variables was done using Pearson’s and Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed through sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy using receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve. Significance levels were determined based on the level of probability (p) where p < 0.05 indicated a significant difference and p < 0.001 indicated a highly significant difference.

Results

This cross-sectional study included 90 adult patients (Table 1) with NAFLD, divided into 62 females (68.9 %) and 28 males (31.1 %), aging 18–72 years (mean age 45.53 ± 11.5), who have either abnormal serum transaminases or GGT levels, or steatosis at ultrasonography, or have one or more of the following features of metabolic syndrome:

  • Fasting blood glucose greater than 110 mg/dl or a previous diagnosis of diabetes mellitus.

  • BMI of 27 or higher or WC greater than 102 cm in males and 88 cm in females.

  • Blood pressure greater than 130/85 or current anti-hypertensive treatment.

  • Triglyceride levels greater than 150 mg/dl or current use of fibrates.

  • HDL-cholesterol lower than 40 mg/dl (males) and 50 mg/dl (females).

Table 1 Basic patients’ demographic data and characteristics

There was a highly significant positive correlation between fibrosis grades assessed by TE and other non-invasive scores and lab parameters (APRI, FIB-4, NFS), ALT, AST, and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), in addition to a highly significant negative correlation between fibrosis grades and platelet count (Table 2).

Table 2 Correlation and regression between fibrosis grades by TE and different non-invasive parameters for liver fibrosis

As regards grades of hepatic steatosis, there was a statistically significant positive correlation with BMI, WC, FLI, and presence of diabetes mellitus, in addition to a highly significant positive correlation with lab parameters such as ALT, AST, GGT, cholesterol, and triglycerides. Detailed correlation and regression results are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 Correlation and regression between steatosis grades by CAP and different non-invasive parameters for liver steatosis

Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of TE showed that the best cut-off value for fibrosis detection by TE (LSM) vs. APRI, FIB-4, and NFS scores is overall average 5.2 which fulfills the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (85.30%, 47.70%, and 85.48%, respectively, AUC 0.742). Detailed results are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for fibrosis by TE (LSM) and non-invasive assessment scores

On the other hand, evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of CAP showed that the best cut-off value for steatosis detected by CAP vs. FLI score is 220.5 which fulfills the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (86.00%, 65.0%, and 85.65%, respectively). Detailed results are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5 Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for steatosis by CAP and non-invasive assessment scores

Discussion

NAFLD is regarded as the most common liver disease in the twenty-first century, and it is present if at least 5% of the liver weight is fat without excess alcohol consumption or secondary causes of fat accumulation in the background. Approximately 25% of adults around the world have NAFLD, and the prevalence is still increasing.

The majority of patients in this study had no or mild liver fibrosis [F0: 52 (57.78%), F1: 20 (22.22%)], while 16 patients showed moderate fibrosis [F2: 16 (17.78%)], and only 2 patients showed advanced fibrosis [F4:2 (2.22%)]. These results come against the results of another study done by Fallatah and his colleagues assessing the role of FibroScan compared to other non-invasive assessment scores in 122 Saudi patients with NAFLD. In his study, there was a high percentage of patients showing advanced liver fibrosis by FibroScan [F4: 40 (32.8%)]. These contradicting results can be possibly attributed to demographic differences between patient populations of the two studies, where there is a high prevalence of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Saudi population, explaining the high prevalence of advanced NAFLD-related liver fibrosis [16].

On the other hand, our results agree with Fallatah et al. study which concluded that there was a significant positive correlation between LSM detected by TE as compared to APRI and FIB-4 results (r = 0.51, r = 0.50, p < 0.001) [16]. This also agrees with Sumida et al. who compared the results of 6 non-invasive markers of liver fibrosis based on data from 576 biopsy-proven NAFLD patients and found the sensitivity and specificity of FIB-4 score for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis was 90% and 64%, respectively, with diagnostic accuracy 87.1% (AUROC 0.871) [22]. Our study also goes with Boursier et al. who found the diagnostic accuracy of FIB-4 score for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis was 70.4% (AUROC 0.704) [23].

Moreover, the current study showed that there was statistically highly significant correlation between NFS score and LSM by TE (r = 0.60, r = 0.53, p < 0.001), which goes with results of another study done by Samy and colleagues who evaluated 60 patients with NAFLD and assessed fibrotest, NFS, FIB-4 score, and LSM by TE in the detection of liver fibrosis depending on liver biopsy and showed there was a statistically significant association between fibrosis and NFS value [24].

We also found that there is statistically highly significant negative correlation between platelet count and LSM by TE (r = − 0.81, r = 0.70, p < 0.001), and this agree with Fallatah et al. who found a strong negative correlation between platelet count and stiffness, as thrombocytopenia in liver disease is associated with advanced fibrosis and even cirrhosis [16].

Moreover, there was a highly significant statistical correlation between ALT, AST, and LSM measured by TE (r = 0.54, r = 0.52, p < 0.001 and r = 0.52, r = 0.59, p < 0.001, respectively), which agrees with Fabrellas and his colleagues who evaluated 215 subjects with metabolic risk factors without known liver disease identified randomly from a primary care center. A control group of 80 subjects matched by age and sex without metabolic risk factors was also studied. CAP and LSM were assessed using TE and found that there was a good statistical correlation between liver transaminases and increased LSM, suggestive of liver fibrosis [25].

As regards GGT, the current study showed a highly significant statistical correlation between GGT and LSM by TE (r = 0.60, r = 0.87, p < 0.001), which goes in accordance with other study done by Mansour et al. who analyzed 108 patients with NAFLD and found a statistically significant correlation between GGT and LSM by TE (r = 0.242, p < 0.05) [26].

As regards liver steatosis grades, the current study showed that most patients had marked hepatic steatosis as demonstrated by CAP [S2: 31 (34.4%), S3: 30 (33.3%)], while the rest showed mild steatosis [S0: 11 (12.2%), S1: 18 (20%)]. This comes against the results of another study by de Lédinghen and his colleagues which concluded that the majority of patients showed no or mild steatosis [S0: 58 (51.8%), S1: 21 (18.8%)], while the rest of the patients showed more advanced steatosis grades [S2: 16 (14.3%), S3: 17 (15.2%)]. The discrepancy in the results between the two studies can be attributed to differences in the study population, where in his study, the mean BMI of patients was 26 kg/m2, while in our current study, the patients had mean BMI of 35.59 ± 5.77. It is clear from this data that the patients in the current study had higher mean body weight and thus are expected to be more liable to hepatic steatosis [17].

We also found that there is a statistically highly significant correlation between FLI and steatosis measured by CAP (r = 0.60, r = 0.53, p < 0.001), and this revealed that FLI has a high discriminatory power in the diagnosis of NAFLD. This result agrees with Motamed and his colleagues who analyzed 5052 subjects and found that there was a significant positive high correlation observed between serum FLI and NAFLD (AUC = 0.8656, 95% CI 0.8548–0.8764) which was also confirmed by binary regression, to the point that a one-unit increase in FLI led to a 5.8% increase in the chance of developing NAFLD and showed good predictive performance in the diagnosis of NAFLD [27]. Additionally, this agrees with Dehnavi et al. who analyzed 212 patients with NAFLD and found that FLI was significantly associated with NAFLD (OR = 1.062, 95%CI 1.042–1.082, p < 0.001), and that mean FLI, BMI, WC, TG, and GGT were all significantly higher in NAFLD patients than in non-NAFLD participants, and that a one unit increase in FLI elevated the chance of developing NAFLD by 6.2% [28].

We also found that there is a statistically significant correlation between GGT and steatosis measured by CAP (r = 0.60, r = 0.53, p < 0.001) which goes with the findings of Dehnavi et al. who concluded that there is a statistically significant correlation between GGT and steatosis (AUC = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.58–0.75, p < 0.001) [28]. This also agrees with Motamed et al. who found that there was a significant positive high correlation was observed between serum GGT and NAFLD (AUC = 0.6927, 95% CI 0.6772–0.7081), p < 0.0001) [27].

We also found that there is a highly significant statistical correlation between TG and serum cholesterol as compared to steatosis measured by CAP (r = 0.56, r = 0.58, p < 0.001, and r = 0.64, r = 0.78, p < 0.001, respectively). This agrees with Kwok et al. who examined 1918 patients with CAP and LSM and found that increased CAP ≥ 222 dB/m was associated with higher body weight, BMI, WC, TG, fasting plasma glucose, and ALT. It was also associated with lower HDL cholesterol [13].

We also found that there is a statistically significant correlation between BMI and WC in comparison to steatosis grades and values obtained by CAP (r = 0.54, r = 0.59, p < 0.028, and r = 0.59, r = 0.62, p < 0.036, respectively), and this agrees with Dehnavi et al. who found that there is a highly significant correlation between BMI and WC and steatosis grades and values (p < 0.001) [28].

The current study also found that there was a statistically significant correlation between DM and steatosis grades and values obtained by CAP (r = 0.46, r = 0.49, p < 0.026), which goes with Kwok et al. who found that there is a significant positive high correlation observed between serum fasting blood glucose and steatosis and that around 32–62% of diabetic patients were found to have NAFLD [13].

We also found that the best cut-off value for fibrosis detection by TE (LSM) vs. NFS is 4.10 KPa, which fulfills the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (Table 4). A study by Samy and his colleagues found that, depending on liver biopsy, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of NFS to detect liver fibrosis are good, with AUROCs of 0.94. For mild fibrosis, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of NFS was 89.47%, 90.24%, and 94.7%, respectively. On the other hand, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of NFS in cases of severe liver fibrosis were found to be 100%, 89.8%, and 98.1%, respectively [24].

We also found that the best cut-off value for fibrosis detection by TE (LSM) vs. FIB-4 score is 6.95 KPa, which fulfills the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (Table 4). This also agrees with the results obtained by Samy et al. who concluded that, depending on liver biopsy, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FIB-4 score to detect liver fibrosis are good, with AUROCs of 0.992 (94.7%, 97.6%, and 99.2%, respectively) [24]. Similarly, another study by Sumida et al. found the sensitivity and specificity of the FIB-4 score for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis was 90% and 64%, respectively, with diagnostic accuracy 87.1% [22].

Our results show that the best cut-off value for fibrosis detection by TE (LSM) vs. APRI score is 4.5 KPa, which fulfills the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (Table 4). This agrees with Kolhe et al. who analyzed histological and clinical data of 100 consecutive urban slum-dwelling patients with NAFLD and showed that APRI had sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, NPV, and AUROC of 85.2%, 87.7%, 95%, 58.33%, 96.05%, and 0.95, respectively, with a statistically high significant correlation between APRI and biopsy-proven fibrosis [29].

Our study shows that the best cut-off value for fibrosis detection by TE (LSM) vs. APRI, FIB-4, and NFS scores has an overall average of 5.2 Kpa, which fulfills the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (85.30%, 47.70%, and 85.48%, respectively, AUC 0.742) (Fig. 1). Similarly, Önnerhag and his colleagues who included 144 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD showed that FIB-4-index had the highest NPV (91%) and APRI the highest PPV (71%). The AUROC for FIB-4-index, NFS, and APRI acceptably predicted advanced fibrosis with values between 0.81 and 0.86 [30].

Fig. 1
figure 1

ROC denoting the best cut-off value of LSM, which fulfills the highest sensitivity and specificity

Our study results are close to Hashemi et al. who performed a meta-analysis that enrolled the literature published about LSM detected by TE for the diagnosis and staging of NAFLD and found the sensitivity and specificity of FibroScan in the detection of fibrosis to be 87.5% and 78.4%, respectively [31]. This also agrees with Boursier et al. who evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of LSM by TE in a cross-sectional study including 452 NAFLD patients; found that its accuracy was 83.1% [23].

Our study also agrees with Aykut et al. who compared the diagnostic performances of three different non-invasive methods including TE for the detection of liver fibrosis in a total of 88 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD and found the diagnostic accuracy 90.2% [32].

Our results show that the best cut-off value for steatosis detection by CAP vs FLI score is 220.5 dB/m, which fulfills the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (Table 5) (Fig. 2). Motamed et al. also showed that FLI showed good performance in the diagnosis of NAFLD with accuracy equal to 86.56% (AUC = 0.8656) and revealed that FLI has a high discriminatory power in the diagnosis of NAFLD [27]. This could be somewhat anticipated due to the fact that FLI is composed of four quantities related to NAFLD, including BMI, WC, GGT, and TG. A high BMI or WC, the main obesity indices, is considered an essential risk factor for NAFLD, and the prevalence of NAFLD substantially increases in obese individuals.

Fig. 2
figure 2

ROC denoting the best cut-off value of CAP, which fulfills the highest sensitivity and specificity

Similarly, Dehnavi et al. investigated the relationship between FLI and NAFLD based on logistic regression and their findings revealed a highly significant positive relationship between FLI and NAFLD, so that even a one unit increase in FLI elevated the chance of developing NAFLD by 6.2% (OR = 1.062, 95%CI 1.042–1.082, p < 0.001). Even after adjusting for confounding factors such as sex, age, diastolic blood pressure (DBP), FBS, ALT, and LDL, the logistic regression analysis showed a significant positive association between FLI and NAFLD (OR = 1.059, 95%CI 1.035–1.083, p < 0.001) [28].

These findings go also with Siddiqui et al. who performed a prospective study of 393 adults with NAFLD who underwent VCTE within 1 year of liver histology analysis and found that the CAP value is positively associated with severity of hepatic steatosis and the cross-validated AUROC is 76% for classifying patients with ≥ 5% steatosis on histology [33]. This also goes with Eddowes et al. who evaluated 450 patients and assessed the diagnostic accuracy of CAP and LSM against liver biopsy and found that CAP by TE is accurate non-invasive methods for assessing liver steatosis in patients with NAFLD with an AUROC of 0.87 (95% CI 0.82–0.92), sensitivity of 0.80, and specificity of 0.83 [34].

Conclusions

  • TE including LSM and CAP has the advantages of being a simple, non-invasive, inexpensive, painless, and operator/machine-independent method and displays good application prospects.

  • Our study shows a highly significant positive correlation between LSM by TE and other non-invasive assessment scores of liver fibrosis (APRI, FIB-4, and NFS), in addition to ALT, AST, and GGT.

  • Moreover, our study shows a highly significant positive correlation between hepatic steatosis measurement as obtained by CAP and other parameters, including BMI, WC, FLI, presence of diabetes mellitus, ALT, AST, GGT, cholesterol, and triglycerides.

  • The best cut-off value for liver fibrosis detection by TE (LSM) vs. APRI, FIB-4, and NFS scores is overall average 5.2, which fulfills the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (85.30%, 47.70%, and 85.48%, respectively, AUC 0.742).

  • On the other hand, the best cut-off value for steatosis detected by CAP vs. FLI score is 220.5 which fulfills the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (86.00%, 65.0%, and 85.65%, respectively).

  • The possibility of concomitant assessment of liver fibrosis (using LSM) and of steatosis (using CAP) makes TE a promising non-invasive tool for assessing and quantifying both steatosis and fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.

Availability of data and materials

All data used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

APRI:

AST/platelet ratio index

AUC:

Area under the curve

BMI:

Body mass index

CAP:

Controlled attenuation parameter

CK18:

Cytokeratin 18

CI:

Confidence interval

dB/m:

Decibels/meter

FIB-4:

Fibrosis-4 score

FLI:

Fatty liver index

GGT:

Gamma-glutamyl transferase

HCC:

Hepatocellular carcinoma

HDL:

High-density lipoproteins

KPa:

Kilopascals

LSM:

Liver stiffness measurement

NAFLD:

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

NASH:

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis

NFS:

NAFLD fibrosis score

ROC:

Receiver operator characteristics

TE:

Transient elastography

TG:

Triglycerides

VCTE:

Vibration-controlled transient elastography

WC:

Waist circumference

References

  1. Younossi ZM, Koenig AB, Abdelatif D, et al (2016) Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease—meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. Hepatology 64:73–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.28431

  2. Wong RJ, Aguilar M, Cheung R, et al (2015) Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is the second leading etiology of liver disease among adults awaiting liver transplantation in the United States. Gastroenterology 148:547–555. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2014.11.039

  3. Angulo P, Kleiner DE, Dam-Larsen S, et al (2015) Liver fibrosis, but no other histologic features, is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 149:389-397.e10. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2015.04.043

  4. Younossi Z, Anstee QM, Marietti M et al (2018) Global burden of NAFLD and NASH: trends, predictions, risk factors and prevention. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 15:11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wong RJ, Cheung R, Ahmed A (2014) Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is the most rapidly growing indication for liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the U.S. Hepatology 59:2188–2195. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.26986

  6. Vuppalanchi R, Siddiqui MS, Van Natta ML, et al (2018) Performance characteristics of vibration-controlled transient elastography for evaluation of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 67:134–144. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29489

  7. Petta S, Wong VWS, Cammà C, et al (2017) Improved noninvasive prediction of liver fibrosis by liver stiffness measurement in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease accounting for controlled attenuation parameter values. Hepatology 65:1145–1155. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.28843

  8. Fallatah HI (2014) Noninvasive biomarkers of liver fibrosis: an overview. Adv Hepatol 2014:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/357287

  9. Marchesini G, Day CP, Dufour JF et al (2016) EASL-EASD-EASO clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Obes Facts 9:65–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sobhonslidsuk A, Pulsombat A, Kaewdoung P, Petraksa S (2015) Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and significant hepatic fibrosis defined by non-invasive assessment in patients with type 2 diabetes. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev 16:1789–1794. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.5.1789

  11. Mueller S, Durango E, Dietrich C, et al (2013) Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients. Hepatic Med Evid Res 5:43. https://doi.org/10.2147/hmer.s45234

  12. Sasso M, Audière S, Kemgang A, et al (2016) Liver steatosis assessed by controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) measured with the XL probe of the FibroScan: a pilot study assessing diagnostic accuracy. Ultrasound Med Biol 42:92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.08.008

  13. Kwok R, Choi KC, Wong GLH, et al (2016) Screening diabetic patients for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease with controlled attenuation parameter and liver stiffness measurements: a prospective cohort study. Gut 65:1359–1368. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309265

  14. Tapper EB, Challies T, Nasser I, et al (2016) The performance of vibration controlled transient elastography in a US cohort of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Am J Gastroenterol 111:677–684. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2016.49

  15. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al (2018) The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 67:328–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29367

  16. Fallatah HI, Akbar HO, Fallatah AM (2016) FibroScan compared to FIB-4, APRI, and AST/ALT ratio for assessment of liver fibrosis in Saudi patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepat Mon 16:. https://doi.org/10.5812/hepatmon.38346

  17. de Lédinghen V, Vergniol J, Foucher J, et al (2012) Non-invasive diagnosis of liver steatosis using controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) and transient elastography. Liver Int 32:911–918. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-3231.2012.02820.x

  18. Wai CT, Greenson JK, Fontana RJ, et al (2003) A simple noninvasive index can predict both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 38:518–526. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhep.2003.50346

  19. Vallet-Pichard A, Mallet V, Nalpas B, et al (2007) FIB-4: an inexpensive and accurate marker of fibrosis in HCV infection. Comparison with liver biopsy and FibroTest Hepatology 46:32–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.21669

  20. Angulo P, Hui JM, Marchesini G, et al (2007) The NAFLD fibrosis score: a noninvasive system that identifies liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD. Hepatology 45:846–854. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.21496

  21. Bedogni G, Bellentani S, Miglioli L, et al (2006) The fatty liver index: a simple and accurate predictor of hepatic steatosis in the general population. BMC Gastroenterol 6:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-6-33

  22. Sumida Y, Nakajima A, Itoh Y (2014) Limitations of liver biopsy and non-invasive diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. World J Gastroenterol 20:475–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Boursier J, Vergniol J, Guillet A, et al (2016) Diagnostic accuracy and prognostic significance of blood fibrosis tests and liver stiffness measurement by FibroScan in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Hepatol 65:570–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2016.04.023

  24. Samy K, Abdel Hameed K, Samir D, et al (2017) Study of fibrotest, NAFLD fibrosis score and transient elastography as non-invasive tools of liver fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Ain Shams University

  25. Fabrellas N, Hernández R, Graupera I, et al (2018) Prevalence of hepatic steatosis as assessed by controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) in subjects with metabolic risk factors in primary care. A population-based study. PLoS One 13:. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200656

  26. Mansour A, Mohajeri-Tehrani MR, Samadi M, et al (2019) Risk factors for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease-associated hepatic fibrosis in type 2 diabetes patients. Acta Diabetol 56:1199–1207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-019-01374-x

  27. Motamed N, Sohrabi M, Ajdarkosh H, et al (2016) Fatty liver index vs waist circumference for predicting non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. World J Gastroenterol 22:3023–3030. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i10.3023

  28. Dehnavi Z, Razmpour F, Naseri MB, et al (2018) Fatty liver index (FLI) in predicting non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Hepat Mon 18:. https://doi.org/10.5812/hepatmon.63227

  29. Kolhe KM, Amarapurkar A, Parikh P, et al (2019) Aspartate transaminase to platelet ratio index (APRI) but not FIB-5 or FIB-4 is accurate in ruling out significant fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in an urban slum-dwelling population. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 6:. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2019-000288

  30. Önnerhag K, Hartman H, Nilsson PM, Lindgren S (2019) Non-invasive fibrosis scoring systems can predict future metabolic complications and overall mortality in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Scand J Gastroenterol 54:328–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2019.1583366

  31. Hashemi SA, Alavian SM, Gholami-Fesharaki M (2016) Assessment of transient elastography (FibroScan) for diagnosis of fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Casp J Intern Med 7:242–252

    Google Scholar 

  32. Aykut UE, Akyuz U, Yesil A, et al (2014) A comparison of fibrometerTM NAFLD score, NAFLD fibrosis score, and transient elastography as noninvasive diagnostic tools for hepatic fibrosis in patients with biopsy-proven non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 49:1343–1348. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365521.2014.958099

  33. Siddiqui MS, Vuppalanchi R, Van Natta ML, et al (2019) Vibration-controlled transient elastography to assess fibrosis and steatosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 17:156-163.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2018.04.043

  34. Eddowes PJ, Sasso M, Allison M, et al (2019) Accuracy of FibroScan controlled attenuation parameter and liver stiffness measurement in assessing steatosis and fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 156:1717–1730. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.042

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

EB formulated the research idea, AM prepared the study design, shared in the interpretation of collected data, and shared in the revision of the manuscript. SB collected the research data. ME shared in interpretation and analysis of collected data. AA drafted the manuscript. AE revised and proofread the manuscript draft and shared in data analysis. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed M. F. Mansour.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All subjects involved in the study signed an informed written consent to participate. This study was performed in accordance with the standards of the ethical research committee of Ain Shams University (reference number: not applicable).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mansour, A.M.F., Bayoumy, E.M., ElGhandour, A.M. et al. Assessment of hepatic fibrosis and steatosis by vibration-controlled transient elastography and controlled attenuation parameter versus non-invasive assessment scores in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Egypt Liver Journal 10, 33 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43066-020-00044-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43066-020-00044-w

Keywords

  • Fatty
  • Liver
  • Elastography
  • Fibrosis
  • Steatosis
  • Attenuation