COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SHEAR WAVE ELASTOGRAPHY, FIBROSCAN, AND LIVER BIOPSY IN THE ASSESSMENT OF LIVER FIBROSIS
Main Article Content
Keywords
Shear Wave Elastography, FibroScan, Liver Biopsy, Liver Fibrosis, Non-Invasive Imaging
Abstract
Background: Liver fibrosis results from chronic liver injury and can progress to cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma if not properly diagnosed. Liver biopsy remains the gold standard for fibrosis assessment but has limitations such as invasiveness and sampling errors. Non-invasive techniques like Shear Wave Elastography (SWE) and FibroScan have emerged as viable alternatives. The objective of the study is to compare the accuracy of SWE and Fibro Scan against biopsy in assessing liver fibrosis. Materials and Methods: A prospective study of 150 patients was conducted, where liver stiffness measurements from SWE and FibroScan were correlated with biopsy results based on the METAVIR scoring system. Statistical analyses included Spearman’s correlation, sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: SWE exhibited a higher correlation with biopsy findings (r = 0.82, p < 0.001) than FibroScan (r = 0.78, p < 0.001). Both non-invasive methods correlated significantly with each other (r = 0.80, p < 0.001). SWE demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy, with a sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 88% for significant fibrosis (F2-F4) compared to FibroScan’s 85% and 83%. For cirrhosis (F4), SWE achieved a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 90%, while FibroScan recorded 89% sensitivity and 85% specificity. Conclusion: SWE provided better results in obese patients and those with ascites, where FibroScan’s accuracy was limited. While biopsy remains the definitive diagnostic tool, its limitations highlight the need for reliable non-invasive techniques. SWE’s superior performance suggests its potential as a preferred alternative for liver fibrosis assessment. Standardizing SWE protocols and validating its use across diverse populations will enhance its clinical applicability.
References
2. Cassinotto C, Lapuyade B, Mouries A, Hiriart JB, Vergniol J, Gaye D, et al. Non‐invasive assessment of liver fibrosis with impulse elastography: comparison of supersonic shear imaging with ARFI and FibroScan®. J Hepatol 2014;61:550‐557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Deffieux T, Gennisson JL, Bousquet L, Corouge M, Cosconea S, Amroun D, et al. Investigating liver stiffness and viscosity for fibrosis, steatosis and activity staging using shear wave elastography. J Hepatol 2015;62:317‐324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Ferraioli G, Tinelli C, Dal BB, Zicchetti M, Filice G, Filice C. Accuracy of real‐time shear wave elastography for assessing liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C: a pilot study. Hepatology 2012;56:2125‐2133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Guibal A, Renosi G, Rode A, Scoazec JY, Guillaud O, Chardon L, et al. Shear wave elastography: an accurate technique to stage liver fibrosis in chronic liver diseases. Diagn Interv Imaging 2016;97:91‐99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Leung VY, Shen J, Wong VW, Abrigo J, Wong GL, Chim AM, et al. Quantitative elastography of liver fibrosis and spleen stiffness in chronic hepatitis B carriers: comparison of shear‐wave elastography and transient elastography with liver biopsy correlation. Radiology 2013;269:910‐918. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Zeng J, Liu GJ, Huang ZP, Zheng J, Wu T, Zheng RQ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of two‐dimensional shear wave elastography for the non‐invasive staging of hepatic fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B: a cohort study with internal validation. Eur Radiol 2014;24:2572‐2581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. astera L, Chan HLY, Arrese M; for the Clinical Practice Guideline Panel . EASL‐ALEH clinical practice guidelines: non‐invasive tests for evaluation of liver disease severity and prognosis. J Hepatol 2015; 63:237‐264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Bamber J, Cosgrove D, Dietrich CF, Fromageau J, Bojunga J, Calliada F, et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 1: Basic principles and technology. Ultraschall Med 2013;34:169‐184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Friedrich‐Rust M, Ong MF, Martens S, Sarrazin C, Bojunga J, Zeuzem S, et al. Performance of transient elastography for the staging of liver fibrosis: a meta‐analysis. Gastroenterology 2008;134:960‐974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Chon YE, Choi EH, Song KJ, Park JY, Kim DY, Han KH, et al. Performance of transient elastography for the staging of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a meta‐analysis. PloS One 2012;7:e44930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Papastergiou V, Tsochatzis E, Burroughs A (2012) Non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis. Ann Gastroenterol 25:218–231
13. Shiina T, Nightingale KR, Palmeri ML et al (2015) WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: part 1: basic principles and terminology. Ultrasound Med Biol 41:1126–1147
14. Sandrin L, Fourquet B, Hasquenoph J-M et al (2003) Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Ultrasound Med Biol 29:1705–1713
15. Guibal A, Renosi G, Rode A et al (2016) Shear wave elastography: an accurate technique to stage liver fibrosis in chronic liver diseases. Diagn Interv Imaging 97:91–99
16. Barr RG, Ferraioli G, Palmeri ML et al (2016) Elastography assessment of liver fibrosis: society of radiologists in ultrasound consensus conference statement. Ultrasound 32:94–107
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Dr. Rahul Bhagwat Mane
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Radiodiagnosis, RKDF Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.