Liver International
Special Issue: Proceedings of the 4th Paris Hepatitis Conference. The publication of this supplement was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from F. Hoffmann-Laroche Ltd.
Volume 31, Issue Supplement s1, pages 13–17, January 2011
Laurent Castera 1, Pierre Bedossa 2
Article first published online: 4 JAN 2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2010.02380.x
© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S
Author Information
1 Department of Hepatology, Hôpital St André & Haut Lévêque, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France
2 Department of Pathology, Beaujon Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, INSERM, Paris-Diderot University, Paris, France
* Correspondence: Correspondence Laurent Castera, MD, PhD, Service d' Hépatologie, Hǒpital Beaujon, Assistance Publique Hǒpitaux de Paris, 100 Boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92110 Clichy, France Tel: +33 5 57 65 64 39 Fax: +33 5 57 65 64 45 e-mail: laurent.castera@chu-bordeaux.fr
Keywords:
FibroScan; liver biopsy; liver fibrosis; non-invasive; serum biomarkers; transient elastography
Abstract
The assessment of liver fibrosis is a major issue in the management of patients with chronic hepatitis C. Liver biopsy has traditionally been considered the gold standard for the evaluation of tissue damage, including fibrosis. In addition, it detects associated lesions such as steatosis, steatohepatitis or iron overload, which provide useful information for patient management and prognosis. Liver biopsy is, however, an invasive procedure, with a risk of rare but potentially life-threatening complications and it is prone to sampling errors. These limitations have led to the development of non-invasive methods. Currently available tests rely on two different but complementary approaches: (i) a ‘biological’ approach based on the dosage of serum biomarkers of fibrosis; (ii) a ‘physical’ approach based on the measurement of liver stiffness, using transient elastography. Although significant progress has been made in the non-invasive diagnosis of fibrosis, it is increasingly clear that these methods will not completely replace liver biopsy. Instead, non-invasive methods and liver biopsy should be used in an integrated approach for more efficient and convenient management of patients with chronic hepatitis C. The aim of this review is to discuss the advantages and limitations of liver biopsy and non-invasive methods and the perspectives for their use in clinical practice.
Liver fibrosis is a result of excessive extracellular matrix deposition in the liver in response to chronic inflammatory injury triggered by persistent hepatitis C virus in the liver. Hepatic fibrosis is determined by the replication balance between fibrogenesis and fibrosis degradation. When this balance favours fibrogenesis, there is a resulting accumulation of collagen and extracellular matrix, leading eventually to cirrhosis. Liver fibrosis and its end-point cirrhosis are the main causes of morbidity and mortality in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (1, 2). Besides the development of antiviral drugs, there are intensive efforts to develop drugs to effectively target the mechanism of fibrogenesis or to eliminate fibrous tissue once it has accumulated in the liver (3). Therefore, the assessment of liver fibrosis is a major issue in the management of patients with chronic HCV infection (4, 5).
Liver biopsy
For many years, liver biopsy has been considered the gold standard for the evaluation of tissue damage including fibrosis. Histological assessment is based on semiquantitative scoring systems (METAVIR, Ishak score) (4, 5). Fibrosis is scored in stages while necroinflammation is evaluated by grade. Staging fibrosis is an assessment of the combination of the amount of fibrosis and architectural disorganization. These semiquantitative histological scores have been used successfully for years in both clinical trials and for individual evaluation.
However, liver biopsy has certain drawbacks. Because liver biopsy only samples a very small part of the whole organ, there is a risk that this part might be irrelevant in the evaluation of lesions that are heterogeneously distributed throughout the entire liver (5). This may be true for tissue fibrosis. There is extensive literature showing that increasing the length of the liver biopsy decreases the risk of sampling error (6, 7). Except for cirrhosis, for which microfragments may be sufficient (8), a 25 mm long biopsy is considered an optimal specimen for accurate evaluation, while 15 mm is considered sufficient in most studies.
Observer variation is another potential limitation of biopsy that is related to the difference between pathologist's interpretation of the biopsy (6, 9, 10). The use of histopathological scoring systems for the evaluation of fibrosis has limited this drawback and several studies have shown that agreement between pathologists is satisfactory, especially when the staging of fibrosis is performed by specialized liver pathologists (9, 10). Thus, although liver biopsy has its limitations, appropriate precautions may reduce the flaws inherent in this method.
Because liver biopsy is invasive, the only serious limitations are the potential adverse effects and complications that have been comprehensively reviewed elsewhere (11). Transient and moderate pain along with anxiety and discomfort are common (12, 13). Severe complications such as haemoperitoneum, biliary peritonitis and pneumothorax are rare (0.3–0.5%). Death is exceedingly rare, but has been reported occasionally for biopsies in advanced liver diseases, haemorrhagical tumours and in patients with major comorbidities. A biopsy via the transjugular route considerably reduces the risk of bleeding in patients with advanced liver disease and coagulation disorders. Biopsy performed by a trained physician, limiting the number of passes and ultrasound guidance can significantly decrease the risk of complications, thus increasing the safety of biopsy. Nevertheless, a liver biopsy should be performed only after carefully balancing the risks of the procedure with the potential benefits in terms of patient management. Despite these limitations, liver biopsy provides invaluable information that none of the non-invasive markers provide. Although the evaluation of fibrosis is a major decision criterion for hepatologists, fibrosis is only one of the many elementary histopathological features present on liver biopsy. In effect, fibrosis is not an autonomous feature, but scar tissue resulting from other pathobiological mechanisms such as inflammatory, degenerative or dystrophical processes. The simultaneous evaluation of necroinflammation (portal tract inflammation, interface hepatitis, lobular inflammation) shows whether fibrosis is the result of a past event that has stabilized or even regressed or is an ongoing process that may continue to worsen. Associated lesions such as steatosis, steatohepatitis, iron overload, etc., which provide useful information for patient management and prognosis, can also frequently be detected with biopsy (14).
Finally, in difficult diseases such as hepatitis C, liver biopsy may also reveal that abnormal liver function tests are related to unexpected liver diseases other than hepatitis C (15). Clearly, all this information may influence patient management. Therefore, limiting the definition of chronic liver disease to the extent of fibrosis is an oversimplification that may be misleading.
Non-invasive methods for the assessment of liver fibrosis
There are two distinct approaches among the currently available non-invasive methods: (i) a physical approach based on the measurement of liver stiffness using transient elastography (TE); (ii) a biological approach based on serum biomarkers of fibrosis (16). Although complementary, these two approaches are based on different rationales and conceptions: TE measures liver stiffness in relation to elasticity, corresponding to a genuine and intrinsic physical property of the liver parenchyma, while serum biomarkers are a combination of several, not strictly liver-specific blood parameters optimized to mimic the stages of fibrosis as assessed by liver biopsy (17).
Numerous biomarkers have been proposed in hepatitis C (18, 19, 20) but the most widely used and validated with TE are the aspartate-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) (a free non-patented index) and the FibroTest (21, 22, 23).
The results of TE and serum biomarkers for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis have been shown to be equivalent in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection (24, 25). Indeed, in the largest study to date (n=1307) (25), comparing TE with several patented and non-patented biomarkers (FibroTest, Fibrometre, Hepascore and APRI) and using liver biopsy as a reference, the AUROCs of TE (0.76) did not differ from those of serum biomarkers (0.72–0.78).
In order to increase the diagnostic accuracy of these tests, the sequential combination of biomarkers (26, 27) or the concomitant combination of TE and biomarkers (24, 28, 29) has been proposed. The latter strategy may be more effective for diagnosing significant fibrosis, leading to a reduction in the use of liver biopsy in more than 70% of cases compared with 50% when using biomarkers (APRI and FibroTest) sequentially (30). Another advantage of combining two unrelated methods such as TE and biomarkers rather than two biomarkers is that TE provides a more direct measurement of liver structure than biomarkers and there is no relationship between the applicability of TE and biomarkers such as the FibroTest (28).
For the diagnosis of cirrhosis, the situation is different because TE appears to be the most accurate method compared with currently available biomarkers and routine blood tests, preventing the need for a liver biopsy in around 90% of cases (25, 31). As a result, a combination of both methods does not seem to increase the diagnostic accuracy (30).
Limitations of non-invasive methods
Serum markers
Although the applicability and interlaboratory reproducibility of different tests have been shown to be satisfactory for use in clinical practice (32, 33), interpretation of each test requires critical analysis to avoid false-positive or false-negative results (34).
Transient elastography
Although the reproducibility of TE has been shown to be excellent for inter- and intra-observer agreement (35, 36), its applicability may not be as good as that of biomarkers. Indeed, in our experience of more than 13 000 exams over a 5-year period, liver stiffness measurements (LSM) could not be interpreted in nearly one in five cases (failure to obtain any measurement in 4% and unreliable results that did not meet the manufacturer's recommendations in 17%) (37). The principal reasons were obesity, particularly increased waist circumference, and limited operator experience.
Finally, because the liver is an organ wrapped in an expandable but non-elastic envelope (Glisson's capsula), additional space-occupying tissue abnormalities independent of fibrosis, such as oedema and inflammation, cholestasis and congestion, may interfere with LSM. The risk of overestimating liver stiffness values has been reported in the case of alanine aminotransferase flares in patients with acute viral hepatitis or chronic hepatitis B (38, 39, 40) as well as in cases of extrahepatic cholestasis (41) or congestive heart failure (42).
How to use liver biopsy and non-invasive methods in clinical practice?
A liver biopsy should be performed in the case of comorbidities such as alcoholism or metabolic syndrome when non-invasive methods cannot be used or in any unclear situation such as discordant results of non-invasive tests. Conversely, liver biopsy should not be performed when the clinical diagnosis is obvious (cirrhosis) or when no benefit can be expected from the biopsy for patient management. Although there is no optimal threshold, the longer the specimen, the more accurate the staging will be (43). A 20–25 mm long biopsy is considered optimal although a robust evaluation is often possible on a 15 mm long biopsy. Ideally, the biopsy should be read by an experienced liver pathologist because it decreases the source of variability in the histological interpretation (44).
In naïve patients without comorbidities who are candidates for antiviral treatment, non-invasive tests can be used for the first-line staging of fibrosis. The use of either TE or several patented biomarkers (FibroTest, Fibrometer and Hepascore) has recently been recommended, based on an independent systematic review by the French Health Authorities (45). However, this strategy should also take into account HCV genotype, local availability of non-invasive methods and any clinically relevant variable. For instance, when there is a strong clinical suspicion of cirrhosis, in most cases the use of TE is enough to confirm the diagnosis without a liver biopsy. Conversely, a liver biopsy may be necessary to differentiate between F1 and F2 in genotype 1-infected patients before making a decision on antiviral treatment. In the same way, a liver biopsy may be useful to differentiate between F3 and F4 when cirrhosis is not clinically obvious and to decide when to start screening for hepatocellular carcinoma. However, with the availability of new antiviral treatments (46, 47), differentiating between F1 and F2 may not be as important for treatment indications.
When deciding on retreatment, a liver biopsy may be indicated to investigate the presence of factors of impaired response such as non-alcoholic steatohepatitis or to obtain a prognosis especially if a liver biopsy has not been performed previously.
Finally, non-invasive methods can be of interest in the follow-up of untreated patients (48). Given the slow rate of the progression of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C, a non-invasive evaluation can be performed on a yearly basis.
Conclusion and perspectives
There is an urgent need to pursue the development of non-invasive tests in addition to a liver biopsy for the staging of fibrosis. Because of the conditional relationship with biopsy, the development of serum markers will always have obvious limitations. Promising preliminary results suggest that novel alternative imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance elastography, acoustic radiation force impulse imaging or perfusion computed tomography will eventually be refined to reach an acceptable level of accuracy, especially for the evaluation of early and intermediate stages of fibrosis (49–51). These might become less pertinent as antiviral treatments become more efficient, with fewer side effects.
Conflicts of interest
The authors have declared no potential conflicts.
References
1 Khan MH, Farrell GC, Byth K, et al. Which patients with hepatitis C develop liver complications? Hepatology 2000; 31: 513–20.
2 Marcellin P, Asselah T, Boyer N. Fibrosis and disease progression in hepatitis C. Hepatology 2002; 36 (Suppl. 1): S47–56.
3 Talwalkar JA. Antifibrotic therapies – emerging biomarkers as treatment end points. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 7: 59–61.
4 Bedossa P, Poynard T. An algorithm for the grading of activity in chronic hepatitis C. The METAVIR cooperative study group. Hepatology 1996; 24: 289–93.
5 Ishak K, Baptista A, Bianchi L, et al. Histological grading and staging of chronic hepatitis. J Hepatol 1995; 22: 696–9.
6 Regev A, Berho M, Jeffers LJ, et al. Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 2614–8.
7 Bedossa P, Dargère D, Paradis V. Sampling variability of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2003; 38: 1449–57.
8 Colloredo G, Guido M, Sonzogni A, et al. Impact of liver biopsy size on histological evaluation of chronic viral hepatitis: the smaller the sample, the milder the disease. J Hepatol 2003; 39: 239–44.
9 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.
10 Goldin RD, Goldin JG, Burt AD, et al. Intra-observer and inter-observer variation in the histopathological assessment of chronic viral hepatitis. J Hepatol 1996; 25: 649–54.
11 Cadranel JF, Rufat P, Degos F. Practices of liver biopsy in France: results of a prospective nationwide survey. For the Group of Epidemiology of the French Association for the Study of the Liver (AFEF). Hepatology 2000; 32: 477–81.
12 Castera L, Negre I, Samii K, et al. Pain experienced during percutaneous liver biopsy. Hepatology 1999; 30: 1529–30.
13 Castera L, Negre I, Samii K, et al. Patient-administered nitrous oxide/oxygen inhalation provides safe and effective analgesia for percutaneous liver biopsy: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 1553–7.
14 Bedossa P, Moucari R, Chelbi E, et al. Evidence for a role of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in hepatitis C: a prospective study. Hepatology 2007; 46: 380–7.
15 Saadeh S, Cammell G, Carey WD, et al. The role of liver biopsy in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2001; 33: 196–200.
16 Castera L, Pinzani M. Non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis: are we ready? Lancet 2010; 375: 1419–20.
17 Bedossa P, Carrat F. Liver biopsy: the best, not the gold standard. J Hepatol 2009; 50: 1–3.
18 Pinzani M, Vizzutti F, Arena U, et al. Technology Insight: noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis by biochemical scores and elastography. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 5: 95–106.
19 Manning DS, Afdhal NH. Diagnosis and quantitation of fibrosis. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 1670–81.
20 Castera L, Pinzani M. Biopsy and non-invasive methods for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis: does it take two to tango? Gut 2010; 59: 861–6.
21 Friedrich-Rust M, Ong MF, Martens S, et al. Performance of transient elastography for the staging of liver fibrosis: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 960–74.
22 Poynard T, Morra R, Halfon P, et al. Meta-analyses of FibroTest diagnostic value in chronic liver disease. BMC Gastroenterol 2007; 7: 40.
23 Shaheen AA, Myers RP. Diagnostic accuracy of the aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index for the prediction of hepatitis C-related fibrosis: a systematic review. Hepatology 2007; 46: 912–21.
24 Castera L, Vergniol J, Foucher J, et al. Prospective comparison of transient elastography, Fibrotest, APRI, and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 2005; 128: 343–50.
25 Degos F, Perez P, Roche B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of FibroScan and comparison to liver fibrosis biomarkers in chronic viral hepatitis: a multicenter prospective study (the FIBROSTIC study). J Hepatol 2010; 53: 1013–21.
26 Sebastiani G, Vario A, Guido M, et al. Stepwise combination algorithms of non-invasive markers to diagnose significant fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol 2006; 44: 686–93.
27 Sebastiani G, Halfon P, Castera L, et al. SAFE biopsy: a validated method for large-scale staging of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2009; 49: 1821–7.
28 Poynard T, Ingiliz P, Elkrief L, et al. Concordance in a world without a gold standard: a new non-invasive methodology for improving accuracy of fibrosis markers. PLoS ONE 2008; 3: e3857.
29 Boursier J, Vergniol J, Sawadogo A, et al. The combination of a blood test and FibroScan improves the non-invasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis. Liver Int 2009; 29: 1507–15.
30 Castera L, Sebastiani G, Le Bail B, et al. Prospective comparison of two algorithms combining non-invasive methods for staging liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol 2010; 52: 191–8.
31 Castera L, Le Bail B, Roudot-Thoraval F, et al. Early detection in routine clinical practice of cirrhosis and oesophageal varices in chronic hepatitis C: Comparison of transient elastography (FibroScan) with standard laboratory tests and non-invasive scores. J Hepatol 2009; 50: 59–68.
32 Imbert-Bismut F, Messous D, Thibaut V, et al. Intra-laboratory analytical variability of biochemical markers of fibrosis (Fibrotest) and activity (Actitest) and reference ranges in healthy blood donors. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42: 323–33.
33 Cales P, Veillon P, Konate A, et al. Reproducibility of blood tests of liver fibrosis in clinical practice. Clin Biochem 2008; 41: 10–8.
34 Poynard T, Munteanu M, Imbert-Bismut F, et al. Prospective analysis of discordant results between biochemical markers and biopsy in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Clin Chem 2004; 50: 1344–55.
35 Fraquelli M, Rigamonti C, Casazza G, et al. Reproducibility of transient elastography in the evaluation of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic liver disease. Gut 2007; 56: 968–73.
36 Boursier J, Konate A, Gorea G, et al. Reproducibility of liver stiffness measurement by ultrasonographic elastometry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 1263–9.
37 Castera L, Foucher J, Bernard PH, et al. Pitfalls of liver stiffness measurement: a 5-year prospective study of 13 369 examinations. Hepatology 2010; 51: 828–35.
38 Coco B, Oliveri F, Maina AM, et al. Transient elastography: a new surrogate marker of liver fibrosis influenced by major changes of transaminases. J Viral Hepat 2007; 14: 360–9.
39 Sagir A, Erhardt A, Schmitt M, et al. Transient elastography is unreliable for detection of cirrhosis in patients with acute liver damage. Hepatology 2007; 47: 592–5.
40 Arena U, Vizzutti F, Corti G, et al. Acute viral hepatitis increases liver stiffness values measured by transient elastography. Hepatology 2008; 47: 380–4.
41 Millonig G, Reimann FM, Friedrich S, et al. Extrahepatic cholestasis increases liver stiffness (FibroScan) irrespective of fibrosis. Hepatology 2008; 48: 1718–23.
42 Millonig G, Friedrich S, Adolf S, et al. Liver stiffness is directly influenced by central venous pressure. J Hepatol 2010; 52: 206–10.
43 Scheuer PJ. Liver biopsy size matters in chronic hepatitis: bigger is better. Hepatology 2003; 38: 1356–8.
44 Rousselet MC, Michalak S, Dupre F, et al. Sources of variability in histological scoring of chronic viral hepatitis. Hepatology 2005; 41: 257–64.
45 Non invasive methods for the evaluation of hepatic fibrosis/cirrhosis: an update, 2008. Available at http://www.has-sante.fr/
46 Hezode C, Forestier N, Dusheiko G, et al. Telaprevir and peginterferon with or without ribavirin for chronic HCV infection. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1839–50.
47 Kwo PY, Lawitz EJ, McCone J, et al. Efficacy of boceprevir, an NS3 protease inhibitor, in combination with peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin in treatment-naive patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C infection (SPRINT-1): an open-label, randomised, multicentre phase 2 trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 705–16.
48 Hézode C, Castéra L, Rosa I, et al. Prospective evaluation of liver stiffness dynamics during and after peginterferon alpha-ribavirin treatment in patients with chronic hepatitis C (abstract). Hepatology 2008; 48 (Suppl.): 849A.
49 Huwart L, Sempoux C, Vicaut E, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography for the noninvasive staging of liver fibrosis. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 32–40.
50 Friedrich-Rust M, Wunder K, Kriener S, et al. Liver fibrosis in viral hepatitis: noninvasive assessment with acoustic radiation force impulse imaging versus transient elastography. Radiology 2009; 252: 595–604.
51 Ronot M, Asselah T, Paradis V, et al. Liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C virus infection: differentiating minimal from intermediate fibrosis with perfusion CT. Radiology 2010; 256: 135–42.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment