61) Six children scored F0 and F1, three children scored F0 and

61). Six children scored F0 and F1, three children scored F0 and F2, three children scored F1 and F2, one child scored F2 and F3, and one child scored F2 and F4. If each of the 77 adequate biopsy samples had been taken randomly, a diagnosis of fibrosis (F1-F4) would have been missed in 22.5% of the cases. In addition, if biopsy samples had been classified as F0-F1 (none/mild) or F2-F4 (significant fibrosis), there would have been

six patients (16%) for whom a diagnosis of significant fibrosis would have been missed without the use of dual passes (P = 0.01). With quantitative α-SMA immunohistochemistry, some level of immunoreactivity was observed in all 77 adequate biopsy samples, even in those with F0 fibrosis; the mean α-SMA level was 7.8% ± 0.9% of the total area. An increase

in the fibrosis stage was associated with increasing α-SMA immunoreactivity in a nonlinear fashion BMN 673 datasheet (P < 0.001; Supporting Fig. 1). None of these routinely used clinical modalities, individually or in combination, significantly predicted liver fibrosis (Fig. 1). HM with or without splenomegaly, which was present at enrollment in 27 (67.5%), had a PPV of 0.77 and an NPV of 0.0 in detecting liver fibrosis (AUROC = 0.51, P = 0.77, sensitivity = 100%, specificity = 0%). One-third of patients with F0 fibrosis had HM (possibly due to fatty liver). Seven selleck kinase inhibitor of 11 patients with splenomegaly had F3 or F4 fibrosis on biopsy. Interestingly, 4 of

11 with F3 or F4 fibrosis did not have splenomegaly. Elevated serum ALT measurements had very good specificity (100%) but poor sensitivity (0%) in detecting liver fibrosis (AUROC = 0.59, P = 0.3, PPV = 0.77, NPV = 0). Twenty-five percent of those with F3 or F4 fibrosis had a normal ALT level. US abnormalities were not predictive (AUROC = 0.63, P = 0.14); they had good sensitivity (100%) and PPV (0.77) but very poor specificity (0%) and NPV (0). Twenty percent of those with F1-F2 fibrosis had normal US findings, and five of nine with F0 fibrosis had heterogeneous echogenicity, which was interpreted as indeterminate (either steatosis or fibrosis). All except one patient with F3 or F4 fibrosis had some abnormality 上海皓元 (eight with a nodular edge and three with heterogeneous echogenicity; data not shown). When they were combined by multivariate logistic regression, these three clinical tests showed marginally improved clinical utility in the detection of fibrosis (F1-F4; AUROC = 0.69, P = 0.19, sensitivity = 100%, PPV = 0.79) with very poor specificity (11%, NPV = 1; Fig. 1). A similar result was demonstrated for the detection of significant fibrosis (F2-F4; AUROC = 0.68, P = 0.2, sensitivity = 81%, PPV = 0.63) with some improvement in specificity (47%, NPV = 0.69; figure not shown). Nine of 31 patients (29%) with fibrosis (F1-F4) had a serious clinical outcome (6 deaths and 3 transplants).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>