We present here the first update of the 2013 EFSUMB (European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology) Guidelines and Recommendations on the clinical use of elastography, focused on the assessment of diffuse liver disease. The first part (long version) of these Guidelines and Recommendations deals with the basic principles of elastography and provides an update of how the technology has changed. The practical advantages and disadvantages associated with each of the techniques are described, and guidance is provided regarding optimization of scanning technique, image display, image interpretation, reporting of data and some of the known image artefacts. The second part provides clinical information about the practical use of elastography equipment and the interpretation of results in the assessment of diffuse liver disease and analyzes the main findings based on published studies, stressing the evidence from meta-analyses. The role of elastography in different etiologies of liver disease and in several clinical scenarios is also discussed. All of the recommendations are judged with regard to their evidence-based strength according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. This updated document is intended to act as a reference and to provide a practical guide for both beginners and advanced clinical users.

An abstract is unavailable. This article is available as a PDF only.

Two‐dimensional shear wave elastography (2D‐SWE) has proven to be efficient for the evaluation of liver fibrosis in small to moderate‐sized clinical trials. We aimed at running a larger‐scale meta‐analysis of individual data. Centers which have worked with Aixplorer ultrasound equipment were contacted to share their data. Retrospective statistical analysis used direct and paired receiver operating characteristic and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analyses, accounting for random effects. Data on both 2D‐SWE and liver biopsy were available for 1,134 patients from 13 sites, as well as on successful transient elastography in 665 patients. Most patients had chronic hepatitis C (n = 379), hepatitis B (n = 400), or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (n = 156). AUROCs of 2D‐SWE in patients with hepatitis C, hepatitis B, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were 86.3%, 90.6%, and 85.5% for diagnosing significant fibrosis and 92.9%, 95.5%, and 91.7% for diagnosing cirrhosis, respectively. The AUROC of 2D‐SWE was 0.022‐0.084 (95% confidence interval) larger than the AUROC of transient elastography for diagnosing significant fibrosis (P = 0.001) and 0.003‐0.034 for diagnosing cirrhosis (P = 0.022) in all patients. This difference was strongest in hepatitis B patients.Conclusion:2D‐SWE has good to excellent performance for the noninvasive staging of liver fibrosis in patients with hepatitis B; further prospective studies are needed for head‐to‐head comparison between 2D‐SWE and other imaging modalities to establish disease‐specific appropriate cutoff points for assessment of fibrosis stage. (Hepatology2018;67:260‐272).

Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) is a major cause of liver-related death worldwide, yet understanding of the three key pathological features of the disease—fibrosis, inflammation and steatosis—remains incomplete. Here, we present a paired liver–plasma proteomics approach to infer molecular pathophysiology and to explore the diagnostic and prognostic capability of plasma proteomics in 596 individuals (137 controls and 459 individuals with ALD), 360 of whom had biopsy-based histological assessment. We analyzed all plasma samples and 79 liver biopsies using a mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics workflow with short gradient times and an enhanced, data-independent acquisition scheme in only 3 weeks of measurement time. In plasma and liver biopsy tissues, metabolic functions were downregulated whereas fibrosis-associated signaling and immune responses were upregulated. Machine learning models identified proteomics biomarker panels that detected significant fibrosis (receiver operating characteristic–area under the curve (ROC–AUC), 0.92, accuracy, 0.82) and mild inflammation (ROC–AUC, 0.87, accuracy, 0.79) more accurately than existing clinical assays (DeLong’s test, P < 0.05). These biomarker panels were found to be accurate in prediction of future liver-related events and all-cause mortality, with a Harrell’s C-index of 0.90 and 0.79, respectively. An independent validation cohort reproduced the diagnostic model performance, laying the foundation for routine MS-based liver disease testing.

There is a need for accurate biomarkers of fibrosis for population screening of alcohol-related and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (ALD, NAFLD). We compared the performance of the enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) test to the fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4) and NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS), using transient elastography as the reference standard. We prospectively included participants from the general population, and people at risk of ALD or NAFLD. Screening positive participants (TE ≥8 kPa) were offered a liver biopsy. We measured concomitant ELF, FIB-4, and NFS using validated cut-offs: ≥9.8, ≥1.3, ≥-1.45, respectively. We included 3,378 participants (1,973 general population, 953 at risk of ALD, 452 at risk of NAFLD), with a median age of 57 years (IQR: 51-63). Two hundred-and-forty-two were screening positive (3.4% in the general population, 12%/14% who were at-risk of ALD/NAFLD, respectively). Most participants with TE <8 kPa also had ELF <9.8 (88%) despite a poor overall correlation between ELF and TE (Spearman´s rho = 0.207). ELF was associated with significantly fewer false positives (11%) than FIB-4 and NFS (35% and 45%), while retaining a low rate of false negatives (<8%). A screening strategy of FIB-4 followed by ELF in indeterminate cases resulted in false positives in 8%, false negatives in 4% and the correct classification in 88% of cases. We performed a liver biopsy in 155/242 (64%) patients who screened positive, of whom 54 (35%) had advanced fibrosis (≥F3). ELF diagnosed advanced fibrosis with significantly better diagnostic accuracy than FIB-4 and NFS: AUROC 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.92) vs. 0.73 (0.64-0.81) and 0.66 (0.57-0.76), respectively. The ELF test alone or combined with FIB-4 for liver fibrosis screening in the general population and at-risk groups reduces the number of futile referrals compared to FIB-4 and NFS, without overlooking true cases. We need referral pathways that are efficient at detecting advanced fibrosis from alcohol-related and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in the population, but without causing futile referrals or excessive use of resources. This study indicates that a sequential test strategy of FIB-4 followed by the ELF test in indeterminate cases leads to few patients referred for confirmatory liver stiffness measurement, while retaining a high rate of detected cases, and at low direct costs. This two-step referral pathway could be used by primary care for mass, targeted, or opportunistic screening for liver fibrosis in the population. Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT03308916.

Alcohol is the leading cause of cirrhosis and liver-related mortality, but we lack serum markers to detect compensated disease. We compared the accuracy of the Enhanced Liver Fibrosis test (ELF), the FibroTest, liver stiffness measurements (made by transient elastography and 2-dimensional shear-wave elastography), and 6 indirect marker tests in detection of advanced liver fibrosis (Kleiner stage ≥F3). We performed a prospective study of 10 liver fibrosis markers (patented and not), all performed on the same day. Patients were recruited from primary centers (municipal alcohol rehabilitation, n = 128; 6% with advanced fibrosis) and secondary health care centers (hospital outpatient clinics, n = 161; 36% with advanced fibrosis) in the Region of Southern Denmark from 2013 through 2016. Biopsy-verified fibrosis stage was used as the reference standard. The primary aim was to validate ELF in detection of advanced fibrosis in patients with alcoholic liver disease recruited from primary and secondary health care centers, using the literature-based cutoff value of 10.5. Secondary aims were to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ELF for significant fibrosis and cirrhosis and to determine whether combinations of fibrosis markers increase diagnostic yield. The ELF identified patients with advanced liver fibrosis with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.89-0.96); findings did not differ significantly between patients from primary vs secondary care (P = .917). ELF more accurately identified patients with advanced liver fibrosis than indirect marker tests, but ELF and FibroTest had comparable diagnostic accuracies (AUROC of FibroTest, 0.90) (P = .209 for comparison with ELF). Results from the ELF and FibroTest did not differ significantly from those of liver stiffness measurement in intention-to-diagnose analyses (AUROC for transient elastography, 0.90), but did differ in the per-protocol analysis (AUROC for transient elastography, 0.97) (P = .521 and .004 for comparison with ELF). Adding a serum marker to transient elastography analysis did not increase accuracy. For patients in primary care, ELF values below 10.5 and FibroTest values below 0.58 had negative predictive values for advanced liver fibrosis of 98% and 94%, respectively. In a prospective, direct comparison of tests, ELF and FibroTest identified advanced liver fibrosis in alcoholic patients from primary and secondary care with high diagnostic accuracy (AUROC values of 0.90 or higher using biopsy as reference). Advanced fibrosis can be ruled out in primary health care patients based on an ELF value below 10.5 or a FibroTest value below 0.58.