Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is estimated to afflict approximately 1 billion individuals worldwide. In a subset of NAFLD patients, who have the progressive form of NAFLD termed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), it can progress to advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related morbidity and mortality. NASH is typically characterized by a specific pattern on liver histology, including steatosis, lobular inflammation, and ballooning with or without peri-sinusoidal fibrosis. Thus, key issues in NAFLD patients are the differentiation of NASH from simple steatosis and identification of advanced hepatic fibrosis. Until now, liver biopsy has been the gold standard for identifying these 2 critical end points, but has well-known limitations, including invasiveness; rare but potentially life-threatening complications; poor acceptability; sampling variability; and cost. Furthermore, due to the epidemic proportion of individuals with NAFLD worldwide, liver biopsy evaluation is impractical, and noninvasive assessment for the diagnosis of NASH and fibrosis is needed. Although much of the work remains to be done in establishing cost-effective strategies for screening for NASH, advanced fibrosis, and cirrhosis, in this review, we summarize the current state of the noninvasive assessment of liver disease in NAFLD, and we provide an expert synthesis of how these noninvasive tools could be utilized in clinical practice. Finally, we also list the key areas of research priorities in this area to move forward clinical practice.

Background: Transient elastography (FibroScan) is a new, non-invasive, rapid, and reproducible method allowing evaluation of liver fibrosis by measurement of liver stiffness. In cirrhotic patients, liver stiffness measurements range from 12.5 to 75.5 kPa. However, the clinical relevance of these values is unknown. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the accuracy of liver stiffness measurement for the detection of cirrhosis in patients with chronic liver disease. Methods: A total of 711 patients with chronic liver disease were studied. Aetiologies of chronic liver diseases were hepatitis C virus or hepatitis B virus infection, alcohol, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, other, or a combination of the above aetiologies. Liver fibrosis was evaluated according to the METAVIR score. Results: Stiffness was significantly correlated with fibrosis stage (r = 0.73, p2), 0.90 (0.86–0.93) for patients with severe fibrosis (F3), and 0.96 (0.94–0.98) for patients with cirrhosis. Using a cut off value of 17.6 kPa, patients with cirrhosis were detected with a positive predictive value and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 90%. Liver stiffness was significantly correlated with clinical, biological, and morphological parameters of liver disease. With an NPV >90%, the cut off values for the presence of oesophageal varices stage 2/3, cirrhosis Child-Pugh B or C, past history of ascites, hepatocellular carcinoma, and oesophageal bleeding were 27.5, 37.5, 49.1, 53.7, and 62.7 kPa, respectively. Conclusion: Transient elastography is a promising non-invasive method for detection of cirrhosis in patients with chronic liver disease. Its use for the follow up and management of these patients could be of great interest and should be evaluated further.

Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) based on transient elastography (TE, FibroScan) is gaining in popularity for noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis. However, LSM has limitations, which have not yet been thoroughly evaluated. We prospectively investigated the frequency and determinants of LSM failure and unreliable results over a 5-year period, based on 13,369 examinations (134,239 shots). LSM failure was defined as zero valid shots, and unreliable examinations were defined as fewer than 10 valid shots, an interquartile range (IQR)/LSM greater than 30%, or a success rate less than 60%. LSM failure occurred in 3.1% of all examinations (4% at first examination [n = 7261]) and was independently associated at first examination with body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m2 (odds ratio [OR], 7.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6-10.2; P = 0.0001), operator experience fewer than 500 examinations (OR 2.5 [1.6-4.0]; P = 0.0001); age greater than 52 years (OR 2.3 [1.6-3.2]; P = 0.0001), and type 2 diabetes (OR 1.6 [1.1-2.2]; P = 0.009). Unreliable results were obtained in a further 15.8% of cases (17% at first examination) and were independently associated at first examination with BMI greater than 30 kg/m2 (OR 3.3 [2.8-4.0]; P = 0.0001), operator experience fewer than 500 examinations (OR 3.1 [2.4-3.9]; P = 0.0001), age greater than 52 years (OR 1.8 [1.6-2.1]; P = 0.0001), female sex (OR 1.4 [1.2-1.6], P = 0.0001), hypertension (OR 1.3 [1.1-1.5]; P = 0.003), and type 2 diabetes (OR 1.2 [1.0-1.5]; P = 0.05). When metabolic syndrome and waist circumference were taken into account in a subgroup of 2835 patients, waist circumference was the most important determinant of LSM failure and unreliable results. Conclusion: In our experience, liver stiffness measurements are uninterpretable in nearly one in five cases. The principal reasons are obesity, particularly increased waist circumference, and limited operator experience. These results emphasize the need for adequate operator training and for technological improvements in specific patient subpopulations. (Hepatology 2010.)

Conventional diagnostic ultrasound images of the anatomy (as opposed to blood flow) reveal differences in the acoustic properties of soft tissues (mainly echogenicity but also, to some extent, attenuation), whereas ultrasound-based elasticity images are able to reveal the differences in the elastic properties of soft tissues (e.g., elasticity and viscosity). The benefit of elasticity imaging lies in the fact that many soft tissues can share similar ultrasonic echogenicities but may have different mechanical properties that can be used to clearly visualize normal anatomy and delineate pathologic lesions. Typically, all elasticity measurement and imaging methods introduce a mechanical excitation and monitor the resulting tissue response. Some of the most widely available commercial elasticity imaging methods are 'quasi-static' and use external tissue compression to generate images of the resulting tissue strain (or deformation). In addition, many manufacturers now provide shear wave imaging and measurement methods, which deliver stiffness images based upon the shear wave propagation speed. The goal of this review is to describe the fundamental physics and the associated terminology underlying these technologies. We have included a questions and answers section, an extensive appendix, and a glossary of terms in this manuscript. We have also endeavored to ensure that the terminology and descriptions, although not identical, are broadly compatible across the WFUMB and EFSUMB sets of guidelines on elastography (Bamber et al. 2013; Cosgrove et al. 2013).