IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0059088.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contribution of the ELFG Test in Algorithms of Non-Invasive Markers towards the Diagnosis of Significant Fibrosis in Chronic Hepatitis C

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Pierre Zarski
  • Nathalie Sturm
  • Jérôme Guechot
  • Elie-Serge Zafrani
  • Michel Vaubourdolle
  • Sophie Thoret
  • Jennifer Margier
  • Sandra David-Tchouda
  • Jean-Luc Bosson

Abstract

Background and Aims: We aimed to determine the best algorithms for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients using all available parameters and tests. Patients and Methods: We used the database from our study of 507 patients with histologically proven CHC in which fibrosis was evaluated by liver biopsy (Metavir) and tests: Fibrometer®, Fibrotest®, Hepascore®, Apri, ELFG, MP3, Forn's, hyaluronic acid, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP1), MMP1, collagen IV and when possible Fibroscan™. For the first test we used 90% negative predictive value to exclude patients with F≤1, next an induction algorithm was applied giving the best tests with at least 80% positive predictive value for the diagnosis of F≥2. The algorithms were computed using the R Software C4.5 program to select the best tests and cut-offs. The algorithm was automatically induced without premises on the part of the investigators. We also examined the inter-observer variations after independent review of liver biopsies by two pathologists. A medico-economic analysis compared the screening strategies with liver biopsy. Results: In “intention to diagnose” the best algorithms for F≥2 were Fibrometer ®, Fibrotest®, or Hepascore® in first intention with the ELFG score in second intention for indeterminate cases. The percentage of avoided biopsies varied between 50% (Fibrotest® or Fibrometer®+ELFG) and 51% (Hepascore®+ELFG). In “per-analysis” Fibroscan™+ELFG avoided liver biopsy in 55% of cases. The diagnostic performance of these screening strategies was statistically superior to the usual combinations (Fibrometer® or Fibrotest®+Fibroscan™) and was cost effective. We note that the consensual review of liver biopsies between the two pathologists was mainly in favor of F1 (64–69%). Conclusion: The ELFG test could replace Fibroscan in most currently used algorithms for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis including for those patients for whom Fibroscan™ is unusable.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Pierre Zarski & Nathalie Sturm & Jérôme Guechot & Elie-Serge Zafrani & Michel Vaubourdolle & Sophie Thoret & Jennifer Margier & Sandra David-Tchouda & Jean-Luc Bosson, 2013. "Contribution of the ELFG Test in Algorithms of Non-Invasive Markers towards the Diagnosis of Significant Fibrosis in Chronic Hepatitis C," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-7, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0059088
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059088
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0059088
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0059088&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0059088?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qingsong Xie & Xiaohu Zhou & Pengfei Huang & Jianfeng Wei & Weilin Wang & Shusen Zheng, 2014. "The Performance of Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) Test for the Staging of Liver Fibrosis: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0059088. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.