Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Sep 9:10:103.
doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-10-103.

Comparison of ELF, FibroTest and FibroScan for the non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis

Mireen Friedrich-Rust  1 , William Rosenberg, Julie Parkes, Eva Herrmann, Stefan Zeuzem, Christoph Sarrazin
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of ELF, FibroTest and FibroScan for the non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis

Mireen Friedrich-Rust et al. BMC Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Background: FibroTest (FT) is the most frequently used serum fibrosis marker and consists of an algorithm of five fibrosis markers (alfa2-macroglobulin, apolipoproteinA1, haptoglobin, GGT, bilirubin). The Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test consists of an algorithm of three fibrosis markers (hyaluronic acid, amino-terminal propeptide-of-type-III-collagen, tissue-inhibitor of matrix-metaloproteinase-1). While a systematic review has shown comparable results for both individual markers, there has been no direct comparison of both markers.

Methods: In the present study, the ELF-test was analyzed retrospectively in patients with chronic liver disease, who received a liver biopsy, transient elastography (TE) and the FibroTest using histology as the reference method. Histology was classified according to METAVIR and the Ludwig's classification (F0-F4) for patients with chronic hepatitis C and B virus (HCV, HBV) infection and primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC), respectively.

Results: Seventy-four patients were analysed: 36 with HCV, 10 with HBV, and 28 with PBC. The accuracy (AUROC) for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis (F≥2) for ELF and FibroTest was 0.78 (95%CI:0.67-0.89) and 0.69 (95%-CI:0.57-0.82), respectively (difference not statistically significant, n.s.). The AUROC for the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis was 0.92 (95%CI:0.83-1,00), and 0.91 (95%CI:0.83-0.99), respectively (n.s.). For 66 patients with reliable TE measurements the AUROC for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis (cirrhosis) for TE, ELF and FT were 0.80 (0.94), 0.76 (0.92), and 0.67 (0.91), respectively (n.s.).

Conclusion: FibroTest and ELF can be performed with comparable diagnostic accuracy for the non-invasive staging of liver fibrosis. Serum tests are informative in a higher proportion of patients than transient elastography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves for FibroTest and ELF for diagnosis of significant fibrosis (F ≥ 2)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves for FibroTest and ELF for diagnosis of liver cirrhosis (F = 4)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. Management of hepatitis C 2002 (June 10-12, 2002) Hepatology. 2002;36:S3–S20. - PubMed
    1. Castera L, Negre I, Samii K, Buffet C. Pain experienced during percutaneous liver biopsy. Hepatology. 1999;30:1529–1530. doi: 10.1002/hep.510300624. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bedossa P, Dargere D, Paradise V. Sampling variability of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology. 2003;38:1449–1457. - PubMed
    1. Maharaj B, Maharaj RJ, Leary WP, Cooppan RM, Naran AD, Pirie D. et al.Sampling variability and its influence on the diagnostic yield of percutaneous needle biopsy of the liver. Lancet. 1986;1:523–525. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90883-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Friedrich-Rust M, Ong MF, Martens S, Sarrazin C, Bojunga J, Zeuzem S, Herrmann E. Performance of transient elastography for the staging of liver fibrosis: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:960–974. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.01.034. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types