fibroscan for all

 Transient Elastography (FibroScan): Clinical Applications and Limitations in clinical Practice

Dr Neeraj Manikath, claude. Ai

Introduction

Chronic liver diseases represent a significant global health burden, with an estimated 2 billion people worldwide affected by conditions such as viral hepatitis, alcoholic liver disease, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The accurate assessment of liver fibrosis remains a cornerstone in the management of these patients, guiding therapeutic decisions and prognostication. While liver biopsy has traditionally been considered the gold standard for fibrosis evaluation, its invasive nature and associated complications have prompted the development of non-invasive alternatives.

Transient elastography (TE), commercially available as FibroScan (Echosens, Paris, France), has emerged as one of the most widely adopted non-invasive methods for liver fibrosis assessment. This review aims to provide physicians with a comprehensive understanding of FibroScan technology, its clinical applications, limitations, and practical considerations for implementation in clinical practice.

Technical Principles of FibroScan

FibroScan employs the principle of vibration-controlled transient elastography to measure liver stiffness as a surrogate marker for fibrosis. The device consists of a probe containing an ultrasound transducer mounted on a vibrator. The vibrator generates a low-frequency (50 Hz) mechanical pulse that propagates through the liver tissue as a shear wave. The velocity of this shear wave, directly related to tissue elasticity, is measured by pulse-echo ultrasound acquisitions.

The standard measurement is expressed in kilopascals (kPa), with values ranging from 2.5 to 75 kPa. Higher values indicate greater liver stiffness and, by inference, more advanced fibrosis. The examination typically requires 5-10 valid measurements, with quality parameters including interquartile range/median (IQR/M) ratio ≤30% and success rate ≥60%.

Available Probes and Their Applications

FibroScan offers several probe options to accommodate different patient populations:

1. M probe (Medium): Standard probe suitable for most adults.

2. XL probe (Extra Large): Designed for patients with obesity (BMI >30 kg/m²) or thick thoracic wall.

3. S probe (Small): Specifically designed for pediatric populations.

The appropriate probe selection is crucial for accurate measurements. Studies have demonstrated that using an inappropriate probe can lead to unreliable results, particularly in patients with obesity where the M probe may not penetrate sufficiently.

 Clinical Applications in Different Liver Diseases

 Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB)

FibroScan has demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy in CHB patients, with meta-analyses showing areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.84-0.88 for significant fibrosis (≥F2) and 0.89-0.93 for cirrhosis (F4). However, cutoff values may differ from those established for other etiologies. The European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) guidelines recommend using liver stiffness measurement (LSM) ≥9 kPa (with M probe) as an indication for treatment in patients with HBeAg-negative chronic infection with normal ALT and HBV DNA >2,000 IU/ml.

Chronic Hepatitis C (CHC)

FibroScan has been extensively validated in CHC patients. A meta-analysis by Friedrich-Rust et al. reported AUROCs of 0.84 for significant fibrosis and 0.94 for cirrhosis. The widely accepted cutoffs in CHC are approximately 7.1-8.7 kPa for significant fibrosis and 12.5-14.5 kPa for cirrhosis. With the advent of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), the role of FibroScan has shifted from treatment eligibility assessment to post-treatment monitoring and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk stratification.

 Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD)

NAFLD represents a growing indication for FibroScan use. The XL probe is often necessary in this population due to the high prevalence of obesity. Meta-analyses have shown AUROCs of 0.82-0.84 for significant fibrosis and 0.90-0.93 for cirrhosis in NAFLD patients. Additionally, the Controlled Attenuation Parameter (CAP), which measures ultrasound attenuation, allows simultaneous assessment of steatosis. However, optimal CAP cutoffs remain debated, with values of approximately 248-288 dB/m for moderate steatosis (≥S2) and 280-310 dB/m for severe steatosis (S3).

 Alcoholic Liver Disease (ALD)

In ALD, FibroScan has shown excellent performance in detecting cirrhosis (AUROC 0.94-0.95) but more moderate accuracy for significant fibrosis (AUROC 0.83-0.84). Notably, acute alcoholic hepatitis can significantly increase liver stiffness independent of fibrosis, necessitating cautious interpretation in actively drinking patients.

 Other Liver Diseases

FibroScan has also been evaluated in autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cholangitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and various other liver diseases, though with fewer validation studies. Disease-specific cutoffs may be necessary for optimal diagnostic accuracy in these conditions.

Prognostic Value of FibroScan

Beyond fibrosis staging, liver stiffness measured by FibroScan has demonstrated prognostic value for several outcomes:

1. Portal Hypertension: LSM correlates with hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), with values >21-25 kPa highly suggestive of clinically significant portal hypertension (HVPG ≥10 mmHg).

2. Esophageal Varices: While earlier studies suggested LSM could predict the presence of varices, more recent data suggest that FibroScan alone has insufficient accuracy and should be combined with other parameters (e.g., platelet count in the Baveno VI criteria).

3. Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Higher baseline LSM and lack of LSM improvement over time are associated with increased HCC risk, even after viral eradication in CHC patients.

4. Liver-related Events and Mortality: LSM has been shown to predict liver decompensation, liver-related mortality, and overall mortality across various etiologies.

 Limitations and Pitfalls

Despite its utility, FibroScan has several important limitations that physicians should consider:

 Technical Limitations

1. Measurement Failure: Occurs in approximately 3-5% of patients, more commonly with the M probe in obese individuals.

2. Unreliable Results: Even when measurements are obtained, they may be unreliable due to poor technique, insufficient number of valid acquisitions, or high variability between measurements (IQR/M >30%).

3. Inter-observer Variability: Although generally good, variability between operators can occur, especially among less experienced users.

 Confounding Factors Affecting Liver Stiffness

Several factors can increase liver stiffness independently of fibrosis:

1. Hepatic Inflammation: Acute hepatitis and flares of chronic hepatitis with elevated aminotransferases (>3-5× upper limit of normal) can significantly increase LSM.

2. Extrahepatic Cholestasis: Biliary obstruction can markedly increase liver stiffness, with values returning to baseline after resolution.

3. Hepatic Congestion: Right heart failure or other causes of hepatic congestion can increase LSM.

4. Postprandial State: Food ingestion can increase portal blood flow and LSM; examinations should ideally be performed after fasting for at least 2-3 hours.

5. Alcohol Consumption: Recent alcohol intake can affect LSM, particularly in patients with ALD.

 Patient-related Limitations

FibroScan may be difficult or impossible to perform in:

1. Narrow intercostal spaces

2. Ascites (absolute contraindication)

3. Pregnancy (relative contraindication, limited safety data)

4. Implantable cardiac devices(relative contraindication, theoretical concern)

Integration with Other Non-invasive Methods

To overcome the limitations of FibroScan alone, combining it with serum biomarkers has gained increasing attention:

1. Sequential Algorithms: Using serum tests as first-line screening, followed by FibroScan in indeterminate cases (e.g., NAFLD Fibrosis Score followed by FibroScan).

2. Synchronous Combination: Combining LSM with biomarkers like FIB-4 or APRI to improve diagnostic accuracy.

3. FibroMeter VCTE: A specifically designed algorithm incorporating LSM with serum markers.

These combined approaches can reduce the need for liver biopsy by approximately 50-70% while maintaining acceptable diagnostic accuracy.

Practical Considerations for Clinical Implementation

 Operator Training and Quality Control

Proper training is essential for reliable FibroScan results. The manufacturer recommends at least 100 examinations under supervision. Regular quality control and periodic recertification are advisable for maintaining competency.

Interpretation in Clinical Context

FibroScan results should always be interpreted in the clinical context, considering:

1. The specific liver disease etiology

2. Disease-specific cutoffs

3. Presence of potential confounding factors

4. Quality parameters of the examination (IQR/M, success rate)

5. Integration with other clinical, laboratory, and imaging findings

Cost-effectiveness

Multiple studies have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of FibroScan compared to liver biopsy or other non-invasive methods across various healthcare systems and liver disease etiologies. However, the initial investment cost remains a barrier in resource-limited settings.

 Future Directions

Several emerging applications and technological advancements may expand the utility of FibroScan:

1. 2D-Shear Wave Elastography (2D-SWE): A newer technique offering real-time visualization of the shear wave and a larger sampling area.

2. Spleen Stiffness Measurement: Shows promise for portal hypertension assessment.

3. Machine Learning Integration: Combining LSM with clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters through artificial intelligence approaches.

4. Point-of-Care Applications: Development of portable devices for use in primary care settings.

Conclusion

FibroScan represents a valuable non-invasive tool for liver fibrosis assessment across various liver diseases. Its advantages include rapid results, reproducibility, and patient acceptability. However, physicians must be aware of its limitations, including technical failures, confounding factors, and the need for disease-specific interpretations. When properly performed and interpreted within the clinical context, FibroScan can significantly reduce the need for liver biopsy while providing valuable prognostic information.

Integration of FibroScan into comprehensive liver assessment algorithms, combining it with other non-invasive markers, represents the current best practice approach. Future technological advancements and expanded applications will likely further solidify the role of transient elastography in hepatology practice.

References

1. European Association for Study of Liver; Asociacion Latinoamericana para el Estudio del Higado. EASL-ALEH Clinical Practice Guidelines: Non-invasive tests for evaluation of liver disease severity and prognosis. J Hepatol. 2015;63(1):237-264.

2. Wong GL, Chan HL, Choi PC, et al. Association between anthropometric parameters and measurements of liver stiffness by transient elastography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(3):295-302.e1-3.

3. Friedrich-Rust M, Ong MF, Martens S, et al. Performance of transient elastography for the staging of liver fibrosis: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2008;134(4):960-974.

4. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatitis B virus infection. J Hepatol. 2017;67(2):370-398.

5. Karlas T, Petroff D, Sasso M, et al. Individual patient data meta-analysis of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) technology for assessing steatosis. J Hepatol. 2017;66(5):1022-1030.

6. Petta S, Maida M, Macaluso FS, et al. The severity of steatosis influences liver stiffness measurement in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2015;62(4):1101-1110.

7. Thiele M, Madsen BS, Procopet B, et al. Reliability criteria for liver stiffness measurements with real-time 2D shear wave elastography in different clinical scenarios of chronic liver disease. Ultraschall Med. 2017;38(6):648-654.

8. Boursier J, de Ledinghen V, Leroy V, et al. A stepwise algorithm using an at-a-glance first-line test for the non-invasive diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2017;66(6):1158-1165.

9. Castera L, Foucher J, Bernard PH, et al. Pitfalls of liver stiffness measurement: a 5-year prospective study of 13,369 examinations. Hepatology. 2010;51(3):828-835.

10. Arena U, Vizzutti F, Corti G, et al. Acute viral hepatitis increases liver stiffness values measured by transient elastography. Hepatology. 2008;47(2):380-384.

11. Millonig G, Reimann FM, Friedrich S, et al. Extrahepatic cholestasis increases liver stiffness (FibroScan) irrespective of fibrosis. Hepatology. 2008;48(5):1718-1723.

12. Mederacke I, Wursthorn K, Kirschner J, et al. Food intake increases liver stiffness in patients with chronic or resolved hepatitis C virus infection. Liver Int. 2009;29(10):1500-1506.

13. Pavlov CS, Casazza G, Nikolova D, et al. Transient elastography for diagnosis of stages of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;1:CD010542.

14. de Franchis R, Baveno VI Faculty. Expanding consensus in portal hypertension: Report of the Baveno VI Consensus Workshop. J Hepatol. 2015;63(3):743-752.

15. Singh S, Fujii LL, Murad MH, et al. Liver stiffness is associated with risk of decompensation, liver cancer, and death in patients with chronic liver diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(12):1573-1584.e1-2.