Back to Browse Journals » Hepatic Medicine: Evidence and Research » Volume 5

Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients

Authors Durango E, Dietrich C, Seitz HK, Kunz CU, Pomier-Layrargues GT, Duarte-Rojo A, Beaton M, Elkhashab M, Myers RP, Mueller S

Received 15 March 2013

Accepted for publication 3 May 2013

Published 4 July 2013 Volume 2013:5 Pages 43—52

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/HMER.S45234

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3

Esteban Durango,1,* Christian Dietrich,1,* Helmut Karl Seitz,1 Cornelia Ursula Kunz,2 Gilles T Pomier-Layrargues,3 Andres Duarte-Rojo,4 Melanie Beaton,5 Magdy Elkhashab,6 Robert P Myers,7 Sebastian Mueller1,3

1Department of Medicine and Center for Alcohol Research, Liver Disease and Nutrition, Salem Medical Center, 2Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; 3Liver Unit, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Hôpital Saint-Luc, Montréal, Quebec, 4Toronto Western Hospital Liver Centre, Toronto, Ontario; 5Multi-Organ Transplant Unit, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario; 6The Toronto Liver Centre, Toronto, Ontario; 7Liver Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

*These authors contributed equally to this research

Background: A novel Fibroscan XL probe has recently been introduced and validated for obese patients, and has a diagnostic accuracy comparable with that of the standard M probe. The aim of this study was to analyze and understand the differences between these two probes in nonobese patients, to identify underlying causes for these differences, and to develop a practical algorithm to translate results for the XL probe to those for the M probe.
Methods and results: Both probes were directly compared first in copolymer phantoms of varying stiffness (4.8, 11, and 40 kPa) and then in 371 obese and nonobese patients (body mass index, range 17.2–72.4) from German (n = 129) and Canadian (n = 242) centers. Liver stiffness values for both probes correlated better in phantoms than in patients (r = 0.98 versus 0.82, P < 0.001). Significantly more patients could be measured successfully using the XL probe than the M probe (98.4% versus 85.2%, respectively, P < 0.001) while the M probe produced a smaller interquartile range (21% versus 32%). Failure of the M probe to measure liver stiffness was not only observed in patients with a high body mass index and long skin-liver capsule distance but also in some nonobese patients (n = 10) due to quenching of the signal from subcutaneous fat tissue. In contrast with the phantoms, the XL probe consistently produced approximately 20% lower liver stiffness values in humans compared with the M probe. A long skin-liver capsule distance and a high degree of steatosis were responsible for this discordance. Adjustment of cutoff values for the XL probe (<5.5, 5.5–7, 7–10, and >10 kPa for F0, F1–2, F3, and F4 fibrosis, respectively) significantly improved agreement between the two probes from r = 0.655 to 0.679.
Conclusion: Liver stiffness can be measured in significantly more obese and nonobese patients using the XL probe than the M probe. However, the XL probe is less accurate and adjusted cutoff values are required.

Keywords: cirrhosis, liver fibrosis, liver stiffness, obesity, steatosis, transient elastography, M probe, XL probe

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]

 

Other articles by this author:

Transient elastography with the XL probe rapidly identifies patients with nonhepatic ascites

Kohlhaas A, Durango E, Millonig G, Bastard C, Sandrin L, Golriz M, Mehrabi A, Büchler MW, Seitz HK, Mueller S

Hepatic Medicine: Evidence and Research 2012, 4:11-18

Published Date: 1 May 2012

Liver stiffness: a novel parameter for the diagnosis of liver disease

Sebastian Mueller, Laurent Sandrin

Hepatic Medicine: Evidence and Research 2010, 2:49-67

Published Date: 25 May 2010

Readers of this article also read:

Emerging and future therapies for hemophilia

Carr ME, Tortella BJ

Journal of Blood Medicine 2015, 6:245-255

Published Date: 3 September 2015

Mesenchymal stem cell therapy for osteoarthritis: current perspectives

Wyles CC, Houdek MT, Behfar A, Sierra RJ

Stem Cells and Cloning: Advances and Applications 2015, 8:117-124

Published Date: 28 August 2015

Current perspectives in stem cell research for knee cartilage repair

Orth P, Rey-Rico A, Venkatesan JK, Madry H, Cucchiarini M

Stem Cells and Cloning: Advances and Applications 2014, 7:1-17

Published Date: 16 January 2014

Methacrylic-based nanogels for the pH-sensitive delivery of 5-Fluorouracil in the colon

Ashwanikumar N, Kumar NA, Nair SA, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5769-5779

Published Date: 15 November 2012

Cross-linked acrylic hydrogel for the controlled delivery of hydrophobic drugs in cancer therapy

Deepa G, Thulasidasan AK, Anto RJ, Pillai JJ, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:4077-4088

Published Date: 27 July 2012

Topical diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee

Niklas Schuelert, Fiona A Russell, Jason J McDougall

Orthopedic Research and Reviews 2011, 3:1-8

Published Date: 6 February 2011