medigraphic.com
Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Mexicana de Hepatología

2015, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Ann Hepatol 2015; 14 (5)

Intermediate fibrosis staging in hepatitis C: a problem not overcome by optimal samples or pathologists’ expertise

Chindamo MC, Nunes-Pannain VL, Araújo-Neto JM, Moraes-Coelho HS, Luiz RR, Villela-Nogueira CA, Perez RM

Language: English
References: 25
Page: 652-657
PDF size: 94.81 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background and aims. The prediction of intermediate stage of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C represents a prognostic factor for disease progression. Studies evaluating biopsy performance in intermediate stage considering current patterns of liver samples and pathologists’ variability are scarce. We aimed to evaluate the effect of optimal liver specimens (≥ 20 mm and/or ≥ 11 portal tracts) and pathologists’ expertise on agreement for intermediate stage of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Material and methods. Guided biopsies with large TruCut needle were initially scored by four pathologists with different expertise in liver disease and posteriorly reviewed by a reference hepatopathologist to evaluate fibrosis agreement. Results. Of the 255 biopsies initially selected, 240 met the criteria of an optimal fragment (mean length 24 ± 5 mm; 16 ± 6 portal tracts) and were considered for analysis. The overall agreement among all fibrosis stages was 77% (κ = 0.66); intraobserver and interobserver agreement was, respectively, 97% (k = 0.96) and 73% (κ = 0.60). Excluded samples (‹ 20 mm and ‹ 11 portal tracts) presented a lower agreement (40%; κ = 0.24). Stratifying fibrosis stages, an interobserver agreement of 42% was found in intermediate stage (F2), ranging from 0 to 56% according to pathologists’ expertise, compared to 97% in mild (F0-F1) and 72% in advanced fibrosis (≥ F3) (p ‹ 0.001). Of the 23% misclassified cases, fibrosis understaging occurred in 82% of specimens, predominantly in F2, even when evaluated by a hepatopathologist. Conclusions. Liver biopsy presents intrinsic limitations to assess intermediate stage of fibrosis not overcome by optimal samples and experienced pathologists’ analysis, and should not be considered the gold standard method to evaluate intermediate fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C.


REFERENCES

  1. Bedossa P. Liver biopsy: The best not the gold standard. J Hepatol 2009; 50: 1-3.

  2. Myers RP, Fong A, Shaheen AA. Utilization rates, complications and costs of percutaneous liver biopsy: a population- based study including 4275 biopsies. Liver Int 2008; 28: 705-12.

  3. Huang JF, Hsieh MY, Dai CY, Hou NJ, Lee LP, Lin ZY, Chen SC, et al. The incidence and risks of liver biopsy in non-cirrhotic patients: An evaluation of 3806 biopsies. Gut 2007; 56: 736-7.

  4. Regev A, Berho M, Jeffers LJ, Milikowski C, Molina EG, Pyrsopoulos NT, Feng ZZ, et al. Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 2614-8.

  5. The French METAVIR cooperative study group. Intraobserver and interobserver variations in liver biopsy interpretation in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 1994; 20: 15-20.

  6. Cholongitas E, Senzolo M, Standish R, Marelli L, Quaglia A, Patch D, Dhillon AP, et al. A systematic review of the quality of liver biopsy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 2006; 125: 710-21.

  7. Imbert-Bismut F, Ratziu V, Pieroni L, Charlotte F, Benhamou Y, Poynard T, MULTIVIRC Group. Biochemical markers of liver fibrosis in patients with hepatitis C virus infection: a prospective study. Lancet 2001; 357: 1069- 75.

  8. Wai CT, Greenson JK, Fontana RJ, Kalbfleisch JD, Marrero JA, Conjeevaram HS, Lok AS. A simple noninvasive index can predict both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2003; 38: 518-26.

  9. Castéra L, Vergniol J, Foucher J, Le Bail B, Chanteloup E, Haaser M, Darriet M, et al. Prospective comparison of transient elastography, Fibrotest, APRI, and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 2005; 128: 343-50.

  10. Sebastini G. Non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis in chronic liver diseases: Implementation in clinical practice and decisional algorithms. World Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 2190-203.

  11. Bedossa P, Dargere D, Paradis V. Sampling variability of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2003; 38: 1449-57.

  12. Poynard T, Lenaour G, Vaillant JC, Capron F, Munteanu M, Eyraud D, Ngo Y, et al. Liver biopsy analysis has a low level of performance for diagnosis of intermediate stages of fibrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 657-63.

  13. Lai M, Afdhal NH. Editorial: staging liver fibrosis in hepatitis C: a challenge for this decade. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 2121-2.

  14. Gonzalez HC, Jafri SM, Gordon SC. Role of liver biopsy in the era of direct-acting antivirals. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2013; 15: 307.

  15. Röcken C, Meier H, Klauck S, Wolff S, Malfertheiner P, Roessner A. A Large-needle biopsy versus thin-needle biopsy in diagnostic pathology of liver diseases. Liver 2001; 21: 391-7.

  16. Scheuer PJ. Liver biopsy size matters in chronic hepatitis: bigger is better. Hepatology 2003; 38: 1356-8.

  17. Schiano TD, Azeem S, Bodian CA, Bodenheimer HC Jr, Merati S, Thung SN, Hytiroglou P. Importance of specimen size in accurate needle liver biopsy evaluation of patient with chronic hepatitis C. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 3: 930-5.

  18. Colloredo G, Guido M, Sonzogni A, Leandro G. Impact of liver biopsy size on histological evaluation of chronic viral hepatitis: the smaller the sample, the milder the disease. J Hepatol 2003; 39: 239-44.

  19. Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S. Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 495-500.

  20. Bedossa P, Poynard T. An algorithm for the grading of activity in chronic hepatitis C. The METAVIR Cooperative Study Group. Hepatology 1996; 24: 289-93.

  21. Robert M, Sofair AN, Thomas A, Bell B, Bialek S, Corless C, Van Ness G, et al. A comparison of hepatopathologists’ and community pathologists’ review of liver biopsy specimens from patients with hepatitis C. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 335-8.

  22. Rousselet MC, Michalak S, Dupré F, Croué A, Bedossa P, Saint-André JP, Calès P, et al. Sources of variability in histological scoring of chronic viral hepatitis. Hepatology 2005; 257-64.

  23. Feldman G. Critical analysis of the methods used to morphologically quantify hepatic fibrosis. J Hepatol 1995; 22: 49-54.

  24. Goodman ZD, Becker RL Jr, Pockros PJ, Afdhal NH. Progression of fibrosis in advanced chronic hepatitis C: evaluation by morphometric image analysis. Hepatology 2007; 45: 886-94.

  25. Germani G, Burroughs A K, Dhillon A P. The relationship between liver disease stage and liver fibrosis: a tangled web. Histopathology 2010; 57: 773-84.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com