How effective are experienced hepatologists at staging fibrosis using non-invasive fibrosis tests in patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease?

Abstract

Background: Sequential use of non-invasive fibrosis tests (NITs) to identify patients with advanced hepatic fibrosis is recommended. However, it remains unclear how reliable clinicians are staging liver fibrosis using combinations of NITs.

Aim: Our aim was to assess concordance between NIT-based 'clinician fibrosis assessment (CFA)' and histology in patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and compare this with established algorithmic approaches.

Methods: Six experienced hepatologists independently staged 230 MASLD patients for advanced fibrosis (F0-2 vs F3-4) using FIB-4, FIB-4+ELF, FIB-4+ vibration controlled transient elastography (VCTE; Fibroscan™) and FIB-4+ELF+VTCE. Concordance between histology and CFA or algorithmic approaches were assessed.

Results: A total of 230 patients were included (median age 54 [22-78] years; 55% female; median FIB-4 1.21 [IQR: 0.78-1.91]; ELF 9.3 [IQR: 8.6-10.2]; VCTE 9.4 [IQR: 6.3-14.3]; 41% F0-1, 22% F2, 21% F3 and 16% F4). Overall, area under the receiver operator curves for histologic F3-4 for the raw tests were 0.84 for FIB-4, 0.86 for ELF and 0.86 for VCTE. Concordance between the hepatologists was good (FIB4, κ = 0.64; FIB-4+ELF, κ = 0.70; FIB-4+VCTE, κ = 0.69; FIB-4+ELF+VCTE, κ = 0.70). Concordance between individual CFA and histology was variable, which was reflected in variability in sensitivity (44%-84%) and specificity (76%-94%). Concordance with histology was better when clinicians used NIT combinations. Purely algorithmic approaches, particularly sequential use of FIB-4 then VCTE, tended to perform better than the CFA.

Conclusions: Adhering to the recommended algorithmic approaches using NITs to stage fibrosis tended to perform more accurately than less-structured clinician NIT-based assessments conducted by experienced hepatologists.