Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M pro...
View graph of relations

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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients. / Durango, Esteban; Dietrich, Christian; Seitz, Helmut Karl; Kunz, Cornelia Ursula; Pomier-Layrargues, Gilles T.; Duarte-Rojo, Andres; Beaton, Melanie; Elkhashab, Magdy; Myers, Robert P.; Mueller, Sebastian.

In: Hepatic Medicine: Evidence and Research, Vol. 2013, No. 5, 04.07.2013, p. 43-52.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Durango, E, Dietrich, C, Seitz, HK, Kunz, CU, Pomier-Layrargues, GT, Duarte-Rojo, A, Beaton, M, Elkhashab, M, Myers, RP & Mueller, S 2013, 'Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients', Hepatic Medicine: Evidence and Research, vol. 2013, no. 5, pp. 43-52. https://doi.org/10.2147/HMER.S45234

APA

Durango, E., Dietrich, C., Seitz, H. K., Kunz, C. U., Pomier-Layrargues, G. T., Duarte-Rojo, A., Beaton, M., Elkhashab, M., Myers, R. P., & Mueller, S. (2013). Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients. Hepatic Medicine: Evidence and Research, 2013(5), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.2147/HMER.S45234

Vancouver

Durango E, Dietrich C, Seitz HK, Kunz CU, Pomier-Layrargues GT, Duarte-Rojo A et al. Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients. Hepatic Medicine: Evidence and Research. 2013 Jul 4;2013(5):43-52. https://doi.org/10.2147/HMER.S45234

Author

Durango, Esteban ; Dietrich, Christian ; Seitz, Helmut Karl ; Kunz, Cornelia Ursula ; Pomier-Layrargues, Gilles T. ; Duarte-Rojo, Andres ; Beaton, Melanie ; Elkhashab, Magdy ; Myers, Robert P. ; Mueller, Sebastian. / Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients. In: Hepatic Medicine: Evidence and Research. 2013 ; Vol. 2013, No. 5. pp. 43-52.

Bibtex

@article{2b69cbce934449a2bc14de048f856309,
title = "Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients",
abstract = "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",
author = "Esteban Durango and Christian Dietrich and Seitz, {Helmut Karl} and Kunz, {Cornelia Ursula} and Pomier-Layrargues, {Gilles T.} and Andres Duarte-Rojo and Melanie Beaton and Magdy Elkhashab and Myers, {Robert P.} and Sebastian Mueller",
year = "2013",
month = jul,
day = "4",
doi = "10.2147/HMER.S45234",
language = "English",
volume = "2013",
pages = "43--52",
journal = "Hepatic Medicine: Evidence and Research",
issn = "1179-1535",
publisher = "Dove Medical Press Ltd.",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Direct comparison of the FibroScan XL and M probes for assessment of liver fibrosis in obese and nonobese patients

AU - Durango, Esteban

AU - Dietrich, Christian

AU - Seitz, Helmut Karl

AU - Kunz, Cornelia Ursula

AU - Pomier-Layrargues, Gilles T.

AU - Duarte-Rojo, Andres

AU - Beaton, Melanie

AU - Elkhashab, Magdy

AU - Myers, Robert P.

AU - Mueller, Sebastian

PY - 2013/7/4

Y1 - 2013/7/4

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - cirrhosis

KW - liver fibrosis

KW - liver stiffness

KW - obesity

KW - steatosis

KW - transient elastography

KW - M probe

KW - XL probe

U2 - 10.2147/HMER.S45234

DO - 10.2147/HMER.S45234

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 24696623

VL - 2013

SP - 43

EP - 52

JO - Hepatic Medicine: Evidence and Research

JF - Hepatic Medicine: Evidence and Research

SN - 1179-1535

IS - 5

ER -