Accuracy of Controlled Attenuation Parameter for Liver Steatosis in Patients at Risk for Metabolic Dysfunction-associated Steatotic Liver Disease Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal Ann Gastroenterol

Specialty Gastroenterology

Date 2024 Sep 6

PMID 39238800

Authors

Konstantinos Malandris

Anastasia Katsoula

Aris Liakos

Eleni Bekiari

Thomas Karagiannis

Eleni Theocharidou

Olga Giouleme

Emmanouil Sinakos

Apostolos Tsapas

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) enables the noninvasive assessment of liver steatosis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CAP for identifying liver steatosis in patients at risk for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), using magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) as the reference standard.

Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and gray literature sources up to March 2024. We defined MASLD as MRI-PDFF ≥5%. We also assessed the accuracy of CAP for identifying patients with MRI-PDFF ≥10%. We calculated pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates using hierarchical random-effects models. We assessed the risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool, and the certainty in meta-analysis estimates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

Results: We included 8 studies with 1116 participants. The prevalence of MASLD ranged from 65.2-93.9%. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of CAP for MRI-PDFF ≥5% were 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.88) and 0.77 (95%CI 0.68-0.84), respectively, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.88. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRI-PDFF ≥10% were 0.83 (95%CI 0.80-0.87) and 0.72 (95%CI 0.59-0.82), with an AUROC of 0.85. The certainty in our estimates was low to very low because of the high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.

Conclusions: CAP has acceptable diagnostic accuracy for both MRI-PDFF ≥5% and MRI-PDFF ≥10%. Adequately powered and rigorously conducted diagnostic accuracy studies are warranted to establish the optimal CAP thresholds.

References

Kuchay M, Choudhary N, Sharma D, Krishan S, Mishra S, Wasir J . Diagnostic Accuracy and Optimal Cut-off of Controlled Attenuation Parameter for the Detection of Hepatic Steatosis in Indian Population. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2022; 12(3):893-898. PMC: 9168736. DOI: 10.1016/j.jceh.2021.10.003. View

de Ledinghen V, Vergniol J . Transient elastography (FibroScan). Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2008; 32(6 Suppl 1):58-67. DOI: 10.1016/S0399-8320(08)73994-0. View

Qadri S, Vartiainen E, Lahelma M, Porthan K, Tang A, Idilman I . Marked difference in liver fat measured by histology magnetic resonance-proton density fat fraction: A meta-analysis. JHEP Rep. 2023; 6(1):100928. PMC: 10711480. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2023.100928. View

Caussy C, Alquiraish M, Nguyen P, Hernandez C, Cepin S, Fortney L . Optimal threshold of controlled attenuation parameter with MRI-PDFF as the gold standard for the detection of hepatic steatosis. Hepatology. 2017; 67(4):1348-1359. PMC: 5867216. DOI: 10.1002/hep.29639. View

Murad M, Lin L, Chu H, Hasan B, Alsibai R, Abbas A . The association of sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence: analysis of 6909 studies of diagnostic test accuracy. CMAJ. 2023; 195(27):E925-E931. PMC: 10356012. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.221802. View

Siddiqui M, Vuppalanchi R, Van Natta M, Hallinan E, Kowdley K, Abdelmalek M . Vibration-Controlled Transient Elastography to Assess Fibrosis and Steatosis in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018; 17(1):156-163.e2. PMC: 6203668. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.04.043. View

Alexander M, Loomis A, Fairburn-Beech J, van der Lei J, Duarte-Salles T, Prieto-Alhambra D . Real-world data reveal a diagnostic gap in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. BMC Med. 2018; 16(1):130. PMC: 6088429. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-018-1103-x. View

Rinella M, Neuschwander-Tetri B, Siddiqui M, Abdelmalek M, Caldwell S, Barb D . AASLD Practice Guidance on the clinical assessment and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2023; 77(5):1797-1835. PMC: 10735173. DOI: 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000323. View

Sasso M, Beaugrand M, de Ledinghen V, Douvin C, Marcellin P, Poupon R . Controlled attenuation parameter (CAP): a novel VCTE™ guided ultrasonic attenuation measurement for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis: preliminary study and validation in a cohort of patients with chronic liver disease from various causes. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010; 36(11):1825-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.07.005. View

10.

Caussy C, Brissot J, Singh S, Bassirian S, Hernandez C, Bettencourt R . Prospective, Same-Day, Direct Comparison of Controlled Attenuation Parameter With the M vs the XL Probe in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Proton Density Fat Fraction as the Standard. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019; 18(8):1842-1850.e6. PMC: 9683536. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.060. View

11.

Cusi K, Isaacs S, Barb D, Basu R, Caprio S, Garvey W . American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Primary Care and Endocrinology Clinical Settings: Co-Sponsored by the American Association for the.... Endocr Pract. 2022; 28(5):528-562. DOI: 10.1016/j.eprac.2022.03.010. View

12.

Lijmer J, Bossuyt P, Heisterkamp S . Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11):1525-37. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1185. View

13.

Jung J, Han A, Madamba E, Bettencourt R, Loomba R, Boehringer A . Direct Comparison of Quantitative US versus Controlled Attenuation Parameter for Liver Fat Assessment Using MRI Proton Density Fat Fraction as the Reference Standard in Patients Suspected of Having NAFLD. Radiology. 2022; 304(1):75-82. PMC: 9270678. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.211131. View

14.

Patel A, Cooper N, Freeman S, Sutton A . Graphical enhancements to summary receiver operating characteristic plots to facilitate the analysis and reporting of meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data. Res Synth Methods. 2020; 12(1):34-44. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1439. View

15.

Schunemann H, Mustafa R, Brozek J, Steingart K, Leeflang M, Murad M . GRADE guidelines: 21 part 2. Test accuracy: inconsistency, imprecision, publication bias, and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 122:142-152. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.021. View

16.

McInnes M, Moher D, Thombs B, McGrath T, Bossuyt P, Clifford T . Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA. 2018; 319(4):388-396. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.19163. View

17.

Ferraioli G, Maiocchi L, Savietto G, Tinelli C, Nichetti M, Rondanelli M . Performance of the Attenuation Imaging Technology in the Detection of Liver Steatosis. J Ultrasound Med. 2020; 40(7):1325-1332. PMC: 8246860. DOI: 10.1002/jum.15512. View

18.

Suzuki K, Tamaki N, Kurosaki M, Takahashi Y, Yamazaki Y, Uchihara N . Concordance between metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatol Res. 2024; 54(6):600-605. DOI: 10.1111/hepr.14011. View

19.

Petroff D, Blank V, Newsome P, Shalimar , Voican C, Thiele M . Assessment of hepatic steatosis by controlled attenuation parameter using the M and XL probes: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021; 6(3):185-198. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30357-5. View

20.

Shah A, Lydecker A, Murray K, Tetri B, Contos M, Sanyal A . Comparison of noninvasive markers of fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009; 7(10):1104-12. PMC: 3079239. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2009.05.033. View