HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (20) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Afdhal, N. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Afdhal, N. H. Related Collections Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine and Test Utilization Proteomics and Protein Markers

Biopsy or Biomarkers: Is There a Gold Standard for Diagnosis of Liver Fibrosis?

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 110 Francis St., Liver Center, Boston, MA 02125, E-mail nafdhal@bidmc.harvard.edu

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

Liver biopsy has long been the gold standard for the grading of hepatic inflammation and the staging of hepatic fibrosis, and has been used as the reference standard method in evaluations of plasma markers of liver disease. In the modern era with the use of ultrasound guidance, biopsy is an essentially safe procedure with a 0.3% rate of serious complications, such as postprocedure pain or bleeding. However, a liver biopsy samples only 1/50 000th of the liver parenchyma and is prone to sampling error, especially when there is a focal component to the liver disease. In addition, the quality of the liver biopsy and the experience of the pathologist are essential for correct grading and staging of liver disease.

More recently, clinical investigators have been searching for noninvasive serum markers of fibrosis (1). These can be individual markers or a series of markers from which a fibrosis index can be derived. In either case, these marker tests must have the following characteristics: They must be reliable, accurate, reproducible, and easy to perform. In addition, they must reflect total mass of liver collagen and extracellular matrix (ECM) and be able to reflect both fibrogenesis and fibrosis regression. The ideal marker test would be able to accurately stage disease and also be sensitive to changes in fibrosis induced by therapy or the natural history of disease progression.

In this issue of Clinical Chemistry, Poynard et al. (2) address one of the most important issues in this area: Is there a true gold standard for liver . . . [Full Text of this Article]

The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:

				M. Puoti, P. Nasta, F. Gatti, A. Matti, K. Prestini, L. Biasi, and G. Carosi HIV-Related Liver Disease: ARV Drugs, Coinfection, and Other Risk Factors J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care (Chic Ill), January 1, 2009; 8(1): 30 - 42. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. A. Aguirre, C. A. Behling, E. Alpert, T. I. Hassanein, and C. B. Sirlin Liver Fibrosis: Noninvasive Diagnosis with Double Contrast Material-enhanced MR Imaging. Radiology, May 1, 2006; 239(2): 425 - 437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R. Dufour Assessment of Liver Fibrosis: Can Serum Become the Sample of Choice? Clin. Chem., October 1, 2005; 51(10): 1763 - 1764. [Full Text] [PDF]