Reach Us +44-1904-929220
Prediction of Liver Cirrhosis in Patients with HCV Chronic Infection through Routine Laboratory Parameters: Myth or Reality? | OMICS International
ISSN: 1747-0862
Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Prediction of Liver Cirrhosis in Patients with HCV Chronic Infection through Routine Laboratory Parameters: Myth or Reality?

Ivan Gentile*and Guglielmo Borgia

Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Italy

*Corresponding Author:
Ivan Gentile
Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery (Ed. 18)
University of Naples Federico II
I-80131 Naples, Italy
Tel: +390817463178
Fax: +390817463094
E-mail: [email protected]

Received date: August 28, 2013; Accepted date: September 02, 2013; Published date: September 04, 2013

Citation: Gentile I, Borgia G (2013) Prediction of Liver Cirrhosis in Patients with HCV Chronic Infection through Routine Laboratory Parameters: Myth or Reality? J Mol Genet Med 7:76. doi: 10.4172/1747-0862.1000076

Copyright: © 2013 Gentile I, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine


Noninvasive; Cirrhosis; HCV; Liver biopsy

About 150,000,000 people worldwide are estimated to be chronic carriers of Hepatitis C virus (HCV) [1]. Roughly, a quarter of these patients evolve toward liver cirrhosis [2]. Once cirrhosis has been established, 4% per year of these patients progress toward a decompensated disease with an annual death rate as high as 30%, and about 1.6% per year develop a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [3]. Therefore the presence of cirrhosis is a boundary layer that marks a dramatic drop in the life expectancy and quality of life of HCV-positive patients. Moreover, the diagnosis of cirrhosis prompts mandatory screening for esophageal varices and HCC, and influences decisions about timing of antiviral treatment.

How do physicians diagnose liver cirrhosis? Excluding the most advanced stages of the disease, in which the diagnosis is based on clinical observation (e.g. presence of ascites) and, in the absence of clear signs of cirrhosis on ultrasound examination, endoscopy or on blood count (e.g. low platelet count), liver biopsy, and the subsequent histological evaluation of the liver tissue, is the most widely used method for the assessment of liver cirrhosis. However, liver biopsy is invasive and consequently it is associated with a not negligible rate of complications (0.3-0.8%) and even death (0.01-0.3%) [4-7].

Several researchers have proposed non-invasive means to diagnose liver cirrhosis [8-10]. Some procedures need an expensive machine to measure liver stiffness (FibroScan) [11], others are based on a panel of blood tests and a proprietary algorithm called “Fibro Test” [12]. On the other hand, other groups have devised scores based on routinely available analytes [8,13-28]. Some scores were devised and validated to predict advanced fibrosis (e.g., AP, FIB-4, CDS, the Pohl score and the Forns score); some scores were able to predict also or exclusively liver cirrhosis (e.g., GUCI, aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ratio, platelet count (PLT), APRI, CISCUN, the Lok score, the Fibrosis index and the King’s College score).

The most frequently used scores able to predict cirrhosis and the formulae used to calculate them are reported in Table 1. The table also shows the sensitivity and specificity as calculated in the original report of each method. No score has both 100% sensitivity and specificity. However, some of these scores can be useful in diagnosing cirrhosis, namely those with a high positive predictive value (PPV), and others in ruling out it, namely those with a high negative predictive value (NPV). Almost all scores listed in the table have a relatively low PPV. Only the AST/ALT ratio by Sheth et al. [16] had a PPV of 100%. This finding was not confirmed in other studies [27,29]. Although some scores have a high NPV, but this value should be very close to 100% to make this score a reliable screening test. Notably, positive likelihood ratios(i.e. the probability of a positive test in patients with the disease divided by the probability of the same finding in patients without the disease) arequite low except in the cases of the Fibrosis index and CISCUN ≥ 4, and the negative likelihood ratio(i.e. the probability of a negative test in patients with the disease divided by the probability of the same finding in patients without the disease) are acceptably low only for CISCUN ≤ 1 and APRI ≤ 1.Interestingly, some scores (namely, Lok, CISCUN and APRI) provide two cutoff values to identify patients at a high and low risk of cirrhosis, respectively [13,27]. According to the authors, the patients in the two tails could be spared liver biopsy because of their high or low risk of cirrhosis. Patients in the middle (“gray zone”) should undergo liver biopsy because they have an intermediate a priori calculated risk of cirrhosis. However, neither of these scores had a NPV of 100% for the low-risk cutoff value and even the PPV was relatively low.


Table 1: Scores used to predict cirrhosis based on noninvasive, routinely-available parameters.

The real drawback of all these studies is that the comparison was made with the standard method for assessing cirrhosis (i.e. liver biopsy) which is per se in accurate [30]. The “true gold standard” is the histological evaluation of large surgical biopsies [31], which is difficult to obtain in everyday clinical practice. Classical liver biopsy had a 20% false negative rate for the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis when compared with laparoscopic biopsy in an Italian study [32]. This can occur because the distribution of fibrosis is patchy, and a liver biopsy sample represents only from one hundred-thousandth to one thirtythousandth of the whole organ, and gives no information about the remaining part of the liver. In fact, histology of long and thick samples provides a better estimate of liver fibrosis than histology of short and thin samples [31,33,34].

In conclusion, the ideal non-invasive procedure for the evaluation of cirrhosis, namely one that is based on routinely-available markers, that is easy-to-calculate, and, above all, that accurately discriminates between patients with or without cirrhosis is not yet within our grasp. Therefore, studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of the abovedescribed scores with that of the Fibro scan or the Fibro test and liver biopsy are needed to identify the best, if not the ideal, score with which to diagnose non-invasively liver cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C.


Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Article Usage

  • Total views: 12262
  • [From(publication date):
    October-2013 - Oct 16, 2018]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 8395
  • PDF downloads : 3867

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2018-19
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Business & Management Journals


[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

© 2008- 2018 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version