FibroScan对原发性胆汁性肝硬化患者肝纤维化的诊断价值

目的探讨FibroScan对于原发性胆汁性肝硬化（primary biliary cirrhosis,PBC）肝纤维化诊断的准确性。方法选择2009年10月—2013年12月经肝脏穿刺病理诊断的PBC患者56例,进行FibroScan检测得到肝脏硬度测量（liver stiffness measurement,LSM）值。以肝脏活组织检查结果作为＂金标准＂,计算受试者工作特征曲线下面积（AUROC）,评价FibroScan对PBC肝纤维化的诊断价值。结果 LSM值平均为（13.714±7.475）kPa,与肝脏病理分期呈正相关,Kendall相关系数为0.897,P〈0.01。FibroScan诊断PBC肝纤维化≥S2期、≥S3期、S4期的AUROC分别为0.897、0.959、0.989。纤维化分期为≥F2、≥F3、F4时对应的最佳截断值分别为12.9、16.1和19.7 kPa。肝硬度、血清透明质酸、AST/PLT（APRI）均为肝脏病理分期独立相关因素。结论 FibroScan是一项方便、准确的用于诊断PBC肝纤维化程度的方法。     

瞬时弹性成像技术诊断酒精性肝病的价值探讨

目的探讨瞬时弹性成像技术(FibroScan)非侵入性检查诊断酒精性肝病的价值。方法使用FibroScan测量肝脏硬度,并予以量化。对98例酗酒者进行FibroScan检查,并对肝脏硬度超过13kPa的患者进行肝活检,评价其诊断肝纤维化的效能。结果肝脏硬度超过13kPa的53例患者中,9例患者由于超重未能得出准确的测量数值,8例拒绝肝活检,3例因患有其他疾病而未能进行肝活检。在33例肝活检患者中,12例确诊为肝纤维化,21例为肝硬化。肝脏硬度阈值为13kPa的酗酒患者存在肝硬化的阳性预测值为97%。结论 FibroScanR诊断肝纤维化及肝硬化有很高的阳性预测值。我们认为:1,肝脏硬度低于8kPa的酗酒患者可能不存在肝纤维化;2,肝脏硬度介于8.0至13.0kPa之间时,肝纤维化可能正在形成;3,肝脏硬度超过13kPa时,肝硬化已经形成,应该考虑为该类患者制订有效的治疗方案。     

FibroScan对慢性乙型肝炎肝纤维化诊断的临床价值

目的探讨肝脏瞬时弹性扫描仪(FibroScan)对慢性乙型肝炎(chronic hepatitis B,CHB)肝纤维化的诊断价值。方法对80例行肝脏穿刺检查的CHB患者进行FibroScan检测,记录所检测到的肝脏硬度值。肝纤维化程度分为无或轻度肝纤维化(S0~S1期)、显著肝纤维化(S2~S4期)、严重肝纤维化(S3~S4期)和早期肝硬化(S4期)。以肝脏活体组织检查病理结果为"金标准",绘制受试者工作特征曲线(receiver-operating characteristic curve,ROC曲线),计算ROC曲线下面积(area under ROC curve,AUROC),评价FibroScan对CHB患者肝纤维化的诊断价值。结果肝脏硬度值与肝脏病理分期呈正相关(rs=0.739,P0.01)。FibroScan对显著肝纤维化、严重肝纤维化和早期肝硬化的AUROC值分别为0.865、0.940和0.944。结论 FibroScan可以较准确地估计CHB患者的肝纤维化程度,部分替代有创性的肝脏活体组织检查,对CHB患者肝纤维化的诊断和治疗有指导意义。     

FibroTest联合FibroScan对慢性乙型肝炎纤维化的诊断价值

目的：探讨FibroTest联合FibroScan对慢性乙型肝炎肝纤维化的诊断价值。方法留取2011年8月至2013年7月天津市第二人民医院的99例行肝活组织检查的慢性乙型肝炎患者的血清,检测α2-巨球蛋白（α2-MG）、结合珠蛋白（HP）和载脂蛋白A1（apoAⅠ）,记录TBil和GGT的数值,并根据其结果结合患者的年龄和性别计算出FibroTest的数值。并对99例慢性乙型肝炎患者用FibroScan测定肝脏硬度值。根据Scheuer肝纤维化分期标准设定2个判定点,分别为显著肝纤维化（S2～S4期）,严重肝纤维化（S3～S4期）。以肝活组织检查病理结果为金标准绘制出FibroTest及FibroScan的受试者工作特征曲线下面积（AUROC）。评价两者对慢性乙型肝炎肝纤维化的诊断价值,并应用 Logistic 逐步回归分析方法探讨联合诊断价值。结果 FibroTest 与 Fi-broScan对S2～S4期的AUROC分别0．805（95％CI：0．713～0．897,P＜0．001）,0．896（95％CI：0.833～0．959,P＜0．001）,对S3～S4期的AUROC值分别为0．834（95％CI：0．741～0．928,P＜0．001）,0．945（95％CI：0．891～0．999,P＜0．001）。两者联合后对显著纤维化（S2～S4期）的AUROC值为0．911（95％CI：0．854～0．967,P＜0．001）。结论 FibroTest联合FibroScan可以更准确地估计慢性乙型肝炎患者肝脏有无显著纤维化,提高诊断特异度,并保证较高的诊断准确率,对于慢性乙型肝炎预后评估及治疗决策有指导意义。     

FibroScan对慢性丙型肝炎进展期肝纤维化的诊断价值及其影响因素

目的分析FibroScan对慢性丙型肝炎进展期肝纤维化的诊断效能并探讨其影响因素。方法选取2015年6月-2018年6月于首都医科大学附属北京佑安医院就诊的慢性丙型肝炎患者,均完成肝穿刺病理检查。根据METAVIR评分系统进行纤维化分期,分为F1～F4期。收集患者一般资料,所有患者进行肝脏弹性检测和肝功能、血常规、病毒定量等检测,利用公式计算APRI及FIB-4。不符合正态分布的计量资料多组间比较采用Kruskal-Wallis H秩和检验,进一步两两比较采用Wilcoxon秩和检验。相关性检验采用Spearman秩相关分析。利用受试者工作特征曲线(ROC曲线)分析3种无创诊断方法对肝纤维化的诊断价值,采用STATA验证3种无创诊断方法是否存在统计学差异。结果入组患者共131例,其中男60例(45. 80%),女71例(54. 20%),平均54. 00(45. 00～58. 25)岁。FibroScan水平为7. 80(5. 60～14. 30) kPa,APRI水平为0. 63(0. 37～1. 28),FIB-4水平为2. 28(1. 43～3. 60)。随着肝纤维化分期的进展,各分期的肝脏硬度值逐渐升高,各组间比较差异均有统计学意义(H=47. 83,P 0. 01)。对于进展期肝纤维化(F≥3期),FibroScan的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)高于APRI及FIB-4,经STATA进一步验证,FibroScan与APRI的AUC比较差异有统计学意义(P 0. 01),与FIB-4的AUC比较差异无统计学意义(P=0. 07)。FibroScan与ALT、AST、GGT、PLT均存在相关性(r值分别为0. 271、0. 507、0. 444、-0. 263,P值均0. 01)。但校正上述影响因素后并不能显著提高FibroScan的AUC。结论 FibroScan对于丙型肝炎进展期肝纤维化,有着较好的诊断效能。其综合诊断效能优于APRI及FIB-4,且诊断的准确性不受ALT、AST、GGT等指标影响。     

FibroScan对慢性药物性肝损害肝纤维化的诊断价值研究

目的 探讨FibroScan对于慢性药物性肝损害(drug-induced liver injury,DILI)肝纤维化的诊断准确性.方法 选择2009年4月-2011年1月在我院住院的经肝脏穿刺病理诊断的慢性DILI患者49例,进行FibroScan检测得到肝脏硬度测量(liver stiffness measurement,LSM)值.以肝脏活体组织检查病理结果为“金标准”绘制受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic,ROC)曲线,计算ROC曲线下面积(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve,AUROC),以评价FibroScan对慢性DILI肝纤维化的诊断价值.结果 LSM值与肝脏病理分期呈正相关,Kendall相关系数为0.607,P＜0.001.FibroScan诊断慢性DILI肝纤维化≥S2期、≥S3期、S4期的AUROC分别为0.878、0.944、0.993.结论 FibroScan对诊断慢性DILI肝纤维化程度有较好的准确性.     

加强肝纤维化的诊断与治疗研究

一、肝纤维化的诊断问题 1.肝脏瞬时弹性硬度值测定、磁共振弹性成像、超声造影技术的应用研究:(1)肝脏瞬时弹性硬度测定值[肝脏硬度测定(liver stiffness measurement,LSM)或FibroScan (FS)]和肝组织纤维化程度的Metivia分期相关,该方法测量的深度可达2cm,测量表面的直径大约为1cm(即测量的范围约为1.57cm3),约为肝活组织检查的500倍.FS的测量深度可达4cm(约3.14cm3),约为整个肝脏的1/500.Foucher等[1]认为惟一影响FS成功率的因素是人体质量指数＞28.     

FibroScan联合GGT/PLT比值预测慢性乙型肝炎患者肝纤维化的初步探讨

目的初步探讨FibroScan联合GGT/PLT比值(GPR)预测慢性乙型肝炎(CHB)患者肝纤维化分期的诊断价值。方法选取广州市第八人民医院2012年1月-2016年12月肝活组织检查诊断为CHB患者278例,分析GPR、FibroScan以及二者联合诊断预测纤维化分期(F0～F4)的价值。非正态分布的计量资料多组间比较采用Kruskal-Wallis H检验,进一步两两比较采用MannWhitney U检验。相关性分析采用Spearman相关系数。受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)评估肝纤维化分期。结果以肝活组织检查作为金标准,F1～F4期患者分别有50、104、92和32例。随着肝纤维化分期加重,FibroScan检测肝硬度值(LSM)逐渐升高(P值均0. 05); GPR在肝纤维化F1、F2、F3期逐渐升高(P值均0. 05)。GPR、FibroScan均与肝纤维化呈正相关(r值分别为0. 419、0. 481,P值均0. 001); GPR与FibroScan呈正相关(r=0. 436,P 0. 001)。FibroScan与GPR联合预测进展期肝纤维化(≥F3)的诊断效能优于单一FibroScan(AUC:0. 793 vs 0. 739,Z=3. 044,P=0. 002)或GPR(AUC:0. 793 vs 0. 740,Z=2. 389,P=0. 037);二者联合预测明显肝纤维化(≥F2)的诊断效能优于单一GPR(AUC:0. 782 vs 0. 714,Z=2. 130,P=0. 033)。结论 FibroScan与GPR联合诊断对于预测CHB进展期肝纤维化(≥F3)具有优势,初步认为可提高诊断效能。     

FibroTouch与FibroScan在慢性乙型肝炎患者肝纤维化评估中的比较

目的 评估FibroTouch与FibroScan两种瞬时弹性测定仪检测慢性乙型肝炎患者肝脏硬度值的相关性,比较两种仪器检测的成功率.方法 收集2013年6月至11月就诊的慢性乙型肝炎、肝硬化代偿期患者资料,分别用FibroScan(A组)、FibroTouch超声定位点(B组)和FibroScan相同定位点(C组)两种仪器检测肝纤维化程度,比较两种仪器检测结果的一致性;并对慢性乙型肝炎、肝硬化代偿期两组患者的硬度值比较.结果 A组、B组、C组对211例患者肝纤维化程度检测值分别为5.30(4.30,8.65)和6.10 (4.70,8.90)、5.70 (4.50,8.00),将结果进行配对t检验,差异无统计学意义(P＜0.05);采用Person相关分析,相关系数均为＞0.8(P＜0.05),两种仪器检测结果相关性良好.慢性乙型肝炎、肝硬化代偿期两组硬度值的差异有统计学意义(P＜ 0.05).FibroTouch与FibroScan两种瞬时弹性测定仪成功率为100％和97％.结论 FibroTouch与FibroScan两种瞬时弹性测定仪检测肝脏纤维化程度一致性较好.FibroTouch仪器检测成功率高于FibroScan.     

瞬时弹性成像检测肝硬度联合脾硬度对慢性乙型肝炎肝纤维化诊断的价值

目的 评价以FibroScan为代表的瞬时弹性成像所检测的肝硬度联合脾硬度对慢性乙型肝炎患者肝纤维化病理分期诊断的价值。方法 回顾性分析2018年1月—2021年12月于联勤保障部队第九〇九医院收治的317例接受肝脏活检的慢性乙型肝炎患者临床资料。利用ROC曲线分析FibroScan所测量的肝脏硬度值(liver stiffness measurement, LSM)、脾脏硬度值(spleen stiffness measurement, SSM)与肝脏病理所诊断纤维化关系。采用logistic回归构建基于LSM和SSM的纤维化分级阶段模型。结果 纳入患者的肝脏病理S0-S1为79例(24.92%),S2为102例(32.18%),S3为87例(27.44%),S4为49例(15.46%)。炎症情况G1为31(9.78%)例，G2为109例(34.38%),G3为128例(40.34%);G4为49例(15.46%)。LSM对显著纤维化(≥S2)、严重纤维化(≥S3)和肝硬化(S4)的最佳诊断LSM值为7.4 kPa(AUC=0.861)、9.8 kPa(AUC=0.909)和16.6...     

FibroScan与FibroTouch对肝纤维化程度诊断价值的比较分析

目的比较FibroScan与FibroTouch对肝纤维化程度的诊断价值。方法收集2013年9月-2014年3月就诊于吉林大学第一医院肝胆胰内科的患者962例,同时行FibroScan和FibroTouch检测。其中33例有肝穿刺病理分期,66例可计算天冬氨酸转氨酶与血小板比值指数(APRI)(53例慢性乙型肝炎,13例慢性丙型肝炎)。2种检测值之间的相关性采用Spearman秩相关检验。利用受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)分析2种检测方法对肝纤维化程度的诊断价值,并进行比较。结果对所有患者FibroScan与FibroTouch的测量值进行分析,FibroScan与FibroTouch的相关系数为0.866(P0.05,n=962),与APRI的相关系数分别为0.58、0.63(P0.05,n=66),与肝穿刺病理分期的相关系数分别为0.67、0.74(P0.05,n=33)。对于慢性乙型肝炎患者,FibroScan与FibroTouch诊断APRI分期≥2的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)分别为0.761和0.728,两者差异无统计学意义(P=0.61);对于慢性丙型肝炎患者,两者诊断APRI分期≥1的AUC分别为0.810和0.893,两者差异亦无统计学意义(P=0.38)。FibroScan与FibroTouch诊断肝脏病理分期≥S1、≥S2、≥S3、≥S4的AUC分别为0.830 vs 0.889(P=0.15)、0.841 vs 0.835(P=0.90)、0.888 vs0.920(P=0.43)和0.964 vs 0.979(P=0.45)。结论 FibroScan与FibroTouch检测对肝纤维化程度的诊断价值相似,但本研究肝穿刺病例数较少,有待扩大样本进一步研究。     

四种方法诊断慢性乙型肝炎合并轻度肝脂肪变患者肝纤维化比较

目的 比较血清学诊断模型APRI、FIB-4 和Forns指数及FibroScan检查评估合并轻度肝脂肪变的CHB患者肝纤维化的价值。方法 在309例经肝活检病理学检查确诊的CHB患者中,194例无肝脂肪变,115例合并轻度肝脂肪变,同期行FibroScan检查,得到肝硬度值（LSM）,收集实验室检查指标,根据公式计算出相应的APRI、FIB-4、Forns指数。以肝组织病理学表现为金标准,根据受试者工作曲线（ROC）评价4种方法诊断两组患者肝纤维化的效能。结果 两组患者LSM、APRI、FIB-4、Forns指数差异均无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）;在未合并肝脂肪变组,LSM、APRI、FIB-4、Forns指数诊断CHB患者明显肝纤维化（≥F2）的ROC曲线下面积（AUROC）分别为0.77、0.69、0.72、0.69（P均<0.05）,其相应的截断点分别为10.2、0.5、0.9、5.3;诊断肝硬化（≥F4）时,其AUROC分别为0.86、0.72、0.77、0.77（P均<0.05）,其相应的截断点分别为11.8、0.6、1.3、5.1;在合并肝脂肪变组,它们诊断CHB患者≥F2肝纤维化的AUROC分别为0.79、0.67、0.74、0.77（P均<0.05）,其相应的截断点分别为9.7、0.4、1.1、5.7;诊断≥F4的AUROC分别为0.88、0.71、0.75、0.78（P均<0.05）,其相应的截断点分别为11.8、1.1、1.5、5.4; APRI 和FIB-4不能诊断两组患者轻度肝纤维化（P＞0.05）;LSM诊断两组≥F2肝纤维化及≥F3或≥F4进展性肝纤维化或肝硬化的效能均优于APRI。结论 APRI评价合并轻度肝脂肪变的CHB患者肝纤维化效能较差,而LSM、FIB-4、Forns指数诊断效能较好,其中轻度肝脂肪变可能影响Forns指数诊断CHB患者肝纤维化效能。     

Transient elastography (FibroScan) for the non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis: current status and perspectives

A precise staging of the degree of liver fibrosis is important for the estimation of prognosis, surveillance and treatment decision in patients with chronic liver diseases. At present, liver biopsy is still the reference standard for the assessment of liver fibrosis. However, it is an invasive method associated with patient discomfort and in rare cases with serious complications. In addition, the accuracy of liver biopsy is limited due to intra- and interobserver variability and sampling errors. Non-invasive markers and methods for the assessment of liver fibrosis have been intensively evaluated in many studies. The FibroScan (Echosens, France) uses the transient elastography principle for the measurement of liver stiffness. At present (January 2007), studies evaluating the FibroScan in a wide range of liver diseases have been published in 20 full papers and 76 abstracts. The present review gives an overview of the current literature. The best results are reported for the differentiation between cirrhosis and no cirrhosis. With the combination of FibroScan and non-invasive serum fibrosis markers, the accuracy for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis (Metavir F > or = 2) can be further improved. According to recent data the FibroScan can also be useful for the evaluation of treatment response in patients receiving antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis C. In addition, several studies have shown, that the FibroScan can be applied to estimate the risk of complications associated with liver cirrhosis.     

FibroScan对恩替卡韦治疗慢性乙型肝炎肝硬化的疗效评价

目的评价瞬时弹性扫描(FibroScan)动态监测恩替卡韦(ETV)治疗慢性乙型肝炎(chronic hepatitis B,CHB)肝硬化过程中肝纤维化改善的作用。方法选择我院收治的CHB肝硬化患者352例,所有患者均接受ETV(初治患者或阿德福韦酯耐药患者0.5 mg/d,拉米夫定耐药患者1.0 mg/d)抗病毒治疗。进行定期随访,随访时间不短于3年。每3~6个月进行肝脏硬度测量(FibroScan)及生化学、病毒学指标检测,观察临床疗效。结果经过至少3年的抗病毒治疗,87.8%(309/352)的患者获得病毒学应答(HBV DNA40 IU/ml),基线及治疗3年时肝脏硬度值分别为30.8(17.3,46.4)kPa和18.6(12.0,27.9)kPa,差异有统计学意义(P=0.000)。9.7%(34/352)的患者由于各种原因发生病毒学突破(HBV DNA高于治疗过程中最低点1 log10IU/ml以上),其肝脏硬度值、ALT和TBIL均显著高于基线水平(P0.01)。结论 FibroScan在CHB肝硬化患者长期抗病毒过程中可动态监测肝纤维化的变化,FibroScan检测可作为肝脏活体组织检查可靠的替代方法。     

A noninvasive diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis by BioFibroScore® in chronic hepatitis C patients

Background and Aims

The diagnostic accuracy of a novel serological panel (BioFibroScore®) to predict hepatic fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is unknown.

Methods

Three markers of BioFibroScore, including urokinase plasminogen activator, matrix metalloproteinase‐9, and beta‐2 microglobulin, were retrospectively evaluated in 635 HCV‐infected patients who received percutaneous liver biopsy and FibroScan®. The formula of BioFibroScore to predict the severity of hepatic fibrosis was developed by adaptive boosting algorithm. The diagnostic accuracy of hepatic fibrosis was assessed both for BioFibroScore and FibroScan, taking METAVIR fibrosis score as the reference standard.

Results

Urokinase plasminogen activator and beta‐2 microglobulin were positively and matrix metalloproteinase‐9 was negatively associated with the severity of hepatic fibrosis. Thirty‐five (5.5%) patients had failed FibroScan assessment. By adaptive boosting model for BioFibroScore and the established reference ranges for FibroScan, 85.7% and 89.0% of the patients had an identical result for F0‐1, F2, F3, and F4, as compared with liver biopsy. The concordance rate between BioFibroScore and FibroScan was 80.7%. BioFibroScore overestimated and underestimated the stage of hepatic fibrosis in 8.3% and 6.0% patients, and most patients had one stage error. Among patients with failed FibroScan assessment, 82.9% of them were correctly diagnosed by BioFibroScore. Bootstrap analysis for BioFibroScore showed the diagnostic accuracy was 80.9–88.4%.

Conclusions

BioFibroScore is accurate to assess the stage of hepatic fibrosis in HCV‐infected patients. Applying this noninvasive test can substantially reduce the need for invasive liver biopsy and can play a role for fibrosis evaluation when FibroScan assessment was unavailable or unreliable.     

Comparison of eight diagnostic algorithms for liver fibrosis in hepatitis C: new algorithms are more precise and entirely noninvasive

The sequential algorithm for fibrosis evaluation (SAFE) and the Bordeaux algorithm (BA), which cross-check FibroTest with the aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) or FibroScan, are very accurate but provide only a binary diagnosis of significant fibrosis (SAFE or BA for Metavir F ≥ 2) or cirrhosis (SAFE or BA for F4). Therefore, in clinical practice, physicians have to apply the algorithm for F ≥ 2, and then, when needed, the algorithm for F4 ("successive algorithms"). We aimed to evaluate successive SAFE, successive BA, and a new, noninvasive, detailed classification of fibrosis. The study included 1785 patients with chronic hepatitis C, liver biopsy, blood fibrosis tests, and FibroScan (the latter in 729 patients). The most accurate synchronous combination of FibroScan with a blood test (FibroMeter) provided a new detailed (six classes) classification (FM+FS). Successive SAFE had a significantly (P < 10(-3) ) lower diagnostic accuracy (87.3%) than individual SAFE for F ≥ 2 (94.6%) or SAFE for F4 (89.5%), and required significantly more biopsies (70.8% versus 64.0% or 6.4%, respectively, P < 10(-3) ). Similarly, successive BA had significantly (P ≤ 10(-3) ) lower diagnostic accuracy (84.7%) than individual BA for F ≥ 2 (88.3%) or BA for F4 (94.2%), and required significantly more biopsies (49.8% versus 34.6% or 24.6%, respectively, P < 10(-3) ). The diagnostic accuracy of the FM+FS classification (86.7%) was not significantly different from those of successive SAFE or BA. However, this new classification required no biopsy. CONCLUSION: SAFE and BA for significant fibrosis or cirrhosis are very accurate. However, their successive use induces a significant decrease in diagnostic accuracy and a significant increase in required liver biopsy. A new fibrosis classification that synchronously combines two fibrosis tests was as accurate as successive SAFE or BA, while providing an entirely noninvasive (0% liver biopsy) and more precise (six versus two or three fibrosis classes) fibrosis diagnosis.     

Feasibility and diagnostic performance of the FibroScan XL probe for liver stiffness measurement in overweight and obese patients

Failure of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by transient elastography (TE, FibroScan) and unreliable results occur in ≈ 5% and 15% of patients, respectively, mainly due to obesity. In this multicenter study, we evaluated the feasibility and performance of the novel FibroScan XL probe in 276 patients with chronic liver disease (42% viral hepatitis, 46% nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD]) and a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 28 kg/m(2) . Patients underwent liver biopsy and TE with the standard M and XL probes. TE failure was defined as no valid LSMs and unreliable examinations as <10 valid LSMs or an interquartile range (IQR)/LSM >30% or success rate <60%. Probe performance for diagnosing ≥ F2 fibrosis and cirrhosis (F4) versus biopsy were examined using areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC). FibroScan failure was less frequent with the XL probe than the M probe (1.1% versus 16%) and the XL probe was more often reliable (73% versus 50%; both P < 0.00005). Reliable results with the XL probe were obtained in 61% of patients in whom the M probe was unreliable. Among 178 patients with ≥ 10 valid LSMs using both probes, liver stiffness was highly correlated between probes (ρ = 0.86; P < 0.0005); however, median liver stiffness was lower using the XL probe (6.8 versus 7.8 kPa; P < 0.00005). The AUROC of the XL and M probes were similar for ≥ F2 fibrosis (0.83 versus 0.86; P = 0.19) and cirrhosis (0.94 versus 0.91; P = 0.28). CONCLUSION: Compared with the M probe, the FibroScan XL probe reduces TE failure and facilitates reliable LSM in obese patients. Although the probes have comparable accuracy, lower liver stiffness cutoffs will be necessary when the XL probe is used to noninvasively assess liver fibrosis.