AST-platelet ratio index in the prediction of significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of AST-platelet ratio index in the prediction of significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in chronic hepatitis B patients by comparison with liver biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our computerized data of chronic hepatitis B patients who attended the Gastroenterology Clinic from 2004-2009. Treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B patients who had undergone liver biopsy were included in this study. The degree of fibrosis was scored according to the Ishak staging system. Significant fibrosis was defined as F3-6 and cirrhosis as F5-6. AST-platelet ratio index was calculated based on the original studies. Tests results were compared between the groups F0-2 versus F3-6 and F0-4 versus F5-6. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty consecutive patients with chronic hepatitis B were included in this study. The area under the ROC curves of AST-platelet ratio index to predict significant fibrosis and cirrhosis were 0.779 and 0.781, respectively. Using cut-off values ≤0.5 and >1.5, significant fibrosis was excluded with a negative predictive value of 91.30% and sensitivity of 87.69% and predicted with a positive predictive value of 59.52% and specificity of 90.81% in 53.60% of patients. Using cut-off values ≤1 and >2, cirrhosis was excluded with a negative predictive value of 92.09% and sensitivity of 64.10% and predicted with a positive predictive value of 33.33% and specificity of 91.47% in 81.60% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: AST-platelet ratio index may be a useful noninvasive marker in the exclusion of both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B. However, it is not accurate in the prediction of either significant fibrosis or cirrhosis.

Solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas: a case series of 9 patients.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Solid pseudopapillary tumor is a rare exocrine tumor of the pancreas. There is no clear consensus on its etiology, origin and treatment. In this study, the clinical, pathological and immunohistochemical features of nine patients with solid pseudopapillary tumor were re-evaluated in view of the current literature findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied nine cases diagnosed with solid pseudopapillary tumor between 2005 and 2010. The clinical, pathological and laboratory data were analyzed. RESULTS: On microscopy, all tumors had well-defined borders and were separated from surrounding pancreatic tissue by a thick fibrous capsule. The tumor consisted mainly of pseudopapillary structures with focal solid areas accompanied by wide hemorrhagic and cystic regions. The typical morphological features were present to varying degrees. Of the nine cases, one relapsed approximately two years after the diagnosis, and our laboratory also evaluated the surgical specimen of local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: While some new light has been shed on the clinicopathological features of solid pseudopapillary tumor concerning its etiology, origin and treatment methods, there is much to be understood. Further studies focusing on genetics, pathogenesis and prognosis are needed for a better understanding of this entity.

Liver biopsy: ultrasonography guidance is not superior to the blind method.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate our experience with adequate liver biopsy samples and compare the complication rates of blind and US-guided biopsies, as well as to compare the histological yield of blind and US-guided biopsy specimens. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 205 consecutive patients that underwent liver biopsies during a 12-month period. Liver biopsy was performed via the blind method in 152 patients, and via US-guidance in 53 patients. Biopsy specimens were evaluated according to length, presence of fragmentation, crush artifacts, adequacy for diagnosis, and the number of portal tracts and central veins. We also evaluated the rates of mortality and major life-threatening complications. RESULTS: All the biopsy specimens were adequate for histological evaluation, except in 8 cases, of which 4 were in the blind biopsy group (2.63%) and 4 were in the US-guided biopsy group (7.54%) (P>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the specimen fragmentation, or number of portal tracts and central veins in each specimen. Mean specimen length in the US-guided liver biopsy group was 12.58+/-5.59 mm, and in the blind biopsy group 16.22+/-9.91 mm (P<0.005) . There was no mortality or major complications in either of the two study groups. CONCLUSION: US-guided biopsy was not superior to blind biopsy, an unexpected result. Gastroenterologists/hepatologists should be encouraged to perform liver biopsies via the blind method.