Prospective trial assesses imaging and serum biomarkers' accuracy for liver health in metabolic dysfunction conditions, indicating effective noninvasive diagnostics.
There is a need for robust evaluations of noninvasive biomarkers for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. This prospective multicenter study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of imaging (including liver stiffness measurement (LSM) using magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and FibroScan (vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE)), serum biomarkers (including NIS2+) and composite scores (including Agile 3+ and Agile 4) for centrally read steatohepatitis and fibrosis. For cirrhosis, several biomarkers exceeded the minimum acceptable performance criterion (MAC), including MRE (area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) 0.91; P < 0.01), VCTE-LSM (AUC 0.87; P < 0.01), Agile 3+ (AUC 0.89; P < 0.01) and Agile 4 (AUC 0.88; P < 0.01). Among 357 participants, fibrosis stages F0–F4 were present in 12%, 16%, 25%, 32% and 15%, respectively. NIS2+ had the highest diagnostic accuracy among serum biomarkers for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH; AUC 0.83) and at-risk MASH (MASH with at least stage 2 fibrosis; AUC 0.82), although neither significantly exceeded the MAC ( P = 0.15 and P = 0.19). Among imaging biomarkers, MRE showed the highest performance for MASH (AUC 0.71) and at-risk MASH (AUC 0.75), but these remained below the MAC. For fibrosis staging, performance was stronger: MRE met the MAC for advanced fibrosis (AUC 0.91; P < 0.01), as did Agile 3+ (AUC 0.84; P = 0.03). For cirrhosis, several biomarkers exceeded the MAC, including MRE (AUC 0.91; P < 0.01), VCTE-LSM (AUC 0.87; P < 0.01), Agile 3+ (AUC 0.89; P < 0.01) and Agile 4 (AUC 0.88; P < 0.01). Serum biomarkers tended to outperform imaging for identifying at-risk MASH, whereas elastography and composite scores showed excellent accuracy for staging advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pavlides et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: