
==== Front
Ann Gastroenterol
Ann Gastroenterol
Annals of Gastroenterology
1108-7471
1792-7463
Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology Greece

AnnGastroenterol-37-579
10.20524/aog.2024.0910
Original Article
Accuracy of controlled attenuation parameter for liver steatosis in patients at risk for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease using magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Malandris Konstantinos a
Katsoula Anastasia b
Liakos Aris ac
Bekiari Eleni ac
Karagiannis Thomas ac
Theocharidou Eleni c
Giouleme Olga b
Sinakos Emmanouil d
Tsapas Apostolos ace
a Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine Unit, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece (Konstantinos Malandris, Aris Liakos, Eleni Bekiari, Thomas Karagiannis, Apostolos Tsapas)
b Second Propedeutic Medical Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece (Anastasia Katsoula, Olga Giouleme)
c Second Medical Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece (Aris Liakos, Eleni Bekiari, Thomas Karagiannis, Eleni Theocharidou)
d Fourth Medical Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece (Emmanouil Sinakos)
e Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford, UK (Apostolos Tsapas)
Correspondence to: Konstantinos Malandris, MD, MSc, Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine Unit, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Konstantinoupoleos 49, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece, e-mail: kostas_malandris@yahoo.gr
Sep-Oct 2024
19 8 2024
37 5 579587
01 4 2024
03 7 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
Background

The controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) enables the noninvasive assessment of liver steatosis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CAP for identifying liver steatosis in patients at risk for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), using magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) as the reference standard.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and gray literature sources up to March 2024. We defined MASLD as MRI-PDFF ≥5%. We also assessed the accuracy of CAP for identifying patients with MRI-PDFF ≥10%. We calculated pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates using hierarchical random-effects models. We assessed the risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool, and the certainty in meta-analysis estimates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

Results

We included 8 studies with 1116 participants. The prevalence of MASLD ranged from 65.2-93.9%. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of CAP for MRI-PDFF ≥5% were 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.88) and 0.77 (95%CI 0.68-0.84), respectively, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.88. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRI-PDFF ≥10% were 0.83 (95%CI 0.80-0.87) and 0.72 (95%CI 0.59-0.82), with an AUROC of 0.85. The certainty in our estimates was low to very low because of the high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.

Conclusions

CAP has acceptable diagnostic accuracy for both MRI-PDFF ≥5% and MRI-PDFF ≥10%. Adequately powered and rigorously conducted diagnostic accuracy studies are warranted to establish the optimal CAP thresholds.

Controlled attenuation parameter
magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction
metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease
meta-analysis
diagnostic accuracy
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The prevalence of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is greatly increasing: MASLD affects approximately 25-30% of the adult population [1]. Its advanced form, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), is among the leading causes of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver transplantation in the United States [2,3]. Despite its recognition as a significant healthcare burden, MASLD remains largely underdiagnosed [4,5].

Liver biopsy is considered the reference standard for MASLD diagnosis [1,2]. However, it is an invasive procedure with inherent limitations, including significant intra- and inter-observer variability and sampling error [6]. Moreover, histologic assessment is impractical for screening at the population level, hampers patient recruitment in clinical trials, while it can potentially lead to life-threatening complications. Therefore, noninvasive biomarkers are needed in both clinical practice and clinical research as alternatives to liver biopsy. Magnetic resonance imaging-derived proton-density-fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) is an accurate and reproducible imaging modality for the assessment of liver steatosis (LS) that strongly correlates with biopsy results [7,8]. Consequently, MRI-PDFF is widely used in MASH clinical trials, either sequentially or as main criterion for patient selection. Nevertheless, its use in the everyday clinical setting is limited because of its high cost and limited availability.

The controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) is an ultrasound modality that allows for the rapid, noninvasive evaluation of LS [9]. However, consensual CAP thresholds for the diagnosis of steatosis in the context of MASLD are lacking [10]. Several trials and meta-analyses have addressed this issue by evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CAP against liver biopsy [11-14]. While histology remains the gold standard, a shift is evident in emerging studies favoring MRI-PDFF over biopsy as a reliable alternative for steatosis assessment. The accuracy of CAP in identifying various degrees of steatosis, as defined by MRI-PDFF, has not been fully elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CAP for the detection of hepatic steatosis in patients at risk for MASLD, using MRI-PDFF as the reference standard.

Materials and methods

We report our systematic review and meta-analysis, carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) statement (Supplementary Table 1) [15]. Our review is based on a pre-specified protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023464466).

Eligibility criteria

We included studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of CAP for the detection of hepatic steatosis in adults with or at risk for MASLD. A study was eligible for inclusion if hepatic steatosis was assessed by means of MRI-PDFF at predefined thresholds (≥5%, ≥10%). Studies assessing liver steatosis in the context of other diseases (e.g., viral hepatitis, autoimmune hepatitis, or polycystic ovary syndrome), or using different MRI-PDFF thresholds, were excluded. MRI thresholds were selected based on recently published guidance for the management of MASLD by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the MRI-PDFF values used during screening in several MASH clinical trials [1]. For eligible studies with inadequate data to reconstruct 2×2 classification tables, we contacted the corresponding author for relevant information. If no response was received within 15 days, the study was excluded.

Identification and selection of studies

We searched Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Ovid), and Cochrane Library up to July 2023, without date limitations, and updated our search in Medline in March 2024. Our search strategy included free-text and controlled vocabulary terms (Supplementary Tables 2-4). We also searched conference proceedings from relevant scientific meetings from 2016-2023 (Supplementary Table 5), and hand-searched reference lists of pertinent systematic reviews and included studies. All records were imported into literature review software (DistillerSR). Two independent reviewers screened references initially at title and abstract level and subsequently in full text for eligibility. A senior reviewer arbitrated disagreements at any stage.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Pairs of reviewers performed data extraction independently, using a predesigned and pilot-tested form. Data extraction items included trial characteristics, participants’ baseline characteristics, true-positive (TP), true-negative (TN), false-positive (FP), and false-negative (FN) values. We assessed the quality and applicability of eligible studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool [16]. Details on quality and applicability assessment are presented in the Supplementary Table 6.

Data synthesis

We extracted and reconstructed classification tables for the performance of the index test from eligible studies. We calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LRp), negative likelihood ratio (LRn), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for both reference standard thresholds (≥5%, ≥10%) following the hierarchical random effects model approach [17]. In addition, we constructed summary receiver operating characteristics (sROC) curves with 95% confidence and prediction regions and evaluated the overall performance of CAP using the area under the ROC (AUROC) curve [18].

Heterogeneity is to be expected in diagnostic accuracy meta-analyses [19]. We used the I2 statistic and the Cochran Q χ2 test to quantify heterogeneity, defining high heterogeneity as I2 ≥50% and/or the result of the Cochran Q test being significant (P<0.05) [20]. To address heterogeneity, we performed several sensitivity and subgroup analyses. More specifically, we performed sensitivity analyses that included only studies published in full text, studies that used a Fibroscan device to acquire CAP measurements, and studies with no concerns regarding applicability based on QUADAS-2. In addition, we performed a sensitivity analysis with the exclusion of case-control studies, as this type of study may lead to biased diagnostic accuracy estimates [21]. We conducted subgroup analyses based on the origin of the study (Asia vs. Europe/USA), the power of the MRI scanner (1.5 vs. 3.0 Tesla), the number of quality criteria used to determine a successful CAP examination (≥2 vs. <2 criteria), and CAP positivity thresholds as recommended by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) (≥275 dB/m) and the AASLD (≥288 dB/m) [1,10]. In terms of quality criteria, we accepted any combination of the following: more than 10 CAP measurements, interquartile range (IQR)/median <30%, and success rate >60% [22]. We conducted post hoc subgroup analysis based on the mean body mass index (BMI) of patients included in primary studies (≥30 kg/m2 and <30 kg/m2). All statistical analyses were performed using MetaDTA and STATA statistical software [23,24]. We did not assess small study effect bias with funnel plots or statistical tests, as these methods are not recommended in diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses [25]. All additional analyses were performed for MRI-PDFF ≥5%, which is the threshold used to define MASLD [1].

Grading of evidence

We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess certainty in our estimates [26-28]. Two reviewers evaluated inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias and risk of bias. A senior reviewer arbitrated disagreements. Details on grading of evidence are presented in Supplementary Table 7.

Results

After duplicate removal, we screened 3171 records, from which we selected 10, describing 8 studies with 1116 patients (Supplementary Fig. 1) [29-36]. The baseline characteristics of these studies are presented in Supplementary Table 8. All studies assessed the diagnostic accuracy of CAP against MRI-PDFF with a threshold of 5% [29-36], while 6 of them provided CAP diagnostic accuracy estimates for MRI-PDFF ≥10% [29-31,34-36]. One study was available solely as a conference abstract [29]. Most studies were single-center, following a prospective design (Supplementary Table 9). Three studies had a case-control design [30,33,36]. Seven studies acquired CAP measurements using both the M and XL probe with a Fibroscan device (Echosens, France) [29-35]. One study acquired CAP measurements using the iLivTouch device (Hisky Med, China) [36]. Most studies employed the region-of-interest (ROI) approach to analyze PDFF maps with a varying number of ROIs. The sample size of the included studies ranged from 69-248 participants. The prevalence of MASLD (defined as MRI-PDFF ≥5%) ranged from 65.2-93.9%. Across all participants, 45% were male and 16.6% had type 2 diabetes (T2D). Mean BMI and age were 29.9 kg/m2 and 49.6 years, respectively. The average mean alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels across studies were 37.1 U/L and 29.4 U/L, respectively.

Risk of bias and applicability

Most studies were at high risk of bias because of concerns regarding patient selection and the positivity threshold of CAP, which was based on analysis data (Youden index) rather than being pre-specified (Supplementary Fig. 2). One study was susceptible to concerns regarding applicability because it included patients with MASH, derived from clinical trials assessing the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions. For the remaining studies there were no concerns related to applicability (Supplementary Fig. 3).

Diagnostic accuracy

In our main analysis, CAP sensitivity and specificity for MRI-PDFF ≥5% ranged from 0.74-0.91 and from 0.57-0.92, respectively (Fig. 1). Respective values for the diagnosis of MRI-PDFF ≥10% ranged from 0.79-0.87 and from 0.51-0.87 (Fig. 2). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CAP for the diagnosis of MRI-PDFF ≥5% was 0.84 (95%CI 0.79-0.88, I2=72.2%) and 0.77 (95%CI 0.68-0.84, I2=52.6%), yielding an LRp of 3.67 (95%CI 2.55-5.27), LRn of 0.21 (95%CI 0.16-0.30) and a DOR equal to 17.4 (95%CI 9.6-31.6). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, LRp, LRn and DOR for MRI-PDFF ≥10% were 0.83 (95%CI 0.80-0.87, I2=14.1%), 0.72 (95%CI 0.59-0.82, I2=86.4%), 2.97 (95%CI 1.94-4.55), 0.23 (95%CI 0.17-0.31), and 12.8 (95%CI 6.4-25.9) respectively. The AUROCs for MRI-PDFF ≥5% and MRI-PDFF ≥10% were 0.88 (95%CI 0.85-0.90) and 0.85 (95%CI 0.82-0.88), respectively (Fig. 3,4).

Figure 1 Forest plot of individual study and pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity of CAP for MRI-PDFF ≥5%

CAP, controlled attenuation parameter; MRI-PDFF, magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction

Figure 2 Forest plot of individual study and pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity of CAP for MRI-PDFF ≥10%

CAP, controlled attenuation parameter; MRI-PDFF, magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction

Figure 3 Hierarchical summary receiver operating curve (HSROC) plot of sensitivity versus specificity of CAP for MRI-PDFF ≥5%

Each circle represents a study, with the size proportional to the study size. The curve represents the summary receiver operating characteristic curve for CAP. The square represents the summary estimate of test performance. The bigger-sized dashed outline represents the 95% prediction region and the smaller-sized dashed outline the 95% confidence region

CAP, controlled attenuation parameter; MRI-PDFF, magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction

Figure 4 Hierarchical summary receiver operating curve (HSROC) plot of sensitivity vs. specificity of CAP for MRI-PDFF ≥10%

Each circle represents a study, with the size proportional to the study size. The curve represents the summary receiver operating characteristic curve for CAP. The square represents the summary estimate of test performance. The bigger-sized dashed outline represents the 95% prediction region and the smaller-sized dashed outline the 95% confidence region

CAP, controlled attenuation parameter; MRI-PDFF, magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction

Subgroup and sensitivity analyses

Results from subgroup analyses are presented in Table 1. Studies conducted in Europe or the USA had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.79 and 0.75, respectively, while studies conducted in Asia had pooled sensitivity and specificity both of 0.91. Studies applying ≥2 quality criteria to determine a valid CAP examination resulted in higher specificity estimates (0.85, 95%CI 0.75-0.91) than those using <2 criteria (0.67, 95%CI 0.49-0.81). Similarly, studies with lower BMI produced higher specificity estimates (0.85, 95%CI 0.73-0.93) compared to studies with a mean BMI ≥30 kg/m2 (0.72, 95%CI 0.57-0.83). A CAP positivity threshold of ≥288 dB/m (AASLD recommended threshold) resulted in a pooled sensitivity, specificity LRp, LRn and DOR of 0.81, 0.68, 2.55, 0.28 and 9.2 respectively. These estimates were similar for the CAP positivity threshold of ≥275 dB/m recommended by the EASL. Results from sensitivity analyses yielded similar estimates to our main analysis (Supplementary Table 10).

Table 1 Results from subgroup analyses for MRI-PDFF≥5%

Clinical utility

We explored the clinical utility of CAP in diagnosing MRI-PDFF ≥5% using Fagan nomograms across different prevalence scenarios. In the first scenario, reflecting MASLD prevalence in the general population, we assumed a pre-test probability (prevalence) of 30%. A negative CAP result, with an LRn of 0.2, reduced the post-test probability for MASLD to 8% (Supplementary Fig. 4). In the second scenario, reflecting MASLD prevalence among individuals with obesity and/or T2D, a pre-test probability of 70% was applied. Here, a positive CAP result led to a post-test probability of 90% (Supplementary Fig. 5). Fig. 5 presents the post-test probability for liver steatosis based on pre-test probability and results of CAP testing.

Figure 5 Conditional probability plot for MRI-PDFF ≥5%

The upper dashed curve represents a positive test, and the lower dashed curve a negative test

MRI-PDFF, magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction; LR, likelihood ratio; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value

Certainty of evidence

Based on GRADE summaries, the certainty of evidence addressing our research question was low to very low for both MRI-PDFF cutoffs. This was mainly attributed to concerns regarding risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Details on the evaluation of the certainty of evidence and clarifications on judgments are presented in the Supplementary Tables 11,12.

Discussion

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the accuracy of CAP for diagnosing liver steatosis in patients at risk for MASLD, using MRI-PDFF as the reference standard. In addition, we assessed the accuracy of CAP for detecting liver steatosis ≥10%, a threshold commonly employed during screening in MASH clinical trials. CAP demonstrated a good diagnostic accuracy for the detection of both liver steatosis ≥5% (AUROC, 0.88) and liver steatosis ≥10% (AUROC, 0.85). Pooled sensitivity (84% and 83% respectively) and specificity (77% and 72% respectively) estimates were similar for both target conditions. For MRI-PDFF ≥5%, subgroup analyses based on study origin (Asia), BMI (<30 kg/m2) and a number of criteria used to determine a successful CAP examination (≥2) resulted in higher diagnostic accuracy estimates.

To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CAP in patients at risk for MASLD, using MRI-PDFF as the reference standard. We performed a thorough literature search of major electronic databases and gray literature sources, and contacted authors for additional data in order to produce a comprehensive summary of all the available evidence to date. We performed our analyses using robust methodology, following guidance from the recently published Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy [25]. Moreover, we performed several sensitivity and subgroup analyses to address heterogeneity and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE methodological framework.

Certain limitations should be acknowledged. Despite a thorough literature search, we identified only a small number of studies that met our eligibility criteria. Consequently, our analyses included a small number of studies and participants, and therefore should be interpreted with caution. Most of the studies included in our meta-analysis recruited participants both with and without T2D (proportion of participants with T2D ranging from 14.5-56%). However, data regarding the accuracy of CAP based on the presence of diabetes were sparse, prohibiting subgroup analysis based on T2D status. Furthermore, most of the included studies were at high risk of bias, owing to concerns regarding the positivity thresholds of the index test. More specifically, the positivity threshold for CAP was based on data from analyses (Youden index), rather than being pre-specified. Notably, the studies included in our meta-analysis were conducted prior to the transition from NAFLD to MASLD terminology. Consequently, only 2 studies explicitly outlined the inclusion of metabolic syndrome and/or cardiometabolic comorbidities as criteria [32, 33]. Nevertheless, considering the mean BMI of 29.9 kg/m² (range: 28.3-31.7 kg/m²) across included studies, we are confident that they all align with the MASLD definition, regardless of the initial terminology used. Several studies have examined the overlap between MASLD and NAFLD definitions, indicating high concordance rates of up to 96% [37]. Finally, there was high heterogeneity among studies in both sensitivity and specificity estimates.

Previously published meta-analyses used liver biopsy as the reference standard for MASLD diagnosis [38-40]. In line with our findings, these meta-analyses support a good diagnostic accuracy of CAP for the detection of steatosis ≥S1 (Stage 0 vs. Stage 1-3) and steatosis ≥S2 (Stage 0-1 vs. Stage 2-3), with AUROCs ranging from 0.85-0.96 and from 0.79-0.83, respectively [38-40]. Discrepancies in our results in terms of performance estimates can be primarily attributed to the different reference standards employed in each meta-analysis (MRI-PDFF vs. liver biopsy). Despite using the same metric (%), histology and PDFF assess steatosis using different approaches. MRI-PDFF offers a continuous measurement directly derived from the properties of the liver, while biopsy results reflect the proportion of hepatocytes with macrovesicular lipid droplets, expressed on an ordinal scale. A recent study evaluated the agreement between the 2 methods, suggesting that above the 5% steatosis threshold, histology estimates tend to exceed PDFF results by up to approximately 3-fold [41]. Furthermore, variations in the prevalence of the target condition and CAP positivity thresholds among primary studies included in each meta-analysis should be taken into consideration. In our study, the median prevalence of MASLD was 76%, while in previous meta-analyses the median prevalence ranged from 90-97%. Meta-epidemiological data suggest an association between higher sensitivity/lower specificity and higher prevalence settings [42]. In our meta-analysis, the average median CAP positivity threshold for MASLD diagnosis was 280 dB/m. In previous meta-analyses, CAP positivity thresholds ranged from 254-273.6 dB/m for steatosis ≥S1 [38-40]. Lower CAP positivity thresholds are likely to favor sensitivity estimates, whereas higher positivity thresholds would enhance specificity results.

In line with our results, previous meta-analyses identified geographic region and BMI as potential sources of heterogeneity [38,39]. Studies conducted in Asia tended to produce higher diagnostic accuracy estimates. Whether or not these findings are related through the lower prevalence of obesity in Asia compared to western countries, and the higher prevalence of lean MASLD in Asia compared to Europe and the USA, is a matter of controversy [43]. Other factors, including dietary and exercise habits, should be taken into consideration before any conclusions are drawn. In addition, there are currently no CAP-specific quality criteria to determine a valid CAP examination. Clinicians commonly apply the already established criteria for liver stiffness measurements. Based on our findings, implementing at least 2 of these criteria (preferably a combination of more than 10 measurements and an IQR/median <30%) can lead to better diagnostic accuracy estimates. Towards this direction, Caussy et al suggest that the accuracy of CAP for steatosis detection is more reliable when the IQR of CAP is <30 dB/m [35]. Nevertheless, these CAP-specific quality indicators need further validation before implementation in clinical practice. Our results corroborate findings from a well conducted individual patient meta-analysis assessing CAP using biopsy as reference standard [14]. In contrast to this meta-analysis, we did not identify major differences in the diagnostic performance of CAP between steatosis grades (i.e., ≥5% and ≥10%). Even though there was a trend towards lower AUROCs between the 2 groups, we consider the absolute difference of 5% between the MRI-PDFF thresholds too small to detect major differences.

Based on our findings, the positive and negative LRs of CAP for MRI-PDFF ≥5% were 3.67 and 0.21, respectively. An LRp >10 suggests that a positive test is good at ruling in a diagnosis, whereas an LRn <0.1 is considered clinically meaningful for ruling out a diagnosis [44]. Consequently, the performance of CAP does not endorse its standalone use for ruling in liver steatosis in the context of MASLD. However, in high prevalence settings (i.e., diabetes/obesity/metabolic disease outpatients’ clinics) available evidence supports the sequential use of CAP as a triage strategy for ruling out liver steatosis, alongside other noninvasive scores for steatosis (Fatty Liver Index, Hepatic Steatosis Index) and fibrosis (FIB-4 index) [45-47]. CAP positivity thresholds over ≥275 or ≥288 dB/m might be suitable for this purpose [1,10]. An MRI-PDFF value ≥10% is commonly employed for screening participants in MASH clinical trials. Based on our findings, CAP’s pooled LRn was 0.23 for MRI-PDFF ≥10%. Therefore, CAP could be used in clinical trials as an initial test to exclude patients with lower degrees of steatosis, thus identifying those patients who are likely to meet other noninvasive inclusion criteria (i.e., MRI-related thresholds) before eventually undergoing liver biopsy. Finally, it should be noted that our results derive mainly from cohorts in tertiary care centers. Currently, there is a paucity of data on the diagnostic performance of CAP using PDFF as reference standard in a primary care setting. To this end, the EPSONIP study (NCT03864510) aims to assess the prevalence and predictors of MASLD in patients with T2D in primary care.

CAP’s pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRI-PDFF ≥5% were 0.84 and 0.77, respectively. In a hypothetical cohort of 100 at-risk patients, this implies that 16 individuals would be misclassified as false negatives, indicating the test’s failure to identify underlying liver steatosis, and 23 patients would be labeled as false positives, suggesting a misdiagnosis of the target condition. These results highlight the importance of adopting a sequential noninvasive approach to accurately stratify patients at risk for liver steatosis through the implementation of additional risk scores or circulating biomarkers. In the context of a mass screening program, a different diagnostic threshold for CAP with improved sensitivity might be more appropriate, to effectively rule out the target condition and identify the majority of patients who would require further diagnostic workup.

In conclusion, CAP has acceptable accuracy for the diagnosis of MRI-defined steatosis in patients at risk for MASLD. A pooled sensitivity over 0.80 with an LRn of 0.21 suggests that CAP could be used to effectively rule out steatosis in high-prevalence settings. Further research with adequately powered and rigorously conducted studies is warranted to identify the optimal diagnostic threshold for CAP and establish its place among screening algorithms.

Summary Box

What is already known:

The controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) enables the noninvasive evaluation of liver steatosis

Emerging studies favor magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) over biopsy as a reliable alternative for steatosis assessment

The accuracy of CAP for liver steatosis in patients at risk for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), using MRI-PDFF as the reference standard, has not been fully elucidated

What the new findings are:

CAP’s pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRI-PDFF ≥5% were 0.84 and 0.77, respectively, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.88

CAP’s pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRI-PDFF ≥10% were 0.83 and 0.72, respectively, with an AUROC of 0.85

The performance of CAP does not endorse its standalone use for ruling in liver steatosis

CAP can be used to rule out MRI-defined MASLD

Supplementary material

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece; University of Oxford, UK

Conflict of Interest: AT has received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. EB and ES have received research support from Novo Nordisk. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest
==== Refs
1 Rinella ME Neuschwander-Tetri BA Siddiqui MS AASLD Practice Guidance on the clinical assessment and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease Hepatology 2023 77 1797 1835 36727674
2 Cusi K Isaacs S Barb D American Association of Clinical Endocrinology clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in primary care and endocrinology clinical settings:co-sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Endocr Pract 2022 28 528 562 35569886
3 Wong RJ Aguilar M Cheung R Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is the second leading etiology of liver disease among adults awaiting liver transplantation in the United States Gastroenterology 2015 148 547 555 25461851
4 Shiha G Korenjak M Eskridge W Redefining fatty liver disease:an international patient perspective Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021 6 73 79 33031758
5 Alexander M Loomis AK Fairburn-Beech J Real-world data reveal a diagnostic gap in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease BMC Med 2018 16 130 30099968
6 Harrison SA Allen AM Dubourg J Noureddin M Alkhouri N Challenges and opportunities in NASH drug development Nat Med 2023 29 562 573 36894650
7 Caussy C Reeder SB Sirlin CB Loomba R Noninvasive, quantitative assessment of liver fat by MRI-PDFF as an endpoint in NASH trials Hepatology 2018 68 763 772 29356032
8 Middleton MS Heba ER Hooker CA NASH Clinical Research Network Agreement between magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction measurements and pathologist-assigned steatosis grades of liver biopsies from adults with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis Gastroenterology 2017 153 753 761 28624576
9 Sasso M Beaugrand M de Ledinghen V Controlled attenuation parameter (CAP):a novel VCTE™guided ultrasonic attenuation measurement for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis:preliminary study and validation in a cohort of patients with chronic liver disease from various causes Ultrasound Med Biol 2010 36 1825 1835 20870345
10 European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on non-invasive tests for evaluation of liver disease severity and prognosis - 2021 update J Hepatol 2021 75 659 689 34166721
11 Eddowes PJ Sasso M Allison M Accuracy of FibroScan controlled attenuation parameter and liver stiffness measurement in assessing steatosis and fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease Gastroenterology 2019 156 1717 1730 30689971
12 Siddiqui MS Vuppalanchi R Van Natta ML NASH Clinical Research Network Vibration-controlled transient elastography to assess fibrosis and steatosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019 17 156 163 29705261
13 Karlas T Petroff D Sasso M Individual patient data meta-analysis of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) technology for assessing steatosis J Hepatol 2017 66 1022 1030 28039099
14 Petroff D Blank V Newsome PN Assessment of hepatic steatosis by controlled attenuation parameter using the M and XL probes:an individual patient data meta-analysis Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021 6 185 198 33460567
15 McInnes MDF Moher D Thombs BD Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies:the PRISMA-DTA statement JAMA 2018 319 388 396 29362800
16 Whiting PF Rutjes AW Westwood ME QUADAS-2 Group QUADAS-2:a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies Ann Intern Med 2011 155 529 536 22007046
17 Macaskill P Takwoingi Y Deeks JJ Gatsonis C Deeks JJ Bossuyt PM Leeflang MM Takwoingi Y Chapter 9:Understanding meta-analysis Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy [Accessed 9 July 2024] Version 2.0 (updated July 2023). Cochrane, 2023 Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook-diagnostic-test-accuracy/current
18 Takwoingi Y DN Schiller I Rücker G Jones HE Partlett C Macaskill P Deeks JJ Bossuyt PM Leeflang MM Takwoingi Y Chapter 10:Undertaking meta-analysis Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test, Accuracy [Accessed 9 July 2024] Version 2.0 (updated July 2023). Cochrane Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook-diagnostic-test-accuracy/current
19 Lijmer JG Bossuyt PM Heisterkamp SH Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests Stat Med 2002 21 1525 1537 12111918
20 Cumpston M Li T Page MJ Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews:a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019 10 ED000142 31643080
21 Reitsma JB Rutjes AW Whiting P Assessing risk of bias and applicability Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy 2023 169 201
22 de Lédinghen V Vergniol J Transient elastography (FibroScan) Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2008 32 58 67 18973847
23 Patel A Cooper N Freeman S Sutton A Graphical enhancements to summary receiver operating characteristic plots to facilitate the analysis and reporting of meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data Res Synth Methods 2021 12 34 44 32706182
24 Dwamena BA midas:a program for meta-analytical integration of diagnostic accuracy studies in Stata University of Michigan 2007
25 Deeks JJ Bossuyt PM Leeflang MM Takwoingi Y Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 2.0 (updated July 2023). Cochrane, 2023 [Accessed 9 July 2024] Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook-diagnostic-test-accuracy/current
26 Schünemann HJ Oxman AD Brozek J GRADE Working Group Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies BMJ 2008 336 1106 1110 18483053
27 Schünemann HJ Mustafa RA Brozek J GRADE Working Group GRADE guidelines:21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias, and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy J Clin Epidemiol 2020 122 129 141 32060007
28 Schünemann HJ Mustafa RA Brozek J GRADE Working Group GRADE guidelines:21 part 2. Test accuracy:inconsistency, imprecision, publication bias, and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables J Clin Epidemiol 2020 122 142 152 32058069
29 Loomba R Alkhouri N Patel K 1727 Validation of cutoffs for controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) with MRI-proton density fat fraction (PDFF) as a reference standard in subjects with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) across multiple randomized, controlled trials Hepatology 2019 70 (Suppl) 1 1040A
30 Kuchay MS Choudhary NS Sharma D Diagnostic accuracy and optimal cut-off of controlled attenuation parameter for the detection of hepatic steatosis in Indian population J Clin Exp Hepatol 2022 12 893 898 35677514
31 Jung J Han A Madamba E Direct comparison of quantitative US versus controlled attenuation parameter for liver fat assessment using MRI proton density fat fraction as the reference standard in patients suspected of having NAFLD Radiology 2022 304 75 82 35348378
32 Ferraioli G Maiocchi L Savietto G Performance of the attenuation imaging technology in the detection of liver steatosis J Ultrasound Med 2021 40 1325 1332 32960457
33 Ferraioli G Maiocchi L Raciti MV Detection of liver steatosis with a novel ultrasound-based technique:a pilot study using MRI-derived proton density fat fraction as the gold standard Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2019 10 e00081 31609745
34 Caussy C Brissot J Singh S Prospective, same-day, direct comparison of controlled attenuation parameter with the M vs the XL probe in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, using magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction as the standard Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020 18 1842 1850 31843596
35 Caussy C Alquiraish MH Nguyen P Optimal threshold of controlled attenuation parameter with MRI-PDFF as the gold standard for the detection of hepatic steatosis Hepatology 2018 67 1348 1359 29108123
36 An Z Liu Q Zeng W Relationship between controlled attenuated parameter and magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction for evaluating hepatic steatosis in patients with NAFLD Hepatol Commun 2022 6 1975 1986 35384367
37 Suzuki K Tamaki N Kurosaki M Concordance between metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease Hepatol Res 2024 54 600 605 38234088
38 Pu K Wang Y Bai S Diagnostic accuracy of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) as a non-invasive test for steatosis in suspected non-alcoholic fatty liver disease:a systematic review and meta-analysis BMC Gastroenterol 2019 19 51 30961539
39 Cao YT Xiang LL Qi F Zhang YJ Chen Y Zhou XQ Accuracy of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) for assessing steatosis and fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease:A systematic review and meta-analysis EClinicalMedicine 2022 51 101547 35844772
40 Gu Q Cen L Lai J A meta-analysis on the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and transient elastography in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease Eur J Clin Invest 2021 51 e13446 33128454
41 Qadri S Vartiainen E Lahelma M Marked difference in liver fat measured by histology vs. magnetic resonance-proton density fat fraction:a meta-analysis JHEP Rep 2023 6 100928 38089550
42 Murad MH Lin L Chu H The association of sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence:analysis of 6909 studies of diagnostic test accuracy CMAJ 2023 195 E925 E931 37460126
43 Wong GL-H Wong VW-S Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in Asia:How is it different from the West? J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019 34 1267 1268 31456234
44 Grimes DA Schulz KF Refining clinical diagnosis with likelihood ratios Lancet 2005 365 1500 1505 15850636
45 Lee JH Kim D Kim HJ Hepatic steatosis index:a simple screening tool reflecting nonalcoholic fatty liver disease Dig Liver Dis 2010 42 503 508 19766548
46 Bedogni G Bellentani S Miglioli L The fatty liver index:a simple and accurate predictor of hepatic steatosis in the general population BMC Gastroenterol 2006 6 33 17081293
47 Shah AG Lydecker A Murray K Tetri BN Contos MJ Sanyal AJ Nash Clinical Research Network Comparison of noninvasive markers of fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009 7 1104 1112 19523535
