Nalbantoglu, ILKe

AbstractThe gold standard for enrollment and endpoint assessment in metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatosis clinical trials is histologic assessment of a liver biopsy performed on glass slides. However, obtaining the evaluations from several expert pathologists on glass is challenging, as shipping the slides around the country or around the world is time‐consuming and comes with the hazards of slide breakage. This study demonstrated that pathologic assessment of disease activity in steatohepatitis, performed using digital images on the AISight whole slide image management system, yields results that are comparable to those obtained using glass slides. The accuracy of scoring for steatohepatitis (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score ≥4 with ≥1 for each feature and absence of atypical features suggestive of other liver disease) performed on the system was evaluated against scoring conducted on glass slides. Both methods were assessed for overall percent agreement with a consensus “ground truth” score (defined as the median score of a panel of three pathologists’ glass slides). Each case was also read by three different pathologists, once on glass and once digitally with a minimum 2‐week washout period between the modalities. It was demonstrated that the average agreement across three pathologists of digital scoring with ground truth was noninferior to the average agreement of glass scoring with ground truth [noninferiority margin: −0.05; difference: −0.001; 95% CI: (−0.027, 0.026); and p < 0.0001]. For each pathologist, there was a similar average agreement of digital and glass reads with glass ground truth (pathologist A, 0.843 and 0.849; pathologist B, 0.633 and 0.605; and pathologist C, 0.755 and 0.780). Here, we demonstrate that the accuracy of digital reads for steatohepatitis using digital images is equivalent to glass reads in the context of a clinical trial for scoring using the Clinical Research Network scoring system.

Abstract Objectives Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a form of severe hepatitis that can recur after orthotopic liver transplant (OLT). Presentation of AIH in patients with OLT who do not have a history of AIH is called de novo AIH (DNAIH). We evaluated the clinicopathologic characteristics of AIH and DNAIH. Methods Clinicopathologic and outcome measures of 11 patients with recurrent AIH (RAIH) and 22 with DNAIH identified between 2000 and 2017 were compared. Results Both cohorts showed female predominance. The mean clinical follow-up was 13 and 7.8 years in the in the RAIH and DNAIH groups, respectively (P = .1). Moderate portal inflammation was more common in patients with RAIH (64% vs 27%, P = .043). A trend was observed for more cases of DNAIH showing severe inflammation (36% vs 9%, P = .09) and submassive necrosis compared with RAIH (23% vs 0%, P = .086). A trend for more advanced fibrosis was also noted in the RAIH group (27% vs 5%, P = .059). Three patients with RAIH lost their grafts because of RAIH. Five-year disease-specific graft survival (GS) (P = .012) and overall GS (P = .015) were worse in patients with RAIH. Complement component 4d immunohistochemistry was positive in 2 patients with RAIH and 3 with DNAIH but showed no correlation with GS or other parameters. Conclusions RAIH seems to have a more aggressive clinical course than DNAIH and warrants closer clinical follow-up and aggressive treatment.