Bédossa, Pierre

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.

Liver biopsies have consistently contributed to our understanding of the pathogenesis and aetiologies of acute liver disease. As other diagnostic modalities have been developed and refined, the role of biopsy in the management of patients with acute liver failure (ALF), acute‐on‐chronic liver failure (ACLF) and acute hepatitis, including acute liver injury (ALI), has changed. Liver biopsy remains particularly valuable when first‐line diagnostic algorithms fail to determine aetiology. Despite not being identified as a mandatory diagnostic tool in recent clinical guidelines for the management of ALF or ACLF, many centres continue to undertake biopsies given the relative safety of transjugular biopsy in this setting. Several studies have demonstrated that liver biopsy can provide prognostic information, particularly in the context of so‐called indeterminate hepatitis, and is extremely useful in excluding conditions such as metastatic tumours that would preclude transplantation. In addition, its widespread use of percutaneous biopsies in cases of less severe acute liver injury, for example in the establishment of a diagnosis of acute presentation of autoimmune hepatitis or confirmation of a probable or definite drug‐induced liver injury (DILI), has meant that many centres have seen a shift in the ratio of specimens they are receiving from patients with chronic to acute liver disease. Histopathologists therefore need to be equipped to deal with these challenging specimens. This overview provides an insight into the contemporary role of biopsies (as well as explant and autopsy material) in diagnosing acute liver disease. It outlines up‐to‐date clinical definitions of liver injury and considers recent recommendations for the diagnosis of AIH and drug‐induced, autoimmune‐like hepatitis (DI‐AIH).