Lackner, Carolin

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).

Objective Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) ranges from never-decompensated ALD (ndALD) to the life-threatening decompensated phenotype, known as alcohol-related hepatitis (AH). A multidimensional study of the clinical, histological and molecular features of these subtypes is lacking. Design Two large cohorts of patients were recruited in an international, observational multicentre study: a retrospective cohort of patients with ndALD (n=110) and a prospective cohort of patients with AH (n=225). Clinical, analytical, immunohistochemistry and hepatic RNA microarray analysis of both disease phenotypes were performed. Results Age and mean alcohol intake were similar in both groups. AH patients had greater aspartate amino transferase/alanine amino transferase ratio and lower gamma-glutamyl transferase levels than in ndALD patients. Patients with AH demonstrated profound liver failure and increased mortality. One-year mortality was 10% in ndALD and 50% in AH. Histologically, steatosis grade, ballooning and pericellular fibrosis were similar in both groups, while advanced fibrosis, Mallory-Denk bodies, bilirubinostasis, severe neutrophil infiltration and ductular reaction were more frequent among AH patients. Transcriptome analysis revealed a profound gene dysregulation within both phenotypes when compare to controls. While ndALD was characterised by deregulated expression of genes involved in matrisome and immune response, the development of AH resulted in a marked deregulation of genes involved in hepatocyte reprogramming and bile acid metabolism. Conclusions Despite comparable alcohol intake, AH patients presented with worse liver function compared with ndALD patients. Bilirubinostasis, severe fibrosis and ductular reaction were prominent features of AH. AH patients exhibited a more profound deregulation of gene expression compared with ndALD patients.

Fibrolamellar carcinomas are characterized by activation of protein kinase A, a kinase composed of catalytic and regulatory subunits. PRKACA encodes a catalytic subunit of protein kinase A, and almost all fibrolamellar carcinomas have a heterozygous 400‐kb deletion that leads to the fusion of DNAJB1 and PRKACA . The resulting DNAJB1‐PRKACA fusion transcript is believed to activate protein kinase A by dysregulation of the catalytic portion of the protein. In contrast, PRKAR1A encodes one of the regulatory subunits of protein kinase A. We hypothesized that loss of function of this regulatory unit could also lead to protein kinase A activation and thus to fibrolamellar carcinoma. Because PRKAR1A mutations underlie the Carney complex, we searched for liver tumors in individuals with the Carney complex. We identified 3 individuals with fibrolamellar carcinomas and a personal history of the Carney complex. All three tumors displayed the typical morphology of fibrolamellar carcinoma and were positive for arginase, cytokeratin 7, and cluster of differentiation 68. Fluorescence in situ hybridization was negative for PRKACA rearrangements. However, PRKAR1A sequencing identified pathogenic mutations in two of two cases with successful sequencing. In addition, all three cases were negative for PRKAR1A protein expression, consistent with inactivation of this key regulatory unit of protein kinase A. We also identified one additional fibrolamellar carcinoma in an individual without a documented history of the Carney complex who was negative for PRKACA rearrangements but had loss of PRKAR1A protein expression as well as PRKAR1A mutations. Conclusion : Fibrolamellar carcinoma can be part of the Carney complex; in this setting, fibrolamellar carcinomas have inactivating PRKAR1A mutations instead of the DNAJB1‐PRKACA fusion gene found in sporadic fibrolamellar carcinomas, providing an alternate means for activation of protein kinase A. (H epatology 2017).