Fibroscan vs CT scan for cirrhosis diagnostics

[Margolia]

I will ask this question to my consultant but since I won't see him in the next 2 months, I'll go ahead and ask here in case anyone knows. As I understand, Fibroscan can correctly show the fibrosis reading of, let's say 6.5 kPa, but CT scan can still detect liver nodularity and scarring which corresponds to cirrhosis diagnosis. Is this correct?

In other words, once you remove the underlying cause, your fibroscan reading can decrease substantially compared to the original reading at the time of cirrhosis diagnosis but that doesn't necessarily mean that your cirrhosis is gone? Thank you!

[Aotea2012]

In lay terms Fibroscan is a fancy ultrasound and CT a fancy X-ray! The first produces images through sound waves, the other through passing radiation through the body. Both produce images and both are used in diagnosis of cirrhosis. Fibroscan is used to measure liver density whereas CT is used more for looking at the structure of the liver- so picking up nodules and tumours and therefore more used in cancer diagnosis.

[Margolia in reply to Aotea2012]

Yes, and Fibroscan can also "digitize" the degree of fat infiltration. These methods are both useful and I am just trying to clarify for myself how they work together and how to correctly interpret the possible conflicting results.

[MINTVCX]

I think you might be right. I think you can still have cirrhosis regarding your current fibroscan result. In that case your result is false negative. It happens.

However your CT scan might be false positive. It happens also. In that case your current fibroscan is correct and the previous one (17 kpa as you wrote) was false positive. But considering your alcohol history in that case you can still have some degree of liver damage (fibrosis) - F3, F2 (Metavir).

To sum up you have yo wait for biopsy to have your diagnosis. Good luck.

[Margolia in reply to MINTVCX]

Thank you very much for the response. I was suspecting something like this. I was actually not referring to my situation when I was asking the question but rather trying to understand the nature of both methods and how they compliment each other.

My situation will resolve in November when I am scheduled for a biopsy. Doctor also sent me for Fibroscan earlier this year but I am still waiting for an appointment. It looks like in the city I am in (over 1 million in population) we only have one hospital which has the machine. I thought he would cancel Fibroscan when he ordered a biopsy a month ago but he chose to go ahead with it anyway. No complaints from my side.🙂

My Fibroscan reading was 17.8 kPa in July of last year and both CT scan and ultrasound picked "mild nodularity" which warranted me being treated as an early cirrhosis patient with all the regular check ups.

He now wants to check me for AIH as my autoimmune markers are out of the range but admits that it is highly unlikely. The biopsy will also confirm my initial diagnosis but he said this is not a primary reason for this procedure in my case. Will see. Thank you!