26vzmnrw106 10.3205/26vzmnrw106 urn:nbn:de:0183-26vzmnrw1061 Meeting Abstract Kaya Kaya E. E

Department of Medicine, Knappschaft Kliniken Bochum, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany

author Nadeem Nadeem R. R

Arizona Liver Institute, Phoenix, United States of America

author Jain Jain A. A

Arizona Liver Institute, Phoenix, United States of America

author Shah Shah R. R

Arizona Liver Institute, Phoenix, United States of America

author Hemant Hemant S. S

Arizona Liver Institute, Phoenix, United States of America

author Kahlon Kahlon S. S

Arizona Liver Institute, Phoenix, United States of America

author Nyguyen Nyguyen C. C

Arizona Liver Institute, Phoenix, United States of America

author Chughtai Chughtai M. M

Arizona Liver Institute, Phoenix, United States of America

author Vuppalanchi Vuppalanchi R. R

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States of America

author Sowa Sowa J. P. JP

Department of Medicine, Knappschaft Kliniken Bochum, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany

author Canbay Canbay A. A

Department of Medicine, Knappschaft Kliniken Bochum, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany

author Yilmaz Yilmaz Y. Y

Department of Gastroenterology, School of Medicine, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Turkey

author Alkhouri Alkhouri N. N

Summit Clinical Research, San Antonio, United States of America

author German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Düsseldorf

610 20260618 engl This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). M0644 106 Niederrheinisch-Westfälische Gesellschaft für Chirurgie Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie in Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V. 192. Jahrestagung der Niederrheinisch-Westfälischen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie, 34. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie Viszeralmedizin NRW 2026 Gastroenterologie Dortmund 20260618 20260619 106 TextBackground and objective: Resmetirom was recently approved in Europe as the first pharmacologic therapy for patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and fibrosis stages F2–F3. Recently, a combination of NITs has been proposed to identify treatment-eligible patients, including controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) ≥280 dB/m, aspartate transferase (AST)> 17 U/L for women and >20 U/Lfor men, liver stiffness measurement (LSM) 10–20 kPa, and platelet count ≥140 × 10³/µL after exclusion of cirrhosis. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate this algorithm and compare its diagnostic performance across different centers using liver biopsy as the reference standard.Method: Data were obtained from consecutive patients with biopsy-confirmed MASLD across four tertiary care centers. Liver biopsy specimens were histologically evaluated using the Steatosis, Activity, Fibrosis / Fatty Liver Inhibition of Progression (SAF/FLIP) algorithm and the NASH Clinical Research Network (NASH-CRN) scoring system. Patients considered histologically eligible were those with MASH (NAS ≥ 4) and fibrosis stages F2–F3. Agreement between the diagnostic tests and liver biopsy findings was assessed using Cohen’s kappa statistic. The included centers were as follows: Center 1 in Germany; Center 2 and 3in the United States and Center 4 in Türkiye.Result: Prospectively collected data from 949 biopsy-proven MASLD patients were included in the analysis and retrospectively analyzed (Age: 55 [19-84] years, 353 males (37.2%)). A total of 322 patients (33.9%) met the histological criteria for resmetirom use and 308 patients (32.4%) the NIT criteria. Cohen’s kappa indicated poor diagnostic performance across all centers, with values of 0.069, 0.044, 0.410, and 0.162, respectively, showing a slightly better performance for the second US center. The combination of the NIT criteria was able to identify the patients with accurate histological features with a sensitivity of 18%, 69%, 90%, 44% and specificity of 89%, 36%. 52%, 72%, respectively (positive predictive value: 50%, 75%, 63%, 59%; negative predictive value: 62%, 29%, 85% and 58%, respectively). Similarly, the NIT criteria had poor performance in predicting the presence of F2-F3 on biopsy regardless of the presence of MASH (Kappa: -0.019, -0.009, 0.412, 0.164, respectively).Summary: The NIT criteria demonstrated poor performance compared with histological criteria, with only minor differences observed across countries. 0 0 0 0