Chinese Hepatolgy ›› 2025, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (9): 1186-1191.

• Metabolic Associated Fatty Liver Disease • Previous Articles     Next Articles

The clinical and pathological features and prognostic analysis of progressive liver fibrosis in metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease

CHANG Liu-yi1, SHAO Mo-li1, TENG Guo-xin2, MA Zi-kun3, LI Min4, ZHAO Xin-yan3   

  1. 1. Departmen of Gastroenterology,Yuncheng Central Hospital,Shanxi Medical University,Yuncheng 044000,China;
    2. Department of Pathology, The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan 250000, China;
    3. Liver Research Center, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Center for Clinical Medicine in Digestive Diseases, Beijing 100050, China;
    4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-based Medicine, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University,Beijing 100050, China
  • Received:2025-02-16 Online:2025-09-30 Published:2025-11-05
  • Contact: ZHAO Xin-yan, Email: zhao_xinyan @,ccmu.edu.cn

Abstract: Objective To comparatively study on the similarities and differences in clinical, pathological characteristics, and clinical outcomes between advanced liver fibrosis (F3) and cirrhosis (F4) in patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 65 patients with MASLD diagnosed with advanced liver fibrosis via liver biopsy. The patients were divided into two groups: F3 and F4. The clinical, pathological characteristics, and clinical outcomes of the two groups of patients were compared. Cox regression models were used to analyze the factors influencing the progression of patients with advanced liver fibrosis to decompensated cirrhosis. Results Among the 65 patients analyzed, 28 were in the F3 stage and 37 were in the F4 stage. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of gender, age, body mass index (BMI), or comorbidities (P>0.05). Laboratory tests showed that, compared to the F3 group, the F4 group had lower prothrombin activity and ferritin levels (81.30% vs 93.45%, P<0.05; 135.60 ng/mL vs 261.45 ng/mL, P<0.05), and higher international normalized ratio and liver stiffness measurement values (1.11 vs 1.06, P<0.05; 20.80 kPa vs 16.30 kPa, P<0.05). In terms of pathological features, there were no significant differences in the extent of steatosis or ballooning degeneration between the two groups (P>0.05). However, compared to the F3 group, the F4 group exhibited more irregular distribution of steatosis, significantly reduced lobular inflammation, significantly increased portal inflammation and interface hepatitis, as well as ductular reaction (P<0.05). Regarding clinical outcomes, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the occurrence of decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, or death/transplantation (P>0.05). Univariate Cox regression analysis of factors influencing the progression of patients with advanced liver fibrosis to decompensated cirrhosis identified that age, BMI, fasting blood glucose, gamma-glutamyl transferase, and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) were the significant factors. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that age and fasting blood glucose were independent risk factors for the progression of patients with advanced liver fibrosis to decompensated cirrhosis (HR=0.859, 95%CI:0.754~0.977, P<0.05; HR=1.343, 95%CI:1.004~1.796, P<0.05). Conclusion There are certain differences in clinical and pathological characteristics between F3 and F4 stages of advanced liver fibrosis in MASLD patients, but there is no significant difference in clinical outcomes.

Key words: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, Advanced liver fibrosis, Clinical features, Pathological features, Clinical prognosis, Risk factors