Considering the increasing prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) world-wide, it is essential to have methods and procedures for accurate diagnosis of the cases, as well as to identify patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) (
1). The diagnosis of NASH and its distinction from non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) affects the prognosis and treatment plan as the former group have a higher risk of acquiring cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (
2).
Histopathologic assessment of liver tissue is an essential step in the management and follow-up of chronic liver conditions (
3,
4). It is generally agreed that steatosis, hepatocellular ballooning, and lobular inflammation are the histopathological characteristics of NASH, while fibrosis is not essential in the diagnosis (
2).
Although liver biopsy is the gold standard of staging and evaluating the progress of the disease, it is a risky procedure and there are a few limitations that affect the clinical acceptance of the process (
1). Invasiveness is one of these factors which affects both patient and clinician tendency to the procedure (
5), as well as patients compliance for repeated biopsies which might be necessary during the long-term management of the cases (
6).
Sampling error is another issue which affects the acceptance of liver biopsy and it mainly results from sampling variability and observer variation. Sampling variability reflects the uneven distribution of histologic lesions in the liver tissue and may result in misdiagnosis and staging inaccuracy (
5,
7). Inter- and intra-observer variation also limits the accuracy of the histopathologic evaluations and thus, affect the clinical judgment of the physicians (
5,
6). This issue has been widely discussed in chronic liver disease especially viral hepatitis during the past 20 years, (
8-
10) and less frequently in biopsies obtained from NAFL-suspected cases.
NAFLD comprises a wide morphological spectrum which makes the pathologic evaluation and distinction difficult. NAFLD is histologically further categorized into NAFL and NASH. The diagnosis is made based on the degree of steatosis, hepatocellular ballooning, and lobular inflammation (
2). Histopathologic grading and staging of liver biopsies can be different between the pathologists (
10,
11), and general pathologists and expert hepatopathologists can perform significantly different in assessing NASH suspected liver biopsies (
12). Hepatocellular ballooning is highly prone to intra- as well as inter-observer variation (
2), while the agreement is higher in fibrosis (
13).
Interventions such as image review by the pathologists and use of scoring sheet with written diagnostic criteria for different NAFLD phenotypes have been applied to improve the agreement (
14). Also, various scoring systems have been proposed to improve the agreement of the pathologists (
12). NAFLD activity score (NAS) is a histologic scoring system, widely accepted for evaluating NASH suspected liver biopsies (
15). NAS ranges between 0 and 8, and NAS scores of 0 to 2 are not considered as NASH; Scores of 3 to 4 are considered indeterminate and scores of 5 to 8 recommend NASH diagnosis. The primary studies in NASH Clinical Research Network (
16) have shown acceptable inter- and intra-rater agreement between the pathologists, but there have been few studies to assess the validity of NAS scoring systems outside NASH Clinical Research Network (
16,
17).
Some researchers believe that NAS is a valuable tool in clinical trials, while its generalizability and diagnostic accuracy should be studied (
18). Although histopathologic evaluation of liver biopsies using NAS is becoming a routine practice in clinic, its accuracy is not usually considered during clinical decision making in diagnosis and follow-up. Also, the degree of accuracy is not clear in settings other than NASH Clinical Research Network. In this study, we intended to assess both inter-observer and intra-observer reproducibility of NAS scoring system in a group of Iranian pathologists.