Brief Article
Copyright ©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Hepatol. May 27, 2013; 5(5): 275-280
Published online May 27, 2013. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v5.i5.275
Table 1 Roenigk classification of liver damage
GradeFibrosisFatty infiltrationNuclear variabilityPortal inflammation
INoneMildMildMild
IINoneModerate to severeModerate to severePortal expansion, lobular necrosis
IIIAMild (Septa extending into lobules)Moderate to severeModerate to severePortal expansion, lobular necrosis
IIIBModerate to severeModerate to severeModerate to severePortal expansion, lobular necrosis
IVCirrhosis
Table 2 Distribution of the grades of the liver histology and the median cumulative dose
Histology gradeNo.Median MTX cumulative dose (mg)
Normal62285
I622885
II231800
III71500
IV0-
Total982500
Table 3 Risk factors analysis for fibrosis and progression of Roenigk grades n (%)
Risk factorProportion of patients with fibrosisP value1Proportion of patients with progressionP value1
Gender (male vs female)4/42 (9.5) vs 3/17 (17.6)  0.3825/9 (55.6) vs 4/17 (23.5)0.102
Ethnicity (Chinese vs non-Chinese)4/39 (10.3) vs 3/20 (15)  0.5943/16 (18.8) vs 6/10 (60)0.031
Diabetes mellitus (yes vs no)5/15 (33) vs 2/44 (4.4)  0.0084/5 (80) vs 5/21 (23.8)0.018
Hyperlipidemia (yes vs no)1/9 (11.1) vs 6/50 (11.7)> 0.993/3 (100) vs 6/23 (26.1)0.011
Hypertension (yes vs no)5/15 (33) vs 2/44 (4.4)  0.0084/6 (66.7) vs 5/20 (25)0.060
Alcohol consumption (yes vs no)0/5 (0) vs 7/54 (12.7)> 0.990/2 (0) vs 9/24 (37.5)0.284