Literature DB >> 16714644

Comparison of visual and quantitative analysis for characterization of insonated liver tumors after microbubble contrast injection.

Emilio Quaia1, Alessandro Palumbo, Stefania Rossi, Francesca Degobbis, Stefano Cernic, Giuseppe Tona, Maria Cova.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare diagnostic performance of visual and quantitative analysis for the characterization of liver tumors insonated at low transmit power after microbubble contrast agent injection. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This series comprised 166 liver tumors (1-5 cm in diameter) in 166 patients (99 men, 67 women; mean age +/- SD, 58 +/- 11 years) scanned at low transmit power (mechanical index: 0.1-0.14) after sulfur hexafluoride-filled microbubble injection. Digital cine clips recorded at the arterial phase (10-40 sec after contrast injection) and late phase (100-300 sec) were analyzed to characterize liver tumors as benign or malignant. Visual analysis was performed by three independent blinded reviewers who evaluated enhancement patterns at the arterial phase and subjective tumor conspicuity at the late phase. Quantitative analysis of videotape intensity (VI: gray-scale levels, 0-255) was performed to calculate objective tumor conspicuity at the late phase: (VI(tumor) - VI(liver)) / VI(liver).
RESULTS: Characteristic enhancement patterns were observed in malignant tumors (peripheral rimlike) and benign tumors (peripheral nodular or central and spoke-wheel-shaped). Malignant (n = 95) versus benign (n = 71) tumors differed for subjective (median value: -1 vs 1, respectively) and objective conspicuity at the late phase (-0.6 vs 0.15, respectively; p = 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test) due to persistent microbubble uptake in benign tumors. Diagnostic performance of visual (odds ratio: reviewer 1 = 4.28, reviewer 2 = 10.18, reviewer 3 = 9.56) and quantitative (odds ratio: 89.33) analyses differed significantly in the characterization of liver tumors (p = 0.01, chi-square test).
CONCLUSION: Quantitative analysis revealed higher diagnostic performance than visual analysis to characterize liver tumors insonated at low transmit power after microbubble contrast agent injection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16714644     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0527

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  7 in total

1.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation between quantitative parameters and histological grading.

Authors:  X Q Pei; L Z Liu; M Liu; W Zheng; F Han; A H Li; M Y Cai
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Microbubble ultrasound contrast agents: an update.

Authors:  Emilio Quaia
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-03-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Clinical uses of microbubbles in diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  David Cosgrove; Chris Harvey
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2009-02-10       Impact factor: 2.602

4.  Diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for small renal masses.

Authors:  Tae Hoon Oh; Young Hwan Lee; Ill Young Seo
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2014-09-05

5.  Quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography: differentiating focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  X-Q Pei; L-Z Liu; Y-H Xiong; R-H Zou; M-S Chen; A-H Li; M-Y Cai
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Comparison of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound With Contrast Enhanced Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Sandeep Moudgil; Naveen Kalra; Nidhi Prabhakar; Radha Krishan Dhiman; Arunanshu Behera; Yogesh Kumar Chawla; Niranjan Khandelwal
Journal:  J Clin Exp Hepatol       Date:  2017-03-16

7.  Evaluation of quantitative contrast harmonic imaging to assess malignancy of liver tumors: a prospective controlled two-center study.

Authors:  E M Jung; D A Clevert; A G Schreyer; S Schmitt; J Rennert; R Kubale; S Feuerbach; F Jung
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-12-21       Impact factor: 5.742

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.