OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential usefulness of three-dimensional contrast-enhanced ultrasound (3D-CEUS) in evaluating the treatment response for liver cancer after local therapies. METHODS: A total of 107 lesions in 95 consecutive patients with liver cancer underwent local therapies and thereafter received low acoustic power 3D-CEUS examination. The LOGIQ 9 ultrasound scanner and a volume transducer were used and the ultrasound contrast agent was SonoVue. The image quality of 3D-CEUS images was evaluated and the influence of 3D-CEUS to clinical outcome was investigated. RESULTS: The image quality of 3D-CEUS was defined as high in 102 (102/107, 95.3%) lesions and common in 5 (5/107, 4.7%) lesions. 3D-CEUS did not change the diagnosis in any patient compared with 2D-CEUS. However, 3D-CEUS changed the management in 3 (2.8%) of 107 lesions, increased confidence but made no change in diagnosis in 85 (79.5%) lesions, added some information but did not change management or diagnosis in 15 (14.0%), and made no change in 4 (3.7%), respectively, in comparison with 2D-CEUS. CONCLUSION: 3D-CEUS enhances the diagnostic confidence in the majority of the patients and even changes the management in some patients. 3D-CEUS has potential usefulness in evaluating treatment response for liver cancer after local therapies.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential usefulness of three-dimensional contrast-enhanced ultrasound (3D-CEUS) in evaluating the treatment response for liver cancer after local therapies. METHODS: A total of 107 lesions in 95 consecutive patients with liver cancer underwent local therapies and thereafter received low acoustic power 3D-CEUS examination. The LOGIQ 9 ultrasound scanner and a volume transducer were used and the ultrasound contrast agent was SonoVue. The image quality of 3D-CEUS images was evaluated and the influence of 3D-CEUS to clinical outcome was investigated. RESULTS: The image quality of 3D-CEUS was defined as high in 102 (102/107, 95.3%) lesions and common in 5 (5/107, 4.7%) lesions. 3D-CEUS did not change the diagnosis in any patient compared with 2D-CEUS. However, 3D-CEUS changed the management in 3 (2.8%) of 107 lesions, increased confidence but made no change in diagnosis in 85 (79.5%) lesions, added some information but did not change management or diagnosis in 15 (14.0%), and made no change in 4 (3.7%), respectively, in comparison with 2D-CEUS. CONCLUSION: 3D-CEUS enhances the diagnostic confidence in the majority of the patients and even changes the management in some patients. 3D-CEUS has potential usefulness in evaluating treatment response for liver cancer after local therapies.
Authors: Kibo Nam; Maria Stanczak; Andrej Lyshchik; Priscilla Machado; Yuko Kono; Flemming Forsberg; Colette M Shaw; John R Eisenbrey Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2018-04-18
Authors: Ryne A Didier; David M Biko; Misun Hwang; Sunil Unnikrishnan; Magdalena M Woźniak; Gibran T Yusuf; Anush Sridharan Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2021-04-01