K Seitz 1 , T Bernatik , D Strobel , W Blank , M Friedrich-Rust , H Strunk , C Greis , W Kratzer , A Schuler Show Affiliations »
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to assess the diagnostic role of CEUS in the diagnosis of newly discovered focal liver lesions in clinical practice. One important aspect is the comparison of CEUS with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 05 / 2004 to 12 / 2006, standardized CEUS was performed prospectively on 1349 patients with focal liver lesions that had been newly detected by fundamental ultrasound in order to determine tumor differentiation and tumor entity. 269 patients had a standardized MRI after CEUS. In typical liver hemangioma and focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH), the definitive diagnosis was based on the MRI as the "diagnostic gold standard" and on clinical evidence and additional follow-up (subgroup A) or on histology (subgroup B). 262 patients met the diagnostic standard that had been set. RESULTS: In the subcollective (n = 262), the tumor differentiation (malignant or benign) of CEUS and MRI was concordant in 225 cases (85.9%), and the assessment of tumor entity in 204 cases (77.9%). In subgroup A (n = 180), concordant results for tumor differentiation were obtained in 169 (93.2%) and for tumor entity in 160 (88.9%) cases. Liver hemangiomas (n = 122) and FNH (n = 43) were most frequent. Subgroup B (n = 82) comprised mainly malignant liver lesions (n = 55), with only a few of hemangiomas (n = 8) or FNH (n = 5). Tumor differentiation was concordant in 56 (68.3%) and tumor entity in 44 cases (53.7%). There were no statistically proven differences between CEUS and MRI. CONCLUSION: CEUS and MRI are of equal value for the differentiation and specification of newly discovered liver tumors in clinical practice. CEUS and MRI are extremely reliable for the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions, the diagnosis of liver hemangiomas and FNH. The characterization of metastases and HCC is also very reliable. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to assess the diagnostic role of CEUS in the diagnosis of newly discovered focal liver lesions in clinical practice. One important aspect is the comparison of CEUS with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 05 / 2004 to 12 / 2006, standardized CEUS was performed prospectively on 1349 patients with focal liver lesions that had been newly detected by fundamental ultrasound in order to determine tumor differentiation and tumor entity. 269 patients had a standardized MRI after CEUS. In typical liver hemangioma and focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH), the definitive diagnosis was based on the MRI as the "diagnostic gold standard" and on clinical evidence and additional follow-up (subgroup A ) or on histology (subgroup B ). 262 patients met the diagnostic standard that had been set. RESULTS: In the subcollective (n = 262), the tumor differentiation (malignant or benign) of CEUS and MRI was concordant in 225 cases (85.9%), and the assessment of tumor entity in 204 cases (77.9%). In subgroup A (n = 180), concordant results for tumor differentiation were obtained in 169 (93.2%) and for tumor entity in 160 (88.9%) cases. Liver hemangiomas (n = 122) and FNH (n = 43) were most frequent. Subgroup B (n = 82) comprised mainly malignant liver lesions (n = 55), with only a few of hemangiomas (n = 8) or FNH (n = 5). Tumor differentiation was concordant in 56 (68.3%) and tumor entity in 44 cases (53.7%). There were no statistically proven differences between CEUS and MRI. CONCLUSION: CEUS and MRI are of equal value for the differentiation and specification of newly discovered liver tumors in clinical practice. CEUS and MRI are extremely reliable for the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions, the diagnosis of liver hemangiomas and FNH. The characterization of metastases and HCC is also very reliable. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Entities: Disease
Species
Mesh： See more »
Substances： See more »
Year: 2010
PMID： 20652854 DOI： 10.1055/s-0029-1245591
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ultraschall Med ISSN： 0172-4614 Impact factor: 6.548