BACKGROUND: We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of post-vascular phase (Kupffer imaging) by contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) using perflubutane microbubbles (Sonazoid) in comparison with conventional B-mode ultrasonography (US) for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) nodules. METHODS: A total of 100 treatment-naïve HCC patients admitted at our hospital between December 2007 and June 2009 were consecutively enrolled. The sensitivity and specificity of conventional and contrast-enhanced US were evaluated on a liver segment basis using dynamic CT as a reference standard. Movie files of conventional and enhanced US were stored separately for each segment (e.g., lateral, medial, anterior, and posterior) and reviewed randomly by two blinded readers. RESULTS: A total of 138 HCC nodules (mean diameter 20.3 mm) were detected in 123 of 400 segments. Detection sensitivity of B-mode US was 0.837 for reader A and 0.846 for reader B, and that of CEUS was 0.732 for reader A and 0.831 for reader B. Specificity of B-mode US was 0.902 for reader A and 0.949 for reader B, and that of CEUS was 0.986 for reader A and 0.978 for reader B. CEUS false positives were mainly due to misidentification of hepatic cysts. A significant proportion of false-negative nodules are hyperechoic in B-mode US, likely because echogenicity hampers visualization of the defect in Kupffer imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Kupffer imaging by CEUS with Sonazoid showed very high specificity but rather mediocre sensitivity for HCC detection. CEUS is highly suitable for confirmatory diagnosis of HCC; however, caution should be exercised in reaching a diagnosis based only on CEUS.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of post-vascular phase (Kupffer imaging) by contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) using perflubutane microbubbles (Sonazoid) in comparison with conventional B-mode ultrasonography (US) for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) nodules. METHODS: A total of 100 treatment-naïve HCC patients admitted at our hospital between December 2007 and June 2009 were consecutively enrolled. The sensitivity and specificity of conventional and contrast-enhanced US were evaluated on a liver segment basis using dynamic CT as a reference standard. Movie files of conventional and enhanced US were stored separately for each segment (e.g., lateral, medial, anterior, and posterior) and reviewed randomly by two blinded readers. RESULTS: A total of 138 HCC nodules (mean diameter 20.3 mm) were detected in 123 of 400 segments. Detection sensitivity of B-mode US was 0.837 for reader A and 0.846 for reader B, and that of CEUS was 0.732 for reader A and 0.831 for reader B. Specificity of B-mode US was 0.902 for reader A and 0.949 for reader B, and that of CEUS was 0.986 for reader A and 0.978 for reader B. CEUS false positives were mainly due to misidentification of hepatic cysts. A significant proportion of false-negative nodules are hyperechoic in B-mode US, likely because echogenicity hampers visualization of the defect in Kupffer imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Kupffer imaging by CEUS with Sonazoid showed very high specificity but rather mediocre sensitivity for HCC detection. CEUS is highly suitable for confirmatory diagnosis of HCC; however, caution should be exercised in reaching a diagnosis based only on CEUS.
Authors: J Bruix; M Sherman; J M Llovet; M Beaugrand; R Lencioni; A K Burroughs; E Christensen; L Pagliaro; M Colombo; J Rodés Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet; Jeroen G Lijmer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Thomas J Vogl; Wolfram Schwarz; Stefan Blume; Michael Pietsch; Kohkan Shamsi; Martina Franz; Hartmut Lobeck; Thomas Balzer; Kelly del Tredici; Peter Neuhaus; Roland Felix; Renate M Hammerstingl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-09-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M Colombo; R de Franchis; E Del Ninno; A Sangiovanni; C De Fazio; M Tommasini; M F Donato; A Piva; V Di Carlo; N Dioguardi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-09-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ji Hoon Park; Mi-Suk Park; So Jung Lee; Woo Kyoung Jeong; Jae Young Lee; Min Jung Park; Kyunghwa Han; Chung Mo Nam; Seong Ho Park; Kyoung Ho Lee Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2017-04-18 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Liliana Chiorean; Claudio Tana; Barbara Braden; Cosmin Caraiani; Zeno Sparchez; Xin-Wu Cui; Ulrich Baum; Christoph F Dietrich Journal: Med Princ Pract Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 1.927