OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential of quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in differentiating focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: 34 cases of FNH and 66 cases of HCC (all lesions <5 cm) were studied using CEUS to evaluate enhancement patterns and using analytic software Sonoliver® (Image-Arena™ v.4.0, TomTec Imaging Systems, Munich, Germany) to obtain quantitative features of CEUS in the region of interest. The quantitative features of maximum of intensity (IMAX), rise slope (RS), rise time (RT) and time to peak (TTP) were compared between the two groups and applied to further characterise both FNH and HCC with hypoenhancing patterns in the late phase on CEUS. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of CEUS for diagnosis of FNH were 67.6% and 93.9%, respectively. For quantitative analysis, IMAX and RS in FNHs were significantly higher than those in HCCs (p<0.05), while RT and TTP in FNHs were significantly shorter (p<0.05). Both the 11 FNHs and 62 HCCs with hypo-enhancing patterns in the late phase were further characterised with their quantitative features, and the sensitivity and specificity of IMAX for diagnosis of FNH were 90.9% and 43.5%, RS 81.8% and 80.6%, RT 90.9% and 71.0%, and TTP 90.9% and 71.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The quantitative features of CEUS in FNH and HCC were significantly different, and they could further differentiate FNH from HCC following conventional CEUS. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our findings suggest that quantitative analysis of CEUS can improve the accuracy of differentiating FNH from HCC.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential of quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in differentiating focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: 34 cases of FNH and 66 cases of HCC (all lesions <5 cm) were studied using CEUS to evaluate enhancement patterns and using analytic software Sonoliver® (Image-Arena™ v.4.0, TomTec Imaging Systems, Munich, Germany) to obtain quantitative features of CEUS in the region of interest. The quantitative features of maximum of intensity (IMAX), rise slope (RS), rise time (RT) and time to peak (TTP) were compared between the two groups and applied to further characterise both FNH and HCC with hypoenhancing patterns in the late phase on CEUS. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of CEUS for diagnosis of FNH were 67.6% and 93.9%, respectively. For quantitative analysis, IMAX and RS in FNHs were significantly higher than those in HCCs (p<0.05), while RT and TTP in FNHs were significantly shorter (p<0.05). Both the 11 FNHs and 62 HCCs with hypo-enhancing patterns in the late phase were further characterised with their quantitative features, and the sensitivity and specificity of IMAX for diagnosis of FNH were 90.9% and 43.5%, RS 81.8% and 80.6%, RT 90.9% and 71.0%, and TTP 90.9% and 71.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The quantitative features of CEUS in FNH and HCC were significantly different, and they could further differentiate FNH from HCC following conventional CEUS. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our findings suggest that quantitative analysis of CEUS can improve the accuracy of differentiating FNH from HCC.
Authors: Shahid M Hussain; Türkan Terkivatan; Pieter E Zondervan; Esmée Lanjouw; Sjoerd de Rave; Jan N M Ijzermans; Rob A de Man Journal: Radiographics Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Min Ju Kim; Hyo K Lim; Seong Hyun Kim; Dongil Choi; Won Jae Lee; Soon Jin Lee; Jae Hoon Lim Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Michel Claudon; Christoph F Dietrich; Byung Ihn Choi; David O Cosgrove; Masatoshi Kudo; Christian P Nolsøe; Fabio Piscaglia; Stephanie R Wilson; Richard G Barr; Maria C Chammas; Nitin G Chaubal; Min-Hua Chen; Dirk Andre Clevert; Jean Michel Correas; Hong Ding; Flemming Forsberg; J Brian Fowlkes; Robert N Gibson; Barry B Goldberg; Nathalie Lassau; Edward L S Leen; Robert F Mattrey; Fuminori Moriyasu; Luigi Solbiati; Hans-Peter Weskott; Hui-Xiong Xu Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Thodsawit Tiyarattanachai; Simona Turco; John R Eisenbrey; Corinne E Wessner; Alexandra Medellin-Kowalewski; Stephanie Wilson; Andrej Lyshchik; Aya Kamaya; Ahmed El Kaffas Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2022-08-13 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Marie Benzon Mogensen; Martin Lundsgaard Hansen; Birthe Merete Henriksen; Thomas Axelsen; Ben Vainer; Kell Osterlind; Michael Bachmann Nielsen Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2017-06-12
Authors: Lukas Philipp Beyer; Benedikt Pregler; Isabel Wiesinger; Christian Stroszczynski; Philipp Wiggermann; Ernst-Michael Jung Journal: Radiol Res Pract Date: 2014-06-02