OBJECTIVES: To investigate and compare contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the characterisation of histologically proven focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT). METHODS: CEUS was performed in 85 patients with 85 histologically proven FNHs. Enhancement, centrifugal filling, spoke-wheel arteries, feeding artery and central scarring were reviewed and correlated with lesion size or liver background. Independent factors for predicting FNH from other focal liver lesions (FLLs) were evaluated. Forty-seven FLLs with CECT were randomly selected for comparison of diagnostic performance with CEUS. RESULTS: Centrifugal filling was more common (P = 0.002) and the significant predictor (P = 0.003) in FNHs ≤3 cm. Lesion size or liver background has no significant influence on the detection rate of the spoke-wheel arteries and feeding artery (P > 0.05). Central scarring was found in 42.6 % of FNHs ≥3 cm (P = 0.000). The area under the ROC curve, sensitivity and specificity showed no significant differences between CEUS and CECT (P > 0.05), except that the sensitivity of CEUS was better for reader 1 (P = 0.041). CONCLUSION: CEUS is valuable in characterising centrifugal filling signs or spoke wheels in small FNHs and should be employed as the first-line imaging technique for diagnosis of FNH. KEY POINTS: • The confident diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia is important in liver imaging. • The centrifugal filling sign is useful for diagnosis of FNHs ≤3 cm. • Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced CT have similar diagnostic performance for FNH. • CEUS should be the first-line imaging technique for the diagnosis of FNH.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate and compare contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the characterisation of histologically proven focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT). METHODS: CEUS was performed in 85 patients with 85 histologically proven FNHs. Enhancement, centrifugal filling, spoke-wheel arteries, feeding artery and central scarring were reviewed and correlated with lesion size or liver background. Independent factors for predicting FNH from other focal liver lesions (FLLs) were evaluated. Forty-seven FLLs with CECT were randomly selected for comparison of diagnostic performance with CEUS. RESULTS: Centrifugal filling was more common (P = 0.002) and the significant predictor (P = 0.003) in FNHs ≤3 cm. Lesion size or liver background has no significant influence on the detection rate of the spoke-wheel arteries and feeding artery (P > 0.05). Central scarring was found in 42.6 % of FNHs ≥3 cm (P = 0.000). The area under the ROC curve, sensitivity and specificity showed no significant differences between CEUS and CECT (P > 0.05), except that the sensitivity of CEUS was better for reader 1 (P = 0.041). CONCLUSION: CEUS is valuable in characterising centrifugal filling signs or spoke wheels in small FNHs and should be employed as the first-line imaging technique for diagnosis of FNH. KEY POINTS: • The confident diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia is important in liver imaging. • The centrifugal filling sign is useful for diagnosis of FNHs ≤3 cm. • Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced CT have similar diagnostic performance for FNH. • CEUS should be the first-line imaging technique for the diagnosis of FNH.
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: M Claudon; D Cosgrove; T Albrecht; L Bolondi; M Bosio; F Calliada; J-M Correas; K Darge; C Dietrich; M D'Onofrio; D H Evans; C Filice; L Greiner; K Jäger; N de Jong; E Leen; R Lencioni; D Lindsell; A Martegani; S Meairs; C Nolsøe; F Piscaglia; P Ricci; G Seidel; B Skjoldbye; L Solbiati; L Thorelius; F Tranquart; H P Weskott; T Whittingham Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: L Van Hoe; A L Baert; S Gryspeerdt; G Vandenbosh; F Nevens; W Van Steenbergen; G Marchal Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: K Seitz; D Strobel; T Bernatik; W Blank; M Friedrich-Rust; A von Herbay; C F Dietrich; H Strunk; W Kratzer; A Schuler Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2009-08-17 Impact factor: 6.548