PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the diagnostic accuracy of immediate post-procedural CEUS, 24-h CEUS, and 24-h CT in verifying the effectiveness of thermal ablation of liver tumors ablation, using the combined results of 3-month post-procedure CEUS and MDCT as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From our database, we selected patients who had immediate post-procedural CEUS and 24-h CEUS and MDCT examinations after undergoing thermal ablation of a liver tumor between January 2009 and March 2010. The study population consisted of 53 subjects and 55 tumors (44 HCC and 11 metastasis) were evaluated. Thirty-seven tumors were treated with radiofrequency and 18 with microwave ablation. Post-procedural CEUS, 24-h CEUS and MDCT, and 3-month follow-up CEUS and MDCT images were blindly reviewed by two radiologists, who measured the size of the ablation area on the post-procedural and 24-h studies. They also evaluated the ability of each of these three index tests to predict the outcome (residual tumor vs. no residual tumor) using imaging studies done at the 3-month follow-up as the reference standard. RESULTS: Mean tumor diameter on preablation CEUS (the day before treatment) was 20 ± 9 mm. Mean diameter of the necrotic area was 29 ± 9 mm on post-procedural CEUS, 34 ± 11 mm on 24-h CEUS, and 36 ± 11 mm on 24-h MDCT. Diameters of the necrotic area (mean and maximum) on post-procedural CEUS were significantly smaller than those measured on 24-h CEUS or 24-h MDCT, which were not significantly different. For predicting the presence of residual tumor at the 3-month follow-up, post-procedural CEUS, 24-h CEUS, and 24-h MDCT displayed sensitivity of 33%, 33%, and 42%; specificity of 92%, 97%, and 97%; negative predictive value of 84%, 85%, and 83%. The accuracy parameters of these three imaging modalities were not significantly different from one another. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing thermal ablation for liver tumors, the immediate post-procedural CEUS seems comparable to 24-h CEUS and MDCT in terms of detecting residual disease.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the diagnostic accuracy of immediate post-procedural CEUS, 24-h CEUS, and 24-h CT in verifying the effectiveness of thermal ablation of liver tumors ablation, using the combined results of 3-month post-procedure CEUS and MDCT as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From our database, we selected patients who had immediate post-procedural CEUS and 24-h CEUS and MDCT examinations after undergoing thermal ablation of a liver tumor between January 2009 and March 2010. The study population consisted of 53 subjects and 55 tumors (44 HCC and 11 metastasis) were evaluated. Thirty-seven tumors were treated with radiofrequency and 18 with microwave ablation. Post-procedural CEUS, 24-h CEUS and MDCT, and 3-month follow-up CEUS and MDCT images were blindly reviewed by two radiologists, who measured the size of the ablation area on the post-procedural and 24-h studies. They also evaluated the ability of each of these three index tests to predict the outcome (residual tumor vs. no residual tumor) using imaging studies done at the 3-month follow-up as the reference standard. RESULTS: Mean tumor diameter on preablation CEUS (the day before treatment) was 20 ± 9 mm. Mean diameter of the necrotic area was 29 ± 9 mm on post-procedural CEUS, 34 ± 11 mm on 24-h CEUS, and 36 ± 11 mm on 24-h MDCT. Diameters of the necrotic area (mean and maximum) on post-procedural CEUS were significantly smaller than those measured on 24-h CEUS or 24-h MDCT, which were not significantly different. For predicting the presence of residual tumor at the 3-month follow-up, post-procedural CEUS, 24-h CEUS, and 24-h MDCT displayed sensitivity of 33%, 33%, and 42%; specificity of 92%, 97%, and 97%; negative predictive value of 84%, 85%, and 83%. The accuracy parameters of these three imaging modalities were not significantly different from one another. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing thermal ablation for liver tumors, the immediate post-procedural CEUS seems comparable to 24-h CEUS and MDCT in terms of detecting residual disease.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ablation techniques; Contrast-enhanced ultrasound; Interventional; Sensitivity and specificity; Ultrasonography
Authors: John R Leyendecker; Gerald D Dodd; Glenn A Halff; Victor A McCoy; Dacia H Napier; Linda G Hubbard; Kedar N Chintapalli; Shailendra Chopra; W Kenneth Washburn; Robert M Esterl; Francisco G Cigarroa; Ruth E Kohlmeier; Francis E Sharkey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: M F Meloni; S N Goldberg; T Livraghi; F Calliada; P Ricci; M Rossi; D Pallavicini; R Campani Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Michael S Breen; Roee S Lazebnik; Maryann Fitzmaurice; Sherif G Nour; Jonathan S Lewin; David L Wilson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Christina Schraml; Stephan Clasen; Nina F Schwenzer; Ingmar Koenigsrainer; Tina Herberts; Claus D Claussen; Philippe L Pereira Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2008 Nov-Dec
Authors: Francois Cornelis; Vlasios Sotirchos; Elena Violari; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Heiko Schoder; Jeremy C Durack; Robert H Siegelbaum; Majid Maybody; John Humm; Stephen B Solomon Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Vlasios S Sotirchos; Lydia M Petrovic; Mithat Gönen; David S Klimstra; Richard K G Do; Elena N Petre; Alessandra R Garcia; Afsar Barlas; Joseph P Erinjeri; Karen T Brown; Anne M Covey; William Alago; Lynn A Brody; Ronald P DeMatteo; Nancy E Kemeny; Stephen B Solomon; Katia O Manova-Todorova; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Davide Roccarina; Matteo Garcovich; Maria Elena Ainora; Laura Riccardi; Maurizio Pompili; Antonio Gasbarrini; Maria Assunta Zocco Journal: World J Hepatol Date: 2015-07-18
Authors: Giovanni Mauri; Luca Nicosia; Gianluca Maria Varano; Paul Shyn; Sergio Sartori; Paola Tombesi; Francesca Di Vece; Franco Orsi; Luigi Solbiati Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2017-04-18
Authors: Simone Schiaffino; Francesca Serpi; Duccio Rossi; Valerio Ferrara; Ciriaco Buonomenna; Marco Alì; Lorenzo Monfardini; Luca Maria Sconfienza; Giovanni Mauri Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-05-16 Impact factor: 4.241