OBJECTIVE: To clarify the details of homogeneously enhancing lesions on contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) and also to elucidate whether their differential diagnosis is possible. METHODS: Seventy-three homogeneously enhancing lesions on CEUS were retrospectively selected. Two radiologists first assessed conventional US findings alone in consensus to differentiate malignant vs. benign lesions. Then, qualitative and quantitative CEUS findings were analyzed to determine the useful findings for the differential diagnosis. Determined CEUS findings were applied to the indeterminate lesions based on conventional US findings to see whether CEUS can improve the diagnostic performance. RESULTS: There were 42 cancers (58 %) out of 73. Sensitivity and specificity using conventional US findings alone were 91 and 55 %, respectively. Among the CEUS findings tested, multivariate analysis revealed only the type 3 enhancement pattern, which indicates a larger enhancing area than the precontrast hypoechoic lesion, was related to malignancy (p < 0.05). By adding this information, however, no improvement was achieved in the diagnostic performance as determined by conventional US findings. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of the homogeneously enhancing lesions on CEUS are malignant, and differentiation of malignant from benign lesions may be possible, at least to some extent, by meticulous assessment of the conventional US rather than CEUS findings.
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the details of homogeneously enhancing lesions on contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) and also to elucidate whether their differential diagnosis is possible. METHODS: Seventy-three homogeneously enhancing lesions on CEUS were retrospectively selected. Two radiologists first assessed conventional US findings alone in consensus to differentiate malignant vs. benign lesions. Then, qualitative and quantitative CEUS findings were analyzed to determine the useful findings for the differential diagnosis. Determined CEUS findings were applied to the indeterminate lesions based on conventional US findings to see whether CEUS can improve the diagnostic performance. RESULTS: There were 42 cancers (58 %) out of 73. Sensitivity and specificity using conventional US findings alone were 91 and 55 %, respectively. Among the CEUS findings tested, multivariate analysis revealed only the type 3 enhancement pattern, which indicates a larger enhancing area than the precontrast hypoechoic lesion, was related to malignancy (p < 0.05). By adding this information, however, no improvement was achieved in the diagnostic performance as determined by conventional US findings. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of the homogeneously enhancing lesions on CEUS are malignant, and differentiation of malignant from benign lesions may be possible, at least to some extent, by meticulous assessment of the conventional US rather than CEUS findings.