Literature DB >> 27433201

Malignant focal liver lesions at contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and magnetic resonance with hepatospecific contrast agent.

M D'Onofrio1, S Crosara1, R De Robertis1, S Canestrini1, V Cantisani2, G Morana3, R Pozzi Mucelli1.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the late phase of CEUS and the hepatobiliary phase of CE-MR with Gd-BOPTA in the characterization of focal liver lesions in terms of benignity and malignancy. A total of 147 solid focal liver lesions (38 focal nodular hyperplasias, 1 area of focal steatosis, 3 regenerative nodules, 8 adenomas, 11 cholangiocarcinomas, 36 hepatocellular carcinomas and 49 metastases) were retrospectively evaluated in a multicentre study, both with CEUS, using sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles (SonoVue, Bracco, Milan, Italy) and CE-MR, performed with Gd-BOPTA (Multihance, Bracco, Milan, Italy). All lesions thought to be malignant were cytohistologically proven, while all lesions thought to be benign were followed up. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values and accuracy were calculated for the late phase of CEUS and the hepatobiliary phase of CE-MRI, respectively, and in combination. Analysis of data revealed 42 benign and 105 malignant focal liver lesions. We postulated that all hypoechoic/hypointense lesions on the two phases were malignant. The diagnostic errors were 13/147 (8.8%) by CEUS and 12/147 (8.2%) by CE-MR. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of the late phase of CEUS were 90%, 93%, 97%, 80% and 91%, 93%, 97%, 81% and 92% for the hepatobiliary phase of CE-MRI, respectively. If we considered both techniques, the misdiagnosis diminished to 3/147 (2%) and sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were 98%, 98%, 99%, 95% and 98%. The combination of the late phase of CEUS and the hepatobiliary phase of CE-MR in the characterization of solid focal liver lesions in terms of benignity and malignancy is more accurate than the two techniques used separately.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Focal liver lesion; contrast enhanced ultrasonography; hepatospecific contrast agent; magnetic resonance imaging

Year:  2013        PMID: 27433201      PMCID: PMC4760537          DOI: 10.1177/1742271X13513888

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound        ISSN: 1742-271X


  57 in total

1.  Limitations of characterization of hepatic hemangiomas using a sonographic contrast agent (Levovist) and power Doppler ultrasonography.

Authors:  T K Kim; J K Han; A Y Kim; B I Choi
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 2.153

Review 2.  The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterisation of focal liver lesions.

Authors:  E Leen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Focal liver lesions: evaluation of the efficacy of gadobenate dimeglumine in MR imaging--a multicenter phase III clinical study.

Authors:  J Petersein; A Spinazzi; A Giovagnoni; P Soyer; F Terrier; R Lencioni; C Bartolozzi; L Grazioli; A Chiesa; R Manfredi; P Marano; E L Van Persijn Van Meerten; J L Bloem; C Petre; G Marchal; A Greco; M T McNamara; A Heuck; M Reiser; M Laniado; C Claussen; H E Daldrup; E Rummeny; M A Kirchin; G Pirovano; B Hamm
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Characterization of focal liver lesions with contrast-specific US modes and a sulfur hexafluoride-filled microbubble contrast agent: diagnostic performance and confidence.

Authors:  Emilio Quaia; Fabrizio Calliada; Michele Bertolotto; Sandro Rossi; Lorena Garioni; Laura Rosa; Roberto Pozzi-Mucelli
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Multihance clinical pharmacology: biodistribution and MR enhancement of the liver.

Authors:  A Spinazzi; V Lorusso; G Pirovano; P Taroni; M Kirchin; A Davies
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 6.  Ultrasound of focal liver lesions.

Authors:  C J Harvey; T Albrecht
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine with gadopentetate dimeglumine for magnetic resonance imaging of liver tumors.

Authors:  R Kuwatsuru; M Kadoya; K Ohtomo; A Tanimoto; S Hirohashi; T Murakami; Y Tanaka; K Yoshikawa; H Katayama
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 6.016

8.  Comparison of superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced and gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced dynamic MRI for detection of small hepatocellular carcinomas.

Authors:  Young Kon Kim; Chong Soo Kim; Young Hwan Lee; Hyo Sung Kwak; Jeong Min Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of focal liver lesions--diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice (DEGUM multicenter trial).

Authors:  D Strobel; K Seitz; W Blank; A Schuler; C Dietrich; A von Herbay; M Friedrich-Rust; G Kunze; D Becker; U Will; W Kratzer; F W Albert; C Pachmann; K Dirks; H Strunk; C Greis; T Bernatik
Journal:  Ultraschall Med       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 6.548

Review 10.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the detection and characterization of liver tumors.

Authors:  Hyun-Jung Jang; Hojun Yu; Tae Kyoung Kim
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2009-11-06       Impact factor: 3.909

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  [Imaging of medullary thyroid carcinoma].

Authors:  M Uhrig; S Delorme
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  Biopsy of Liver Target Lesions under Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Guidance - A Multi-Center Study.

Authors:  Giampiero Francica; Maria Franca Meloni; Ilario de Sio; Fulvia Terracciano; Eugenio Caturelli; Laura Riccardi; Paola Roselli; Maddalena Diana Iadevaia; Mariano Scaglione; Giovanni Lenna; Jason Chiang; Maurizio Pompili
Journal:  Ultraschall Med       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 6.548

Review 3.  [CEUS-Diagnostic of malignant liver lesions].

Authors:  G Negrão de Figueiredo; K Müller-Peltzer; J Rübenthaler; D A Clevert
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound approach to the diagnosis of focal liver lesions: the importance of washout.

Authors:  Hyun Kyung Yang; Peter N Burns; Hyun-Jung Jang; Yuko Kono; Korosh Khalili; Stephanie R Wilson; Tae Kyoung Kim
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2019-03-17

5.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound is useful for the evaluation of focal liver lesions in children.

Authors:  Alvaro Torres; Seppo K Koskinen; Henrik Gjertsen; Björn Fischler
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2021-06-27

Review 6.  CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018 vs. CEUS LI-RADS v2017-Can Things Be Put Together?

Authors:  Cosmin Caraiani; Bianca Boca; Vlad Bura; Zeno Sparchez; Yi Dong; Christoph Dietrich
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-06
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.