| Literature DB >> 33213375 |
Fei Chen1, Fei Wang2, Si Sun3, Mei Zhu4, Zheng Liu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound (US) imaging is known to underestimate tumor size in clinical. This study is aimed to compare the size measurements of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in three US imaging modalities, i.e. two-dimensional (2D) imaging, the arterial phase (AP) and the late phase (LP) imaging of contrast-enhanced US (CEUS).Entities:
Keywords: Contrast enhanced ultrasound; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Size measurement; Two-dimensional ultrasound
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33213375 PMCID: PMC7678053 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-020-01535-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Gastroenterol ISSN: 1471-230X Impact factor: 3.067
Interobserver agreement between two readers for the tumor size measurement
| 2DUS | AP | LP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LD | TD | LD | TD | LD | TD | |
| Mean ± SD or mean rank | 29.86, 28.91 | 0.02 ± 0.14 | 28.13, 31.07 | 29.34, 29.62 | 0.02 ± 0.10 | 27.59, 31.16 |
| Z or | − 1.701 | 0.860 | − 0.128 | − 0.946 | 1.521 | − 0.856 |
| 0.089 | 0.394 | 0.898 | 0.344 | 0.134 | 0.392 | |
LD longitudinal diameter, TD transvers diameter
P < 0.05 indicates a significant difference between two readers
Mean values of diameter measurements of two readers
| 2DUS (Mean ± SD) | AP (Mean ± SD) | LP (Mean ± SD) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LD | TD | LD | TD | LD | TD | |
| Reader 1 | 4.26 ± 2.07 | 3.51 ± 1.70 | 4.72 ± 2.03* | 3.89 ± 1.64* | 4.02 ± 2.02 | 3.32 ± 1.58 |
| Reader 2 | 4.26 ± 2.07 | 3.49 ± 1.69 | 4.70 ± 2.07* | 3.87 ± 1.63* | 4.00 ± 2.01 | 3.33 ± 1.58 |
LD longitudinal diameter, TD transvers diameter
*Indicates significant larger than that of the corresponding 2DUS diameters
Indicates significant smaller than that of the corresponding 2DUS diameters
Fig. 1The measurements of 2D, AP and LP diameters of a HCC case on the same imaging section (Data on left upper corner, D1 = longitudinal diameter; D2 = transverse diameter). a 2DUS measurements of the tumor. b Obviously enlarged measurement of the tumor in AP. c Decreased measurement of the tumor in LP
Fig. 2The measurements of diameters from another two cases. a The dual frame of 2D (left) and AP (right) measurements showing slightly enlarged AP diameters in the first case. b The dual frame of the second case displaying slightly decreased measurements in LP (right) when comparing that of 2D (left)
Fig. 3Scatter plot of the longitudinal diameters (a) and transverse diameters (b) from all 58 cases. In most of the cases, AP diameters appeared to the maximal followed by 2D diameters, and then LP diameters