PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe changes in contrast agent kinetics in HCC following incomplete trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and MRI/CT. METHODS: Patients with residual HCC proven by biopsy, retreatment angiography, or 4-8 month MRI demonstrating tumor progression were identified. Pre-treatment and 4-6-week follow-up CE-MRI/CT and CEUS exams were collected for blinded reads by two experienced readers for each modality to evaluate arterial phase hyper-enhancement (APHE) and washout within the residual HCC. A third reader provided tie-breaking decisions for any disagreements. RESULTS: Contrast-enhanced imaging data were collected from 29 patients with residual HCC post-TACE. On CEUS, 84.2% of patients with baseline APHE demonstrated APHE post-TACE (p = 0.25). On CE-MRI/CT, 57.1% of patients with baseline APHE later demonstrated APHE (p = 0.004). As for washout, on CEUS 33.3% of patients with baseline washout retained washout post-TACE (p = 0.01), while on CE-MRI/CT only 18.8% of patients with baseline washout later demonstrated washout (p < 0.001). Among CEUS readers, reader agreement was 100% for baseline APHE, 66.7% for baseline washout (K = 0.35), 84.2% for post-TACE APHE (K = 0.35), and 57.9% for post-TACE washout (K = - 0.09). On CE-MRI/CT, reader agreement was 65.5% for baseline APHE (K = 0.19), 55.2% for baseline washout (K = 0.12), 48.3% for post-TACE APHE (K = - 0.07), and 58.6% for post-TACE washout (K = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Common diagnostic features of treatment-naïve HCC like APHE and washout can be substantially altered by TACE and should be considered when diagnosing residual disease on contrast-enhanced imaging.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe changes in contrast agent kinetics in HCC following incomplete trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and MRI/CT. METHODS: Patients with residual HCC proven by biopsy, retreatment angiography, or 4-8 month MRI demonstrating tumor progression were identified. Pre-treatment and 4-6-week follow-up CE-MRI/CT and CEUS exams were collected for blinded reads by two experienced readers for each modality to evaluate arterial phase hyper-enhancement (APHE) and washout within the residual HCC. A third reader provided tie-breaking decisions for any disagreements. RESULTS: Contrast-enhanced imaging data were collected from 29 patients with residual HCC post-TACE. On CEUS, 84.2% of patients with baseline APHE demonstrated APHE post-TACE (p = 0.25). On CE-MRI/CT, 57.1% of patients with baseline APHE later demonstrated APHE (p = 0.004). As for washout, on CEUS 33.3% of patients with baseline washout retained washout post-TACE (p = 0.01), while on CE-MRI/CT only 18.8% of patients with baseline washout later demonstrated washout (p < 0.001). Among CEUS readers, reader agreement was 100% for baseline APHE, 66.7% for baseline washout (K = 0.35), 84.2% for post-TACE APHE (K = 0.35), and 57.9% for post-TACE washout (K = - 0.09). On CE-MRI/CT, reader agreement was 65.5% for baseline APHE (K = 0.19), 55.2% for baseline washout (K = 0.12), 48.3% for post-TACE APHE (K = - 0.07), and 58.6% for post-TACE washout (K = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Common diagnostic features of treatment-naïve HCC like APHE and washout can be substantially altered by TACE and should be considered when diagnosing residual disease on contrast-enhanced imaging.
Authors: Marta Burrel; María Reig; Alejandro Forner; Marta Barrufet; Carlos Rodríguez de Lope; Silvia Tremosini; Carmen Ayuso; Josep M Llovet; María Isabel Real; Jordi Bruix Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2012-02-05 Impact factor: 25.083
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: Kibo Nam; Maria Stanczak; Andrej Lyshchik; Priscilla Machado; Yuko Kono; Flemming Forsberg; Colette M Shaw; John R Eisenbrey Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2018-04-18
Authors: S Nahum Goldberg; Clement J Grassi; John F Cardella; J William Charboneau; Gerald D Dodd; Damian E Dupuy; Debra A Gervais; Alice R Gillams; Robert A Kane; Fred T Lee; Tito Livraghi; John McGahan; David A Phillips; Hyunchul Rhim; Stuart G Silverman; Luigi Solbiati; Thomas J Vogl; Bradford J Wood; Suresh Vedantham; David Sacks Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Ron C Gaba; R Peter Lokken; Ryan M Hickey; Andrew J Lipnik; Robert J Lewandowski; Riad Salem; Daniel B Brown; T Gregory Walker; James E Silberzweig; Mark Otto Baerlocher; Ana Maria Echenique; Mehran Midia; Jason W Mitchell; Siddharth A Padia; Suvranu Ganguli; Thomas J Ward; Jeffrey L Weinstein; Boris Nikolic; Sean R Dariushnia Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: An Tang; Mustafa R Bashir; Michael T Corwin; Irene Cruite; Christoph F Dietrich; Richard K G Do; Eric C Ehman; Kathryn J Fowler; Hero K Hussain; Reena C Jha; Adib R Karam; Adrija Mamidipalli; Robert M Marks; Donald G Mitchell; Tara A Morgan; Michael A Ohliger; Amol Shah; Kim-Nhien Vu; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Corinne E Wessner; Colette M Shaw; Maria Stanczak; Flemming Forsberg; Andrej Lyshchik; Allison Tan; John R Eisenbrey Journal: Ultrasound Q Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 1.462