| Literature DB >> 34809604 |
Yu Lan1,2,3, Nan Li1, Qing Song1, Ming-Bo Zhang4, Yu-Kun Luo5,6, Yan Zhang7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the correlation and agreement between superb micro-vascular imaging (SMI) mode and the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) mode for the ablative completeness and the volumes of ablation lesions to determine the clinical application value of SMI in follow-up after radiofrequency ablation.Entities:
Keywords: Ablation lesion; Agreement; Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS); Correlation; Radiofrequency ablation (RFA); Superb micro-vascular imaging (SMI); Volume measurement
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34809604 PMCID: PMC8609811 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-021-00697-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 1.930
Sonographic features of all the nodules
| Features | N | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Location | ||
| Left | 9 | 39.13 |
| Right | 14 | 60.87 |
| Isthmus | 0 | 0 |
| Composition | ||
| Cystic or almost completely cystic | 0 | 0 |
| Spongiform | 0 | 0 |
| Mixed cystic and solid | 3 | 13.04 |
| Solid or almost completely solid | 20 | 86.96 |
| Echogenicity | ||
| Anechoic | 0 | 0 |
| Hyperechoic or isoechoic | 3 | 13.04 |
| Hypoechoic | 12 | 52.17 |
| Very hypoechoic | 8 | 34.78 |
| Shape | ||
| Wider-than-tall | 4 | 17.39 |
| Taller-than-wide | 19 | 82.61 |
| Margin | ||
| Smooth | 3 | 13.04 |
| Ill-defined | 3 | 13.04 |
| Lobulated or irregular | 17 | 73.91 |
| Extra-thyroidal extension | 0 | 0 |
| Echogenic foci | ||
| None or large comet-tail artifacts | 4 | 17.39 |
| Macrocalcifications | 0 | 0 |
| Peripheral (rim) calcifications | 0 | 0 |
| Punctate echogenic foci | 19 | 82.61 |
Fig. 1The red arrow in a indicates the ablation lesion in SMI mode. No blood flow was detected in the ablation lesion. The white arrow in b indicates the ablation lesion in CEUS mode, and no contrast agent perfusion is found in the ablation lesion. The ablation volumes in SMI mode were larger than that in CEUS mode
The volumes of ablation lesions assessed by reader A and reader B in different modes
| Volume of 2D mode | Volume of SMI mode | Volume of CEUS mode | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reader A | 0.24 ± 0.19 | 0.19 ± 0.14 | 0.14 ± 0.14 |
| Reader B | 0.21 ± 0.18 | 0.17 ± 0.14 | 0.15 ± 0.17 |
| The second measurement of reader A | 0.22 ± 0.15 | 0.15 ± 0.13 | 0.13 ± 0.13 |
Fig. 2The correlation and agreement of volume measurement of the ablation lesions between in SMI mode and in CEUS mode. a, d Boxplot of repeated measurement values by reader A and reader B. b, e Scatter plot of repeated measurement values. c, f Bland–Altmann plot with the mean of repeated measurement values on the x-axes, and the difference of the measurements and their mean on the y-axis
Fig. 3Inter-observer reliability for SMI mode. a Boxplot of repeated measurement values by reader A. b Scatter plot of repeated measurement values. c Bland–Altmann plot with the mean of repeated measurement values on the x-axes, and the difference of the measurements and their mean on the y-axis
Fig. 4Intra-observer reliability for SMI mode. a Boxplot of repeated measurement values by reader A for the first examination and the second examination. b Scatter plot of repeated measurement values. c Bland–Altmann plot with the mean of repeated measurement values on the x-axes, and the difference of the measurements and their mean on the y-axis