Differentiation of focal liver lesions: usefulness of parametric imaging with contrast-enhanced US.

PURPOSE To evaluate whether parametric imaging with contrast material-enhanced ultrasonography (US) is superior to visual assessment for the differential diagnosis of focal liver lesions (FLLs). MATERIALS AND METHODS This study had institutional review board approval, and verbal patient informed consent was obtained. Between August 2005 and October 2008, 146 FLLs in 145 patients (63 women, 82 men; mean age, 62.5 years; age range, 22-89 years) were imaged with real-time low-mechanical-index contrast-enhanced US after a bolus injection of 2.4 mL of a second-generation contrast agent. Clips showing contrast agent uptake kinetics (including arterial, portal, and late phases) were recorded and subsequently analyzed off-line with dedicated image processing software. Analysis of the dynamic vascular patterns (DVPs) of lesions with respect to adjacent parenchyma allowed mapping DVP signatures on a single parametric image. Cine loops of contrast-enhanced US and results from parametric imaging of DVP were assessed separately by three independent off-site readers who classified each lesion as benign, malignant, or indeterminate. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for both techniques. Interobserver agreement (κ statistics) was determined. RESULTS Sensitivities for visual interpretation of cine loops for the three readers were 85.0%, 77.9%, and 87.6%, which improved significantly to 96.5%, 97.3%, and 96.5% for parametric imaging, respectively (P < .05, McNemar test), while retaining high specificity (90.9% for all three readers). Accuracy scores of parametric imaging were higher than those of conventional contrast-enhanced US for all three readers (P < .001, McNemar test). Interobserver agreement increased with DVP parametric imaging compared with conventional contrast-enhanced US (change of κ from 0.54 to 0.99). CONCLUSION Parametric imaging of DVP improves diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced US in the differentiation between malignant and benign FLLs; it also provides excellent interobserver agreement.

[1]  M. Arditi,et al.  In-vivo perfusion quantification by contrast ultrasound: Validation of the use of linearized video data vs. raw RF data , 2008, 2008 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium.

[2]  J. Meuwly,et al.  7A-4 A New Method for Enhancing Dynamic Vascular Patterns of Focal Liver Lesions in Contrast Ultrasound , 2007, 2007 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium Proceedings.

[3]  Thomas Albrecht,et al.  Improved characterization of liver lesions with liver-phase uptake of liver-specific microbubbles: prospective multicenter study. , 2004, Radiology.

[4]  Hui-Xiong Xu,et al.  Real‐time Contrast‐Enhanced Ultrasound Imaging of Infected Focal Liver Lesions , 2008, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[5]  Stephanie R Wilson,et al.  An algorithm for the diagnosis of focal liver masses using microbubble contrast-enhanced pulse-inversion sonography. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  C. Harvey,et al.  Ultrasound of focal liver lesions , 2001, European Radiology.

[7]  T. Kim,et al.  Enhancement patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma at contrast-enhanced US: comparison with histologic differentiation. , 2007, Radiology.

[8]  Jie Tang,et al.  Undetermined focal liver lesions on gray‐scale ultrasound in patients with fatty liver: Characterization with contrast‐enhanced ultrasound , 2008, Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology.

[9]  Emilio Quaia,et al.  Microbubble ultrasound contrast agents: an update , 2007, European Radiology.

[10]  C. Nicolau,et al.  Importance of evaluating all vascular phases on contrast-enhanced sonography in the differentiation of benign from malignant focal liver lesions. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  C. Kalogeropoulou,et al.  Prospective multicenter trial evaluating a novel method of characterizing focal liver lesions using contrast-enhanced sonography. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  M. Sakamoto,et al.  CT of nodular hyperplasia of the liver in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. , 1991, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[13]  A. Laghi,et al.  Contrast-enhanced sonography with SonoVue: enhancement patterns of benign focal liver lesions and correlation with dynamic gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  D Becker,et al.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of focal liver lesions--diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice (DEGUM multicenter trial). , 2008, Ultraschall in der Medizin.

[15]  P. Soyer,et al.  Imaging features of nodular regenerative hyperplasia of the liver mimicking hepatic metastases , 1999, Abdominal Imaging.

[16]  C. Nicolau,et al.  Characterization of focal liver lesions: comparative study of contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus spiral computed tomography , 2007, European Radiology.

[17]  M. D’Onofrio,et al.  Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography versus baseline ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography in metastatic disease of the liver: diagnostic performance and confidence , 2006, European Radiology.

[18]  D. Sahani,et al.  Behavior of Hepatocellular Adenoma on Real‐time Low‐Mechanical Index Contrast‐Enhanced Ultrasonography With a Second‐Generation Contrast Agent , 2008, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[19]  C. Nicolau,et al.  Focal liver lesions: evaluation with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography , 2004, Abdominal Imaging.

[20]  Stephanie R Wilson,et al.  Focal liver masses: enhancement patterns on contrast-enhanced images--concordance of US scans with CT scans and MR images. , 2007, Radiology.

[21]  Emilio Quaia,et al.  Characterization of focal liver lesions with contrast-specific US modes and a sulfur hexafluoride-filled microbubble contrast agent: diagnostic performance and confidence. , 2004, Radiology.

[22]  T. Kim,et al.  Focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatic adenoma: differentiation with low-mechanical-index contrast-enhanced sonography. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  L Solbiati,et al.  Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound. January 2004. , 2004, Ultraschall in der Medizin.

[24]  Tae Kyoung Kim,et al.  Hypervascular liver masses on contrast-enhanced ultrasound: the importance of washout. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  T. Kim,et al.  Are Metastases Really Hypovascular in the Arterial Phase? , 2007, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[26]  Emilio Quaia,et al.  Effect of Observer Experience in the Differentiation Between Benign and Malignant Liver Tumors After Ultrasound Contrast Agent Injection , 2010, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[27]  Wei Yang,et al.  Focal Liver Lesions: Can SonoVue-Enhanced Ultrasound Be Used to Differentiate Malignant From Benign Lesions? , 2007, Investigative radiology.

[28]  T. Kim,et al.  Enhancement patterns of focal liver masses: discordance between contrast-enhanced sonography and contrast-enhanced CT and MRI. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[29]  C. Fellbaum,et al.  Differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma by contrast-enhanced ultrasound. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[30]  S. Laurberg,et al.  The value of contrast enhanced ultrasonography in detection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a prospective double-blinded study. , 2007, European journal of radiology.