Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced sonography of hepatic tumors

Liver tumors are defined using quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound compared to histological diagnosis, respectively, long-term follow-ups. Forty-two focal liver lesions in 39 patients were examined by contrast harmonic imaging over a period of 2 min after bolus injection of 10-ml galactose-based contrast agent. Vascular enhancement was quantified by using a dedicated software that allowed us to place representative regions of interest (ROI) in the center of the lesion, in the complete lesion, in regular liver parenchyma and in representative liver vessels (artery, vein and portal vein). Peak enhancement was judged to be either in the arterial, portal venous or in the late phase of liver perfusion. The lesion was described as hypovascular, isovascular and hypervascular compared to liver parenchyma. Contrast uptake was described as centrifugal or centripetal and peripheral or homogenous, respectively. Characterization of the lesions was performed unenhanced and after contrast by four independent specialists unaware of histology. Diagnosis of malignancy was evaluated by using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, also overall accuracy, average sensitivity, specificity and negative and positive predictive values were calculated. Interobserver agreement was defined by the Kappa statistics. Histologic examination revealed 29 malignant [hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), n=11; cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCC), n=1; lymphoma, n=1; metastases, n=16)] and 7 benign [hemangioma, n=1; focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH), n=4, adenoma, n=2)] lesions. Six benign lesions (hemangioma n=1; FNH n=5) were proved by long-term follow-up. ROC analysis regarding the diagnosis of malignancy showed values from 0.43 to 0.62 (mean 0.57) before and from 0.70 to 0.80 (mean 0.75) after contrast agent, respectively. The average values for sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and negative and positive predictive values were 66, 26, 62, 45 and 73% unenhanced and 83, 49, 73, 65 and 82% after contrast, respectively. The interobserver agreement was 0.54 and 0.65 for unenhanced and enhanced examinations, respectively. Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced sonography improves the diagnosis of malignancy in liver lesions.

[1]  C. Bartolozzi,et al.  Differentiation of hepatocellular adenoma and focal nodular hyperplasia of the liver: comparison of power Doppler imaging and conventional color Doppler sonography , 1997, European Radiology.

[2]  F Lodi Rizzini,et al.  [A high-resolution computed tomographic study of the pulmonary interstitium in systemic autoimmune diseases]. , 1994, La Radiologia medica.

[3]  K. P. Lee,et al.  Hepatic Focal Nodular Hyperplasia: Findings with Color Doppler Sonography , 1993, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[4]  Emilio Quaia,et al.  Characterization of liver hemangiomas with pulse inversion harmonic imaging , 2002, European Radiology.

[5]  S. Torrubia,et al.  Doppler in hepatic cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis. , 2002, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[6]  Fabio Piscaglia,et al.  Assessment of vascular patterns of small liver mass lesions: value and limitation of the different Doppler ultrasound modalities , 2000, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[7]  E. Hahn,et al.  Clinical evaluation of contrast‐enhanced color Doppler sonography in the differential diagnosis of liver tumors , 2000 .

[8]  Sachiko Tanaka,et al.  Effectiveness of galactose-based intravenous contrast medium on color Doppler sonography of deeply located hepatocellular carcinoma. , 1995, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[9]  R. Luypaert,et al.  Benign liver lesions: differentiation by magnetic resonance. , 1999, European journal of radiology.

[10]  I. Ellis,et al.  Is ipsilateral mammography worthwhile in Paget's disease of the breast? , 1996, Clinical radiology.

[11]  K J Wolf,et al.  Phase-inversion sonography during the liver-specific late phase of contrast enhancement: improved detection of liver metastases. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  D. Cosgrove Ultrasound contrast enhancement of tumours. , 1996, Clinical radiology.

[13]  B. Barbaro,et al.  Color Doppler ultrasonography in the differential diagnosis of focal hepatic lesions. The SH U 508 A (Levovist) experience. , 1994, La Radiologia medica.

[14]  M. Fujita,et al.  Color Doppler flow imaging of liver tumors. , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  L. Dalla Palma,et al.  Characterization of unifocal liver lesions with pulse inversion harmonic imaging after Levovist injection: preliminary results , 2000, European Radiology.

[16]  H. Mischinger,et al.  Sonographic evaluation of focal nodular hyperplasias (FNH) of the liver with a transpulmonary galactose-based contrast agent (Levovist). , 1998, The British journal of radiology.

[17]  N de Jong,et al.  Ultrasound contrast imaging: current and new potential methods. , 2000, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[18]  C F Beaulieu,et al.  Focal liver lesions: pattern-based classification scheme for enhancement at arterial phase CT. , 2000, Radiology.

[19]  P. Burns,et al.  Harmonic hepatic US with microbubble contrast agent: initial experience showing improved characterization of hemangioma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and metastasis. , 2000, Radiology.

[20]  J. Tsai,et al.  Hepatic focal nodular hyperplasia: findings on color Doppler ultrasound , 1997, Abdominal Imaging.

[21]  P. Burns,et al.  Focal hepatic masses: enhancement patterns with SH U 508A and pulse-inversion US. , 2002, Radiology.

[22]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[23]  E. Kim,et al.  Ultrasonographic evaluation of focal hepatic lesions: comparison of pulse inversion harmonic, tissue harmonic, and conventional imaging techniques. , 2000, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[24]  Yu-xin Jiang,et al.  [Ultrasound contrast agents in liver imaging]. , 2002, Zhongguo yi xue ke xue yuan xue bao. Acta Academiae Medicinae Sinicae.

[25]  J. Healy,et al.  MnDPDP enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of focal liver lesions. , 2002, Clinical radiology.

[26]  D O Cosgrove,et al.  Do different types of liver lesions differ in their uptake of the microbubble contrast agent SH U 508A in the late liver phase? Early experience. , 2001, Radiology.

[27]  R. Schlief Developments in echo-enhancing agents. , 1996, Clinical Radiology.

[28]  N. Hosten,et al.  Contrast‐enhanced power Doppler sonography: Improved detection of characteristic flow patterns in focal liver lesions , 1999, Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU.

[29]  B. I. Choi,et al.  Improved imaging of hepatic metastases with delayed pulse inversion harmonic imaging using a contrast agent SH U 508A: preliminary study. , 2000, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[30]  C. McArdle,et al.  Improved characterisation of focal liver tumours: dynamic power Doppler imaging using NC100100 echo-enhancer. , 2000, European journal of ultrasound : official journal of the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology.

[31]  Sachiko Tanaka,et al.  Dynamic sonography of hepatic tumors. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[32]  R. Farina,et al.  [Hepatic focal lesions: role of color Doppler ultrasonography with contrast media]. , 1998, La Radiologia medica.

[33]  丸山紀史 Enhanced Color Flow Images in Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma(超音波造影剤を用いたカラードプラ法による肝腫瘍血流の解析) , 1998 .

[34]  D. Cosgrove,et al.  Pulse-inversion mode imaging of liver specific microbubbles: improved detection of subcentimetre metastases , 2000, The Lancet.