Clinically Useful Diagnostic Tool of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasonography for Focal Liver Masses: Comparison to Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

被引:29
|
作者
Ryu, Sung Woo [1 ]
Bok, Gene Hyun [1 ]
Jang, Jae Young [1 ]
Jeong, Soung Won [1 ]
Ham, Nam Seok [1 ]
Kim, Ji Hye [1 ]
Park, Eui Ju [1 ]
Kim, Jin Nyoung [1 ]
Lee, Woong Cheul [1 ]
Shim, Kwang Yeun [1 ]
Lee, Sae Hwan [1 ]
Kim, Sang Gyune [1 ]
Cha, Sang-Woo [1 ]
Kim, Young Seok [1 ]
Cho, Young Deok [1 ]
Kim, Hong Soo [1 ]
Kim, Boo Sung [1 ]
机构
[1] Soonchunhyang Univ, Soonchunhyang Univ Hosp, Coll Med, Ctr Digest Dis,Inst Digest Res,Dept Internal Med, Seoul 140743, South Korea
关键词
Contrast enhanced ultrasonography; Liver masses; HEPATOCELLULAR-CARCINOMA; ULTRASOUND; LESIONS; SONOGRAPHY; CT; BENIGN;
D O I
10.5009/gnl.2014.8.3.292
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background/Aims: To evaluate the diagnostic value of contrast (SonoVue) enhancement ultrasonography (CEUS) and to compare this method with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluating liver masses. Methods: CEUS (n=50), CT (n=47), and MRI (n=43) were performed on 50 liver masses in 48 patients for baseline mass characterization. The most likely impression for each modality and the final diagnosis, based on the combined biopsy results (n=14), angiography findings (n=36), and clinical course, were determined. The diagnostic value of CEUS was compared to those of CT and MRI. Results: The final diagnosis of the masses was hepatocellular carcinoma (n=43), hemangioma (n=3), benign adenoma (n=2), eosinophilic abscess (n=1), and liver metastasis (n=1). The overall diagnostic agreement with the final diagnosis was substantial for CEUS, CT, and MRI, with K values of 0.621, 0.763, and 0.784, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 83.3%, 87.5%, and 84.0%, respectively, for CEUS; 95.0%, 87.5%, and 93.8%, respectively, for CT; and 94.6%, 83.3%, and 93.0%, respectively for MRI. After excluding the lesions with poor acoustic sonographic windows, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for CEUS were 94.6%, 87.5%, and 93.3%, respectively, with a K value of 0.765. Conclusions: If an appropriate acoustic window is available, CEUS is comparable to CT and MRI for the diagnosis of liver masses.
引用
收藏
页码:292 / 297
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Liver metastases:Contrast-enhanced ultrasound compared with computed tomography and magnetic resonance
    Vito Cantisani
    Hektor Grazhdani
    Cristina Fioravanti
    Maria Rosignuolo
    Fabrizio Calliada
    Daniela Messineo
    Maria Giulia Bernieri
    Adriano Redler
    Carlo Catalano
    Ferdinando D’Ambrosio
    World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2014, 20 (29) : 9998 - 10007
  • [42] Liver metastases: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound compared with computed tomography and magnetic resonance
    Cantisani, Vito
    Grazhdani, Hektor
    Fioravanti, Cristina
    Rosignuolo, Maria
    Calliada, Fabrizio
    Messineo, Daniela
    Bernieri, Maria Giulia
    Redler, Adriano
    Catalano, Carlo
    D'Ambrosio, Ferdinando
    WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2014, 20 (29) : 9998 - 10007
  • [43] Magnetic resonance imaging is superior to computed tomography and ultrasonography in imaging infectious liver foci in acute leukaemia
    Anttila, VJ
    Lamminen, AE
    Bondestam, S
    Korhola, O
    Farkkila, M
    Sivonen, A
    Ruutu, T
    Ruutu, P
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY, 1996, 56 (1-2) : 82 - 87
  • [44] Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Liver
    Noterdaeme, Olivier
    Brady, Michael
    2008 30TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY SOCIETY, VOLS 1-8, 2008, : 831 - 834
  • [45] Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance, computed tomography and contrast enhanced ultrasound in radiological multimodality assessment of peribiliary liver metastases
    Granata, Vincenza
    Fusco, Roberta
    Catalano, Orlando
    Avallone, Antonio
    Palaia, Raffaele
    Botti, Gerardo
    Tatangelo, Fabiana
    Granata, Francesco
    Cascella, Marco
    Izzo, Francesco
    Petrillo, Antonella
    PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (06):
  • [46] CONTRAST ENHANCED ULTRASONOGRAPHY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF LIVER MASSES; COMPARISON TO CT AND MRI
    Jang, J. Y.
    Bok, G. H.
    Jeong, S. W.
    Lee, S. H.
    Kim, Y. D.
    Kim, S. G.
    Cheon, G. J.
    Cha, S. W.
    Kim, Y. S.
    Cho, Y. D.
    Kim, H. S.
    Kim, B. S.
    JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY, 2012, 56 : S284 - S284
  • [47] Is coronary magnetic resonance angiography already a clinically useful diagnostic tool?
    Klem, I
    Sechtem, U
    DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, 2004, 129 (50) : 2733 - 2738
  • [48] Focal Nodular Hyperplasia Within Accessory Liver: Imaging Findings at Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Dreizin, David
    Infante, Juan
    Tirada, Nikki
    Raman, Siva P.
    Madrazo, Beatrice
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2014, 38 (03) : 424 - 426
  • [49] COMPARISON OF CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASOUND VERSUS CONTRAST-ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF FOCAL LIVER LESIONS USING THE LIVER IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM
    Wang, Jia-Yu
    Feng, Shao-Yang
    Yi, Ai-Jiao
    Zhu, Di
    Xu, Jian-Wei
    Li, Jun
    Cui, Xin-Wu
    Dietrich, Christoph F.
    ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2020, 46 (05): : 1216 - 1223
  • [50] Imaging performance and clinical value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and computed tomography in the diagnosis of liver cancer
    Sun, Bolin
    Lv, Yongbin
    Xing, Dong
    Li, Jianlin
    ONCOLOGY LETTERS, 2018, 15 (05) : 7669 - 7674