These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: ESCULAP versus CEUS-LI-RADS.
    Author: Schellhaas B, Görtz RS, Pfeifer L, Kielisch C, Neurath MF, Strobel D.
    Journal: Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2017 Sep; 29(9):1036-1044. PubMed ID: 28562394.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: A comparison is made of two contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) algorithms for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients: Erlanger Synopsis of Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound for Liver lesion Assessment in Patients at Risk (ESCULAP) and American College of Radiology Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound-Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR-CEUS-LI-RADSv.2016). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Focal liver lesions in 100 high-risk patients were assessed using both CEUS algorithms (ESCULAP and CEUS-LI-RADSv.2016) for a direct comparison. Lesions were categorized according to size and contrast enhancement in the arterial, portal venous and late phases.For the definite diagnosis of HCC, categories ESCULAP-4, ESCULAP-Tr and ESCULAP-V and CEUS-LI-RADS-LR-5, LR-Tr and LR-5-V were compared. In addition, CEUS-LI-RADS-category LR-M (definitely/probably malignant, but not specific for HCC) and ESCULAP-category C [intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma (ICC)] were compared.Histology, CE-computed tomography and CE-MRI served as reference standards. RESULTS: The reference standard among 100 lesions included 87 HCCs, six ICCs and seven non-HCC-non-ICC-lesions. For the diagnosis of HCC, the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was significantly higher with ESCULAP versus CEUS-LI-RADS (94.3%/72.4%; p<0.01). Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value for ESCULAP/CEUS-LI-RADS were 94.3%/72.4%; 61.5%/69.2%; 94.3%/94%; and 61.5%/27.3%, respectively.The diagnostic accuracy for ICC (LR-M/ESCULAP-C) was identical with both algorithms (50%), with higher PPV for ESCULAP-C versus LR-M (75 vs. 50%). CONCLUSION: CEUS-based algorithms contribute toward standardized assessment and reporting of HCC-suspect lesions in high-risk patients. ESCULAP shows significantly higher diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and negative predictive value with no loss of specificity compared with CEUS-LI-RADS. Both algorithms have an excellent PPV. Arterial hyperenhancement is the key feature for the diagnosis of HCC with CEUS. Washout should not be a necessary prerequisite for the diagnosis of definite HCC. CEUS-LI-RADS in its current version is inferior to ESCULAP for the noninvasive diagnosis of HCC. There are two ways to improve CEUS-LI-RADS: firstly, combination of the categories LR-4 and LR-5 for the diagnosis of definite HCC, and secondly, use of subtotal infiltration of a liver lobe as an additional feature.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]