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: Role of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound as a Second-Line Diagnostic Modality in Noninvasive Diagnostic Algorithms for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
    Author: Kang HJ, Lee JM, Yoon JH, Han JK.
    Journal: Korean J Radiol; 2021 Mar; 22(3):354-365. PubMed ID: 33236540.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and its role as a second-line imaging modality after gadoxetate-enhanced MRI (Gd-EOB-MRI) in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among at risk observations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled participants at risk of HCC with treatment-naïve solid hepatic observations (≥ 1 cm) of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LR)-3/4/5/M during surveillance and performed Gd-EOB-MRI. A total of one hundred and three participants with 103 hepatic observations (mean size, 28.2 ± 24.5 mm; HCCs [n = 79], non-HCC malignancies [n = 15], benign [n = 9]; diagnosed by pathology [n = 57], or noninvasive method [n = 46]) were included in this study. The participants underwent CEUS with sulfur hexafluoride. Arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) and washout on Gd-EOB-MRI and CEUS were evaluated. The distinctive washout in CEUS was defined as mild washout 60 seconds after contrast injection. The diagnostic ability of Gd-EOB-MRI and of CEUS as a second-line modality for HCC were determined according to the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and the Korean Liver Cancer Association and National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) guidelines. The diagnostic abilities of both imaging modalities were compared using the McNemar's test. RESULTS: The sensitivity of CEUS (60.8%) was lower than that of Gd-EOB-MRI (72.2%, p = 0.06 by EASL; 86.1%, p < 0.01 by KLCA-NCC); however, the specificity was 100%. By performing CEUS on the inconclusive observations in Gd-EOB-MRI, HCCs without APHE (n = 10) or washout (n = 12) on Gd-EOB-MRI further presented APHE (80.0%, 8/10) or distinctive washout (66.7%, 8/12) on CEUS, and more HCCs were diagnosed than with Gd-EOB-MRI alone (sensitivity: 72.2% vs. 83.5% by EASL, p < 0.01; 86.1% vs. 91.1% by KCLA-NCC, p = 0.04). There were no false-positive cases for HCC on CEUS. CONCLUSION: The addition of CEUS to Gd-EOB-MRI as a second-line diagnostic modality increases the frequency of HCC diagnosis without changing the specificities.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]