6533b85dfe1ef96bd12be9b5
RESEARCH PRODUCT
Characterisation of focal liver lesions undetermined at grey-scale US: contrast-enhanced US versus 64-row MDCT and MRI with liver-specific contrast agent
Tommaso Vincenzo BartolottaAdele TaibbiMassimo MidiriL La GruttaMarcello De MariaRoberto LagallaLudovico La Gruttasubject
AdultMalemedicine.medical_specialtyAdolescentBiopsymedia_common.quotation_subjectBiopsy Fine-NeedleContrast MediaGrey scaleSensitivity and SpecificityContrast-enhanced sonography Liver Ultrasound Contrast media NeoplasmsPredictive Value of TestsMultidetector computed tomographymedicineHumansContrast (vision)Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imagingcardiovascular diseasesAgedUltrasonographymedia_commonNeuroradiologyAged 80 and overmedicine.diagnostic_testbusiness.industryLiver DiseasesLiver NeoplasmsUltrasoundMagnetic resonance imagingInterventional radiologyGeneral MedicineMiddle AgedMagnetic Resonance ImagingFOCAL LIVER LESION CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASOUNDcardiovascular systemFemaleRadiologyUltrasonographySettore MED/36 - Diagnostica Per Immagini E RadioterapiaTomography X-Ray Computedbusinessdescription
The aim of this study was to assess the role of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in the characterisation of focal liver lesions in comparison with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with liver-specific contrast agent.One hundred and eighty-seven focal liver lesions, 91 malignant and 96 benign (mean size 3.2 cm) - proved by biopsy (n=12), histology (n=4), MDCT (n=108), MRI (n=44) MDCT/MRI (n=19) - in 159 patients were studied by CEUS. Two expert radiologists consensually evaluated the contrast-enhancement patterns at CEUS. For each lesion, they assessed: (a) nature (benign, malignant, not assessable), (b) specific diagnosis and (c) need for further radiological evaluation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and diagnostic accuracy of CEUS were calculated.A total of 167/187 (89.3%) lesions were correctly assessed as benign or malignant at CEUS, whereas 14/187 (7.5%) lesions remained undetermined and 6/187 (3.2%) were incorrectly assessed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and diagnostic accuracy of CEUS were, respectively, 89%, 89.6%, 89%, 89.6% and 89.3%. The need for further radiological evaluation decreased to 46/187 (24.6%) lesions after CEUS (p0.001).In selected cases, CEUS can be considered an effective alternative to MDCT and MRI and reduce the need for further radiological workup.
year | journal | country | edition | language |
---|---|---|---|---|
2010-01-15 | La radiologia medica |