Roles of contrast‑enhanced ultrasound and diffusion‑weighted magnetic resonance imaging and their comparison in solid space‑occupying lesions of the liver – Microbubbles and micromovements in imaging
Article Sidebar
Views | PDF/EPUB Downloads:
3
/ 0
/ 0
Main Article Content
Abstract
Aims: This study aims to establish the role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the characterization of solid liver lesions.
Settings and Design: An analysis of 22 patients undergoing CEUS and DW MRI following identification of 1 or more solid liver lesions on conventional ultrasonography.
Subjects and Methods: The study is carried in a standard Doppler ultrasound machine with contrast ultrasound capabilities and 1.5T MRI machine over a period of 2 years from July 2015 to June 2017. After baseline US examination, a bolus of 1.0–2.4 ml of ultrasound contrast agent was administered intravenously followed by 10 ml of saline flush. CEUS images were obtained during arterial, portal venous, and delayed phases. After CEUS, patient is transferred to MRI scanning room where the DW imaging (DWI) sequence is taken. The CEUS and DW MRI diagnosis were compared to other imaging modalities, histopathology, and/or clinical follow-up after 12 months.
Statistical Analysis Used: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy rate and receiver operating characteristic analysis curve was performed using Statistical Package – SPSS ver. 17.0. Statistical evaluation of qualitative analysis between benign and malignant lesions was performed using the Fisher’s exact test.
Results: CEUS correctly identified malignant liver lesions in 13 out of 14 cases, with the final diagnosis confirmed by histopathology in 6 cases, by other imaging modalities in 7 cases and follow-up in 1 case. Eight patients were correctly identified as benign liver lesions on CEUS imaging, with all these cases confirmed on other imaging modalities and/or follow-up and two cases by histopathology. In the detection of malignancy, the sensitivity is 86.7% and specificity is 100%. On the DW images the Mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value for benign lesions is 1.5 and mean ADC value for malignant lesions is 0.7. The ADC was significantly higher in benign lesions than in malignant lesions (P < 0.01).
Conclusions: In our experience, CEUS and DWI with ADC values are highly accurate in confirming benign
lesions, early detection of malignant lesions, and metastases in known primary malignancy patients. Other
advantage of CEUS and DW MRI is that it is also cost-effective as compared to simultaneously performing
individual investigations and can be performed in renal insufficiency patients. Hence, we conclude that
CEUS and DW MRI sequence should be used in routine practice.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
1. Solbiati L, Cova L, Ierace T, Marelli P, Dellanoce M. Liver cancer imaging: The need for accurate detection of intrahepatic disease spread. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999;23 Suppl 1:S29‑37.
2. Nelson RC, Chezmar JL. Diagnostic approach to hepatic hemangiomas. Radiology 1990;176:11‑3.
3. Wang LY, Wang JH, Lin ZY, Yu ML, Lu SN, Chuang WL, et al. Hepatic focal nodular hyperplasia: Findings on color Doppler ultrasound. Abdom Imaging 1997;22:178‑81.
4. Bartolozzi C, Lencioni R. Contrast‑specific ultrasound imaging of focal liver lesions. Prologue to a promising future. Eur Radiol 2001;11 Suppl 3:E13‑4.
5. Quaia E, Calliada F, Bertolotto M, Rossi S, Garioni L, Rosa L, et al. Characterization of focal liver lesions with contrast‑specific US modes and a sulfur hexafluoride‑filled microbubble contrast agent: Diagnostic performance and confidence. Radiology 2004;232:420‑30.
6. Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, Cosgrove DO, Kudo M, Nolsøe CP, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver – Update 2012: A WFUMB‑EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultraschall Med 2013;34:11‑29.
7. Claudon M, Cosgrove D, Albrecht T, Bolondi L, Bosio M, Calliada F, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) – Update 2008. Ultraschall Med 2008;29:28‑44.
8. Westwood M, Joore M, Grutters J, Redekop K, Armstrong N, Lee K, et al. Contrast‑enhanced ultrasound using SonoVue® (sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles) compared with contrast‑enhanced computed tomography and contrast‑enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the characterisation of focal liver lesions and detection of liver metastases: A systematic review and cost‑effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2013;17:1‑243.
9. Cosgrove D, Harvey C. Clinical uses of microbubbles in diagnosis and treatment. Med Biol Eng Comput 2009;47:813‑26.
10. Molins IG, Font JM, Alvaro JC, Navarro JL, Gil MF, Rodríguez CM, et al. Contrast‑enhanced ultrasound in diagnosis and characterization of focal hepatic lesions. World J Radiol 2010;2:455‑62.
11. Taouli B, Koh DM. Diffusion‑weighted MR imaging of the liver. Radiology 2010;254:47‑66.
12. Grobner T. Gadolinium – A specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21:1104‑8.
13. Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K, Dupont A, Damholt MB, Heaf JG, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: Suspected causative role of gadodiamide used for contrast‑enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006;17:2359‑62.
14. Sadowski EA, Bennett LK, Chan MR, Wentland AL, Garrett AL, Garrett RW, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: Risk factors and incidence estimation. Radiology 2007;243:148‑57.
15. Thomsen HS, Marckmann P, Logager VB. Update on nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2008;16:551‑60, vii.
16. Malayeri AA, El Khouli RH, Zaheer A, Jacobs MA, Corona‑Villalobos CP, Kamel IR, et al. Principles and applications of diffusion‑weighted imaging in cancer detection, staging, and treatment follow‑up. Radiographics 2011;31:1773‑91.
17. Hosny IA. Diffusion MRI of focal liver lesions. Pak J Radiol 2010;20:1‑7.
18. Piscaglia F, Bolondi L; Italian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (SIUMB) Study Group on Ultrasound Contrast Agents. The safety of SonoVue in abdominal applications: Retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound Med Biol 2006;32:1369‑75.
19. Lim AK, Patel N, Eckersley RJ, Taylor‑Robinson SD, Cosgrove DO, Blomley MJ. Evidence for spleen‑specific uptake of a microbubble contrast agent: A quantitative study in healthy volunteers. Radiology 2004;231:785‑8.
20. Bhayana D, Kim TK, Jang HJ, Burns PN, Wilson SR. Hypervascular liver masses on contrast‑enhanced ultrasound: The importance of washout. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:977‑83.
21. Dietrich CF, Ignee A, Trojan J, Fellbaum C, Schuessler G. Improved characterisation of histologically proven liver tumours by contrast enhanced ultrasonography during the portal venous and specific late phase of SHU 508A. Gut 2004;53:401‑5.
22. Wilson SR, Burns PN. An algorithm for the diagnosis of focal liver masses using microbubble contrast‑enhanced pulse‑inversion sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:1401‑12.
23. Guang Y, Xie L, Ding H, Cai A, Huang Y. Diagnosis value of focal liver lesions with SonoVue®‑enhanced ultrasound compared with contrast‑enhanced computed tomography and contrast‑enhanced MRI: A meta‑analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2011;137:1595‑605.
24. von Herbay A, Vogt C, Häussinger D. Late‑phase pulse‑inversion sonography using the contrast agent Levovist: Differentiation between benign and malignant focal lesions of the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1273‑9.
25. Xu HX, Chen LD, Liu LN, Zhang YF, Guo LH, Liu C. Contrast‑enhanced ultrasound of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Correlation with pathological examination. Br J Radiol 2012;85:1029‑37.
26. Namimoto T, Yamashita Y, Sumi S, Tang Y, Takahashi M. Focal liver masses: Characterization with diffusion‑weighted echo‑planar MR imaging. Radiology 1997;204:739‑44.
27. Talati K, Lee KS. Magnetic resonance imaging of hepatic abscesses. Semin Roentgenol 2017;52:73‑82.
28. Leoni S, Piscaglia F, Golfieri R, Camaggi V, Vidili G, Pini P, et al. The impact of vascular and nonvascular findings on the noninvasive diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma based on the EASL and AASLD criteria. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:599‑609.