PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis of malignancies after liver transplantation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 23 patients with suspicious liver masses after liver transplantation with initial imaging series between September 2006 and September 2015 were statistically analysed. CEUS and CT were compared in their diagnosis of malignancy with CT being the gold standard. Out of 23 patients 9 patients showed malignant masses in CT, which could also be detected in 7 out 9 of cases using CEUS.
RESULTS: CEUS showed a sensitivity of 77.8%, a specificity of 100.0%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100.0% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 87,5% in comparison with CT being the gold standard. In 2 cases CT showed a malignancy, contrary to the CEUS examination that was reported as normal.
CONCLUSION: CEUS seems to be an alternative option for the evaluation of malignant masses in liver transplant patients. CEUS shows a high specificity and PPV in the detection of malignant liver masses.
Anonymous, Ethical guidelines for publication in Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation: Update 2016, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc63(1) (2016), 1–2.
2.
BoozariB., LotzJ., GalanskiM. and GebelM., Diagnostic imaging of liver tumours. Current status, Der Internist48(1) (2007), 8, 10-2, 4-6, 8-20.
3.
ClaudonM., DietrichC.F., ChoiB.I., CosgroveD.O., KudoM., NolsoeC.P., 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, Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology39(2) (2013), 187–210.
4.
ClevertD.A., JungE.M., StockK.F., WeckbachS., FeuerbachS., ReiserM., et al., Evaluation of malignant liver tumors: Biphasic MS-CT versus quantitative contrast harmonic imaging ultrasound, Z Gastroenterol47(12) (2009), 1195–1202.
5.
GreisC., Summary of technical principles of contrast sonography and future perspectives, Der Radiologe51(6) (2011), 456–461.
6.
GreisC., Technical aspects of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) examinations: Tips and tricks, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc58(1) (2014), 89–95.
PiscagliaF. and BolondiL., Italian Society for Ultrasound in M, Biology Study Group on Ultrasound Contrast A. The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: Retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations, Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology32(9) (2006), 1369–1375.
9.
PschiererK., GrothuesD., RennertJ., da SilvaN.P., SchreyerA.G., MelterM., StroszczysnskiC. and JungE.M., Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in children with benign and malignant liver lesions and portal vein anomalies, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc61(2) (2015), 333–345.
10.
SeitzK., StrobelD., BernatikT., BlankW., Friedrich-RustM., HerbayA., et al., Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterization of focal liver lesions - prospective comparison in clinical practice: CEUS vs. CT (DEGUM multicenter trial). Parts of this manuscript were presented at the Ultrasound Dreilandertreffen 2008, Davos Ultraschall in der Medizin30(4) (2009), 383–389.
11.
Ter HaarG., Safety and bio-effects of ultrasound contrast agents, Med Biol Eng Comput47(8) (2009), 893–900.
12.
WestwoodM., JooreM., GruttersJ., RedekopK., ArmstrongN., LeeK., et al., Contrast-enhanced ultrasound using SonoVue(R) (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 Assess17(16) (2013), 1–243.
