Enhancement patterns on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) help to distinguish different liver tumors.
OBJECTIVE:
Assessing the diagnostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCEUS) for the discrimination of different malignant liver lesions.
METHODS:
148 malignant focal liver lesions were assessed prospectively with DCEUS (hepatocellular carcinoma = HCC; cholangiocellular carcinoma = CCC; pancreatic adenocarcinoma = PCA; breast cancer = BC; colorectal cancer = CRC; melanoma = MM). Focal-nodular-hyperplasias (FNH) served as a reference for benign lesions. DCEUS-clips were recorded continuously over three minutes. DCEUS-values were compared between the tumor entities. For better inter-individual comparability, perfusion kinetics were analyzed considering the perfusion characteristics of the surrounding liver parenchyma (Relative Signal Intensity = RSI: lesion-liver tissue/liver tissue) at different points in time.
RESULTS:
Absolute signal intensity in FNH showed a tendency towards higher values compared with malignant liver lesions [Peak Enhancement(a.u.): FNH 7111.4; HCC 549.9; CCC −6654.3; PCA −7307.9; BC −4562.4; CRC −10672.9; MM −3034.1]. Washout was significantly less in FNH versus PCA and CRC, and more pronounced and earlier in PCA and CRC versus HCC [RSI 30 seconds after PE-lesion(%): FNH +52; PCA −65; CRC −76; HCC −26]. Rise Time, Fall Time and mean-Transit-Time did not differ significantly.
CONCLUSIONS:
DCEUS-values reflect significant differences between malignant liver lesions, especially at peak enhancement and during the washout phases.
KimTK, JangHJ. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of nodules in liver cirrhosis. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(13):3590–6.
2.
StrobelD, SeitzK, BlankW, SchulerA, DietrichCF, von HerbayA, et al. Tumor-specific vascularization pattern of liver metastasis, hepatocellular carcinoma, hemangioma and focal nodular hyperplasia in the differential diagnosis of 1,349 liver lesions in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Ultraschall Med. 2009;30(4):376–82.
3.
SeitzK, BernatikT, StrobelD, BlankW, Friedrich-RustM, StrunkH, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterization of focal liver lesions in clinical practice (DEGUM Multicenter Trial): CEUS vs. MRI–a prospective comparison in 269 patients. Ultraschall Med. 2010;31(5):492–9.
4.
StrobelD, BernatikT, BlankW, SchulerA, GreisC, DietrichCF, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in the differential diagnosis of small (< /=20mm) and subcentimetric (< /=10mm) focal liver lesions in comparison with histology. Results of the DEGUM multicenter trial. Ultraschall Med. 2011;32(6):593–7.
5.
Friedrich-RustM, KlopffleischT, NierhoffJ, HerrmannE, VermehrenJ, SchneiderMD, et al. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for thedifferentiation of benign and malignant focal liver lesions: Ameta-analysis. Liver Int. 2013;33(5):739–55.
6.
SeitzK, GreisC, SchulerA, BernatikT, BlankW, DietrichCF, et al. Frequency of tumor entities among liver tumors of unclear etiology initially detected by sonography in the noncirrhotic or cirrhotic livers of 1349 patients. Results of the DEGUM multicenter study. Ultraschall Med. 2011;32(6):598–603.
7.
WildnerD, BernatikT, GreisC, SeitzK, NeurathMF, StrobelD. CEUS in hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma in 320 patients - early or late washout matters: A subanalysis of the DEGUM multicenter trial. Ultraschall Med. 2015;36(2):132–9.
8.
BeyerLP, PreglerB, WiesingerI, StroszczynskiC, WiggermannP, JungEM. Continuous dynamic registration of microvascularization of liver tumors with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Radiol Res Pract. (2014):347416.
9.
D’OnofrioM, FaccioliN, MalagoR, ZamboniG, MucelliRP. Standardize and compare contrast-enhanced ultrasonographic digital images obtained with different technologies: How to overcome the subjectivity. J Digit Imaging. 2007;20(3):256–62.
10.
QuaiaE, AlaimoV, BaratellaE, PizzolatoR, CesterG, MedeotA, et al. Effect of observer experience in the differentiation betweenbenign and malignant liver tumors after ultrasound contrast agentinjection. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29(1):25–36.
11.
JungEM, ClevertDA, SchreyerAG, SchmittS, RennertJ, KubaleR, et al. Evaluation of quantitative contrast harmonic imaging to assess malignancy of liver tumors: A prospective controlled two-center study. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13(47):6356–64.
12.
LiR, YuanMX, MaKS, LiXW, TangCL, ZhangXH, et al. Detailed analysis of temporal features on contrastenhanced ultrasound may help differentiate intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma incirrhosis. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e98612.
13.
LiR, ZhangX, MaKS, LiXW, XiaF, ZhongH, et al. Dynamic enhancing vascular pattern of intrahepatic peripheral cholangiocarcinoma on contrast-enhanced ultrasound: The influence of chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis. Abdom Imaging. 2013;38(1):112–9.
14.
LiuGJ, WangW, LuMD, XieXY, XuHX, XuZF, et al. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for the Characterization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. Liver Cancer. 2015;4(4):241–52.
15.
WildnerD, PfeiferL, GoertzRS, BernatikT, SturmJ, NeurathMF, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) for the characterization of hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocellular carcinoma. Ultraschall Med. 2014;35(6):522–7.
16.
AnayeA, PerrenoudG, RogninN, ArditiM, MercierL, FrinkingP, et al. Differentiation of focal liver lesions: Usefulness of parametric imaging with contrast-enhanced US. Radiology. 2011;261(1):300–10.
17.
RogninNG, ArditiM, MercierL, FrinkingPJ, SchneiderM, PerrenoudG, et al. Parametric imaging for characterizing focal liver lesions in contrast-enhanced ultrasound. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2010;57(11):2503–11.
18.
YueWW, WangS, XuHX, SunLP, GuoLH, BoXW, et al. Parametric imaging with contrast-enhanced ultrasound for differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma from metastatic liver cancer. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2016;64(2):177–88.
19.
PeiXQ, LiuLZ, XiongYH, ZouRH, ChenMS, LiAH, et al. Quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography: Differentiating focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Radiol. 2013;86(1023):20120536.
20.
OhnoN, MiyatiT, YamashitaM, NarikawaM. Quantitative Assessment of Tissue Perfusion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Perflubutane Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography: A Preliminary Study. Diagnostics (Basel). 2015;5(2):210–8.
21.
CuiXW, IgneeA, JedrzejczykM, DietrichCF. Dynamic Vascular Pattern (DVP), a quantification tool for contrast enhanced ultrasound. Z Gastroenterol. 2013;51(5):427–31.
22.
SchachererD, GirlichC, WiestR, ButtnerR, ScholmerichJ, FeuerbachS, et al. Semiquantitative characterization of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)–perfusion with contrast-enhanced ultrasound and perfusion analysis. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2010;44(2):97–105.
23.
SchellhaasB, WaldnerMJ, GoertzRS, VitaliF, KielischC, PfeiferL, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver variability of Dynamic Vascular Pattern (DVP) in primary liver malignancies - A simple semiquantitative tool for the analysis of contrast enhancement patterns. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2017;66(4):317–31.
24.
PiscagliaF, CorradiF, ManciniM, GiangregorioF, TamberiS, UgoliniG, et al. Real time contrast enhanced ultrasonography in detection of liver metastases from gastrointestinal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:171.
25.
KongWT, JiZB, WangWP, CaiH, HuangBJ, DingH. Evaluation of liver metastases using contrast-enhanced ultrasound: Enhancement patterns and influencing factors. Gut Liver. 2016;10(2):283–7.
26.
DănilăM, PopescuA, SirliR, SporeaI, MartieA, SendroiuM. Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the evaluation of liver metastases. Med Ultrason. 2010;12(3):233–7.
27.
ClaudonM, DietrichCF, ChoiBI, CosgroveDO, KudoM, NolsoeCP, 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(1):11–29.
28.
GuoLH, XuHX. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Controversy over the ASSLD guideline. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:349172.
29.
ZhengSG, XuHX, LiuLN, WangY, ZhangYF, GuoLH, et al. Parametric imaging with contrast-enhanced ultrasound: Usefulness for characterization of dynamic effects of microvascularization for hepatocellular carcinoma and focal nodular hyperplasia. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2013;55(3):375–89.
30.
LuQ, XueLY, WangWP, HuangBJ, LiCX. Dynamic enhancement pattern of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma on contrast-enhanced ultrasound: The correlation with cirrhosis and tumor size. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40(6):1558–66.
31.
GalassiM, IavaroneM, RossiS, BotaS, VavassoriS, RosaL, et al. Patterns of appearance and risk of misdiagnosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis at contrast enhanced ultrasound. Liver Int. 2013;33(5):771–9.
32.
VitaliF, PfeiferL, JansonC, GoertzRS, NeurathMF, StrobelD, et al. Quantitative perfusion analysis in pancreatic contrast enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US): A promising tool for the differentiation between autoimmune pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Z Gastroenterol. 2015;53(10):1175–81.
33.
JiCL, LiXL, HeYP, LiDD, GuXG, XuHX. Quantitative parameters of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in breast invasive ductal carcinoma: The correlation with pathological prognostic factors. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2017;66(4):333–45.
34.
LassauN, BonastreJ, KindM, VilgrainV, LacroixJ, CuinetM, et al. Validation of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound in predicting outcomes of antiangiogenic therapy for solid tumors: The French multicenter support for innovative and expensive techniques study. Invest Radiol. 2014;49(12):794–800.
35.
WuZ, YangX, ChenL, WangZ, ShiY, MaoH, et al. Anti-angiogenic therapy with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in colorectal cancer patients with liver metastasis. Medicine.. 2017;96(20):e6731.
36.
HudsonJM, BaileyC, AtriM, StaniszG, MilotL, WilliamsR, et al. The prognostic and predictive value of vascular response parameters measured by dynamic contrast-enhanced-CT, -MRI and -US in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving sunitinib. Eur Radiol. (2018). doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-5220-2
37.
QuaiaE, SozziM, AngileriR, GennariAG, CovaMA. Time-Intensity Curves obtained after microbubble injection can be used to differentiate responders from nonresponders among patients with clinically active crohn disease after 6 Weeks of pharmacologic treatment. Radiology. 2016;281(2):606–16.
38.
BoXW, XuHX, GuoLH, SunLP, LiXL, ZhaoCK, et al. Ablative safety margin depicted by fusion imaging with post-treatment contrast-enhanced ultrasound and pre-treatment CECT/CEMRI after radiofrequency ablation for liver cancers. Br J Radiol. 2017;90(1078)20170063.
39.
WangH, LutzAM, HristovD, TianL, WillmannJK. Intra-Animal Comparison between Three-dimensional Molecularly Targeted US and Three-dimensional Dynamic Contrast-enhanced US for Early Antiangiogenic Treatment Assessment in Colon Cancer. Radiology. 2017;282(2):443–52.
40.
ShahA, BushN, BoxG, EcclesS, BamberJ. Value of combining dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound and optoacoustic tomography for hypoxia imaging. Photoacoustics. 8 (2017):15–27.
