Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has been used as an additional imaging technique in order to clarify rare focal splenic lesions (FSL). CEUS is a safe and cost-effective modality for assessment of perfusion.
OBJECTIVE:
To validate contrast enhancement pattern and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in unclear FSL.
METHODS:
CEUS examinations of the spleen in 50 patients between 2012 and 2018 were included in the study. Examinations were performed using B-mode, colour-coded Doppler ultrasound (CCDS) and CEUS after injection of sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles and interpreted in consensus by two experienced radiologists. Reference standard was defined as histopathological report and clinical course (treatment response, long term follow up).
RESULTS:
All patients were successfully examined by CEUS without an adverse reaction. CEUS presented the correct differentiation of benign and malignant alterations in 49/50 (98%). Lesion washout was found in all malignant but also 16.7% of all benign lesions. Matched to the histopathological report and clinical follow up, CEUS represented a sensitivity of 100% (95% -CI, 57–100), a specificity of 98% (95% -CI, 88–100), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 83% (95% -CI, 44–97) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% (95% -CI, 92–100).
CONCLUSION:
CEUS may provide additional information by visualization of dynamic contrast enhancement pattern to differentiate benign and malignant lesions. Nevertheless, established criteria for malignancy (early enhancement or washout) in FSL should be considered with caution since they are also found in benign lesions.
SidhuP, CantisaniV, DietrichC, GiljaO, SaftoiuA, BartelsE, et al.The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations for the Clinical Practice of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in Non-Hepatic Applications: Update 2017 (Long Version). Ultraschall der Medizin –Eur J Ultrasound. 2018;39(02):e2–44. 10.1055/a-0586-1107
2.
HuntCH, HartmanRP, HesleyGK. Frequency and Severity of Adverse Effects of Iodinated and Gadolinium Contrast Materials: Retrospective Review of 456,930 Doses. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(4):1124–7. 10.2214/AJR.09.2520
3.
SoyeJA, MullanCP, PorterS, BeattieH, BarltropAH, NelsonWM. The use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterisation of focal liver lesions. Ulster Med J. 2007;76(1):22–5.
4.
QuaiaE, StaculF, GaianiS, RicciP, PassarielloR, CurzioD, et al.Comparison of diagnostic performance of unenhanced vs SonoVue – enhanced ultrasonography in focal liver lesions characterization. The experience of three Italian centers. Radiol Med. 2004;108(1-2):71–81.
5.
ClaudonM, CosgroveD, AlbrechtT, BolondiL, BosioM, CalliadaF, et al.Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) – update 2008. Ultraschall Med. 2008;29(1):28–44.
6.
AbbottRM, LevyAD, AgulieraNS, et al.From the archives of the AFIP. Primary vascular neoplasms of the spleen: Radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2004;24:1137–63.
7.
GörgC, BertT. Contrast-enhanced sonography of focal splenic lesions with a second-generation contrast agent. Ultraschall in Med. 2005;26:470–7.
8.
SeitzK, StrobelD, BernatikT, et al.Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for the Characterization of Focal Liver Lesions – Prospective Comparison in Clinical Practice: CEUS vs. CT (DEGUM Multicenter Trial). Ultraschall in Med. 2009;30:383–9.
9.
SeitzK, BernatikT, StrobelD, et al.Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) for the Characterization of Focal Liver Lesions (DEGUM Multicenter Trial) – CEUS vs. MRI – a Prospective Comparison in 269 Patients. Ultraschall in Med. 2010;31:492–9.
10.
PiscagliaF, NolsoeC, DietrichCF, et al.The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): Update 2011 on non-hepatic Applications. Ultraschall in Med. 2011, epub ahead of print.
11.
LimAK, PatelN, EckersleyRJ, et al.Evidence for spleen-specific uptake of a microbubble contrast agent: A quantitative study in healthy volunteers. Radiology. 2004;231:785–8.
12.
OmarA, FreemanS, Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the spleen. Ultrasound. 2016;24:41–>9.
13.
StangA, KelesH, HentschkeS, von SeydewitzCU, DahlkeJ, HabermannC, et al.Incidentally detected splenic lesions in ultrasound: Does contrast-enhanced ultrasonography improve the differentiation of benign hemangioma/hamartoma from malignant lesions?. Ultraschall Med. 2011;6:582–92.
14.
FerrozziF, BovaD, DraghiF, et al.CT findings in primary vascular tumors of the spleen. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166:1097–101.
15.
RabushkaLS, KawashimaA, FishmanEK. Imaging of the spleen: CT with supplemental MR examination. Radiographics. 1994;14:307–32.
16.
LunaA, RibesR, CaroP, et al.MRI of focal splenic lesions without and with dynamic gadolinium enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:1533–47.
17.
SchwarzeV, LindnerF, MarschnerC, et al.Single-center study: The diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for assessing focal splenic lesions compared to CT and MRI. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2019:Sep 20. doi: 10.3233/CH-199204.
18.
YuX, YuJ, LiangP, et al.Real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diagnosing of focal spleen lesions. Eur J Radiol. 2011;25.01 2011, Epub ahead of print.
19.
McGahanJP, HortonS, GercovichEO, et al.Appearance of solid organ injury with contrast-enhanced sonography in blunt andominal trauma: Preliminary experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:658–66.
20.
CatalanoO, LobiancoR, SandomenicoF, et al.Real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the spleen: Examination technique and preliminary clinical experience. Radiol Med. 2003;106:338–56.
21.
SeegerM, FölschUR. Diagnosis of acute splenic infarction by echo-enhanced ultrasound. Dtsch MedWochenschr. 2004;129:876–9.
22.
RübenthalerJ, PaprottkaK, MarconJ, HameisterE, HoffmannK, JoikoN, et al.Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the evaluation of unclear solid renal lesions. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2016;64(4):757–63. 10.3233/CH-168034.
23.
BeyerLP, WassermannF, PreglerB, et al.Characterization of Focal Liver Lesions using CEUS and MRI with Liver-Specific Contrast Media: Experience of a Single Radiologic Center. Ultraschall in Med. 2017;38:619–25.
24.
CaremaniM, OcchiniU, CaremaniA, et al.Focal splenic lesions: US findings. J Ultrasound. 2013;16:65–74.
25.
BachmannC, GörgC. The value of B-mode and colour Doppler sonography in the diagnosis of focal splenic lesions. Ultraschall Med. 2004;25:444–7.
26.
WanYL, CheungYC, LuiKW, et al.Ultrasonographic findings and differentiation of benign and malignant focal splenic lesions. Postgraduate Medical Journal. 2000;76:488–93.
27.
SutherlandT, TempleF, GalvinA, HennessyO. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the spleen: An introduction and pictorial essay. Insights Imaging. 2011;2:515–24.
HopkinsACD, AntypaEG, PiperopolusPN. Contrast enhanced sonographic study of the spleen. Hellenic Journal of Radiology. 2017;2:49–65.
30.
ChioreanL, ZdrengheaM, BadeaR. Ultrasonography of the spleen. Pictorial essay. Med Ultrason. 2014;16:48–59.
31.
von HerbayA, BarreirosAP, IgneeA, WestendorffJ, GregorM, GallePR, et al.Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with SonoVue: Differentiation between benign and malignant lesions of the spleen. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28:421–34.
32.
LunaAVJ, da CruzLCJr., RossiSE. Functional Imaging in Oncology. Clinical Applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014.
33.
PawluśA, InglotMS, SzymańskaK, et al.Shear wave elastography of the spleen: Evaluation of spleen stiffness in healthy volunteers. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016;41(11):2169–74.
34.
MazurR, CelmerM, SilickiJ, HołowniaD, PozowskiP, MiędzybrodzkiK. Clinical applications of spleen ultrasound elastography – a review. J Ultrason. 2018;18(72):37–41.
