Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) For The Evaluation Of Focal Liver Lesions – A Prospective Multicenter Study Of Its Usefulness In Clinical Practice

I. Sporea; R. Badea; A. Popescu; Z. Spârchez; R. L. Şirli; M. Dănilă; L. Săndulescu; S. Bota; D. P. Calescu; D. Nedelcu; C. Brisc; L. Ciobâca; L. Gheorghe; M. Socaciu; A. Martie; S. Ioaniţescu; A. Tamas; C. T. Streba; M. Iordache; I. Simionov; M. Jinga; A. Anghel; C. Cijevschi Prelipcean; C. Mihai; S. M. Stanciu; D. Stoicescu; E. Dumitru; C. Pietrareanu; D. Bartos; R. Manzat Saplacan; I. Pârvulescu; R. Vădan; G. Smira; L. Tuţă; A. Săftoiu

doi:10.1055/s-0033-1355728

Ultraschall in der Medizin - European Journal of Ultrasound, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Ultraschall Med 2014; 35(3): 259-266
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1355728

Original Article

Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) For The Evaluation Of Focal Liver Lesions – A Prospective Multicenter Study Of Its Usefulness In Clinical Practice

Kontrastverstärkte Sonografie zur Bewertung von fokalen Leberläsionen – eine prospektive Multizenter-Studie und deren Nutzen in der klinischen Praxis

Autoren

I. Sporea

¹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babeş” Timişoara, Romania
R. Badea

²Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology "Prof. Dr. Octavian Fodor", University of Medicine and Pharmacy ”Iuliu Hatieganu” Cluj Napoca, Romania
A. Popescu

¹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babeş” Timişoara, Romania
Z. Spârchez

²Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology "Prof. Dr. Octavian Fodor", University of Medicine and Pharmacy ”Iuliu Hatieganu” Cluj Napoca, Romania
R. L. Şirli

¹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babeş” Timişoara, Romania
M. Dănilă

¹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babeş” Timişoara, Romania
L. Săndulescu

³Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Craiova, Romania
S. Bota

¹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babeş” Timişoara, Romania
D. P. Calescu

⁴Department of Gastroenterology, Emergency Hospital Floreasca, Bucharest, Romania
D. Nedelcu

⁵Delta Promedical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
C. Brisc

⁶Department of Gastroenterology, University of Oradea, Romania
L. Ciobâca

⁷1st Medical Department, Central Military Emergency University Hospital “Dr. Carol Davila”, Bucharest, Romania
L. Gheorghe

⁸IIIrd Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Clinical Institute Fundeni, Bucharest, Romania
M. Socaciu

²Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology "Prof. Dr. Octavian Fodor", University of Medicine and Pharmacy ”Iuliu Hatieganu” Cluj Napoca, Romania
A. Martie

¹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babeş” Timişoara, Romania
S. Ioaniţescu

⁹Center of Internal Medicine, Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania
A. Tamas

¹⁰Department of Anatomy and Embriology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy ”Iuliu Hatieganu” Cluj Napoca, Romania
C. T. Streba

³Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Craiova, Romania
M. Iordache

⁷1st Medical Department, Central Military Emergency University Hospital “Dr. Carol Davila”, Bucharest, Romania
I. Simionov

⁸IIIrd Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Clinical Institute Fundeni, Bucharest, Romania
M. Jinga

⁷1st Medical Department, Central Military Emergency University Hospital “Dr. Carol Davila”, Bucharest, Romania
A. Anghel

⁷1st Medical Department, Central Military Emergency University Hospital “Dr. Carol Davila”, Bucharest, Romania
C. Cijevschi Prelipcean

¹¹Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, "Grigore T. Popa" University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iaşi, Romania
C. Mihai

¹¹Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, "Grigore T. Popa" University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iaşi, Romania
S. M. Stanciu

⁷1st Medical Department, Central Military Emergency University Hospital “Dr. Carol Davila”, Bucharest, Romania
D. Stoicescu

⁷1st Medical Department, Central Military Emergency University Hospital “Dr. Carol Davila”, Bucharest, Romania
E. Dumitru

¹²Department of Gastroenterology, University of Constanta, Romania
C. Pietrareanu

⁸IIIrd Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Clinical Institute Fundeni, Bucharest, Romania
D. Bartos

¹³Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Emergency Hospital Floreasca, Bucharest, Romania
R. Manzat Saplacan

¹⁴Ist, Medical Clinic, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu” Cluj-Napoca, Cluj Napoca, Romania
I. Pârvulescu

⁸IIIrd Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Clinical Institute Fundeni, Bucharest, Romania
R. Vădan

⁸IIIrd Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Clinical Institute Fundeni, Bucharest, Romania
G. Smira

⁸IIIrd Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Clinical Institute Fundeni, Bucharest, Romania
L. Tuţă

¹²Department of Gastroenterology, University of Constanta, Romania
A. Săftoiu

³Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Craiova, Romania

¹⁵Gastrointestinal Unit, Copenhagen University, Hospital Herlev, Copenhagen, Denmark

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for differentiating malignant from benign focal liver lesions (FLLs) and for diagnosing different FLL types.

Material and Methods: CEUS performed in 14 Romanian centers was prospectively collected between February 2011 and June 2012. The inclusion criteria were: age > 18 years; patients diagnosed with 1 – 3 de novo FLLs on B-mode ultrasound; reference method (computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or biopsy) available; patient’s informed consent. FLL lesions were characterized during CEUS according to the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology guidelines. For statistical analysis, indeterminate FLLs at CEUS were rated as false classifications.

Results: A total number of 536 cases were included in the final analysis, 344 malignant lesions (64.2 %) and 192 benign lesions (35.8 %). The reference method was: CT/MRI – 379 cases (70.7 %), pathological exam – 150 cases (27.9 %) and aspiration of liver abscesses – 7 cases (1.4 %). CEUS was conclusive in 89.3 % and inconclusive in 10.7 % of cases. To differentiate between malignant and benign FLLs, CEUS had 85.7 % sensitivity, 85.9 % specificity, 91.6 % positive predictive value, 77.1 % negative predictive value and 85.8 % accuracy. The CEUS accuracy for differentiation between malignant and benign liver lesions was similar in tumors with diameter ≤ 2 cm and those with diameter > 2 cm.

Conclusion: CEUS represents a useful method in clinical practice for differentiating between malignant and benign FLLs detected on standard ultrasonography, and the results of this study are in concordance with previous multicenter studies: DEGUM (Germany) and STIC (France).

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Bewertung des kontrastverstärkten Ultraschalls (CEUS) zur Differenzierung zwischen malignen und gutartigen fokalen Leberläsionen (FLL) und bei der Diagnose verschiedener FLL-Typen.

Material und Methoden: CEUS wurde in 14 rumänischen Zentren von Februar 2011 bis Juni prospektiv durchgeführt und erfasst. Die Einschlusskriterien waren: Alter > 18 Jahre; Diagnose von 1 – 3 FLL de novo im B-Bild; verfügbare Referenzmethode (Computertomografie – CT, Magnetresonanz-Tomografie – MRT oder Biopsie); Einverständniserklärung des Patienten („informed consent“). Die FLL-Läsionen wurden während des CEUS gemäß den Richtlinien der „European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology“ charakterisiert. Für die statistische Auswertung wurden durch CEUS nicht bestimmbare FLLs als falsche Klassifizierungen gewertet.

Ergebnisse: Insgesamt wurden 536 Fälle in die Endanalyse eingeschlossen, 344 maligne (64,2 %) und 192 benigne Läsionen (35,8 %). Die Referenzmethoden waren: CT/MRT – 379 Fälle (70,7 %), pathologische Untersuchung – 150 Fälle (27,9 %) und Aspiration von Leberabszessen – 7 Fälle (1,4 %). In 89,3 % der Fälle war CEUS eindeutig und in 10,7 % nicht eindeutig. Bei der Differenzierung zwischen malignen und gutartigen FLLs betrug die Sensitivität des CEUS 85,7 %, die Spezifität 85,9 %, der positive Vorhersagewert 91,6 %, der negative Vorhersagewert 77,1 % und die Genauigkeit 85,8 %. Die Genauigkeit des CEUS bei der Differenzierung zwischen malignen und benignen Leberläsionen war bei Tumoren mit einem Durchmesser von < 2 cm und > 2 cm Durchmesser gleich.

Schlussfolgerung: CEUS ist in der klinischen Praxis eine nützlich, um maligne und benigne FLL, die in einer Standard-US-Untersuchung entdeckt wurden, zu differenzieren. Die Ergebnisse dieser Studie stimmen mit früheren Multizenter-Studien aus Deutschland (DEGUM) und Frankreich (STIC) überein.

Key words

contrast-enhanced ultrasound - focal liver lesions - liver tumor

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Rumack CM, Wilson SR, Charboneau JW et al. Diagnostic ultrasound. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2005: 121-293
2 Strobel D, Raeker S, Martus P et al. Phase inversion harmonic imaging versus contrast-enhanced power Doppler sonography for the characterization of focal liver lesions. Int J Colorectal Dis 2003; 18: 63-72
3 Albrecht T, Blomley M, Bolondi L et al. Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound. Ultraschall in Med 2004; 25: 249-256
4 Claudon M, Cosgrove D, Albrecht T et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) – update 2008. Ultraschall in Med 2008; 29: 28-44
5 Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI 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 Med Biol 2013; 39: 187-210
6 Strobel D, Seitz K, Blank W et al. Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound for the Characterization of Focal Liver Lesions-Diagnostic Accuracy in Clinical Practice (DEGUM multicenter trial). Ultraschall in Med 2008; 29: 499-505
7 Tranquart F, Le Gouge A, Correas JM et al. Role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the blinded assessment of focal lesions in comparison with MDCT and CEMRI: Results from a multicentre clinical trial. EJC 2008; 9-15
8 Giorgio A, Calisti G, Giorgio V. CEUS and HCC: Are the 2008 EFSUMB Guidelines Still Valid or Has Their Wash-Out Already Started?. Ultraschall in Med 2011; 32: 315-316
9 Sporea I, Badea R, Martie A et al. Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound for the evaluation of focal liver lesions in daily practice. A multicentre study. Med Ultrason 2012; 14: 95-100
10 Jakobsen JA, Oyen R, Thomsen HS et al. Safety of ultrasound contrast agents. Eur Radiol 2005; 15: 941-945
11 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: 1369-1375
12 Dillman JR, Ellis JH, Cohan RH et al. Frequency and severity of acute allergic-like reactions to gadolinium-containing i. v. contrast media in children and adults. Am J Roentgenol Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 1533-1538
13 Tranquart F, Correas JM, Ladam MV et al. Real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the evaluation of focal liver lesions: diagnostic efficacy and economical issues from a French multicentric study. J Radiol 2009; 90: 109-122
14 Sirli R, Sporea I, Martie A et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound in focal liver lesions--a cost efficiency study. Med Ultrason 2010; 12: 280-285
15 www.nice.org.uk/dg5
16 Schuler A, Reuss J, Delorme S et al. Costs of clinical ultrasound examinations - an economical cost calculation and analysis. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 379-386
17 Strobel D, Bernatik T, Blank W et al. Diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in the differential diagnosis of small (≤ 20 mm) and subcentimetric (≤ 10 mm) focal liver lesions in comparison with histology. Results of the DEGUM multicenter trial. Ultraschall in Med 2011; 32: 593-597
18 Xie L, Guang Y, Ding H et al. Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for focal liver lesions: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011; 37: 854-861
19 Friedrich-Rust M, Klopffleisch T, Nierhoff J et al. Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound forthe differentiation of benign and malignant focal liver lesions: a meta-analysis. Liver Int 2013; 33: 739-755
20 Boozari B, Soudah B, Rifai K et al. Grading of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma using late phase of contrast enhanced sonography – a prospective study. Dig Liver Dis 2011; 43: 484-490
21 Dai Y, Chen MH, Fan ZH et al. Diagnosis of small hepatic nodules detected by surveillance ultrasound in patients with cirrhosis: Comparison between contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced helical computed tomography. Hepatol Res 2008; 38: 281-290
22 Liu LP, Dong BW, Yu XL et al. Evaluation of focal fatty infiltration of the liver using color Doppler and contrast-enhanced sonography. J Clin Ultrasound 2008; 36: 560-566
23 Piscaglia F, Venturi A, Mancini M et al. Diagnostic features of real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound in focal nodular hyperplasia of the liver. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 276-282
24 Sirli R, Sporea I, Popescu A et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound for the diagnosis of liver hemangiomas in clinical practice. Med Ultrason 2011; 13: 95-101
25 Cabassa P, Bipat S, Longaretti L et al. Liver metastases: Sulphur hexafluoride-enhanced ultrasonography for lesion detection: a systematic review. Ultrasound Med Biol 2010; 36: 1561-1567
26 Forner A, Vilana R, Ayuso C et al. Diagnosis of hepatic nodules 20 mm or smaller in cirrhosis: Prospective validation of the noninvasive diagnostic criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2008; 47: 97-104
27 Xu HX, Xie XY, Lu MD et al. Contrast-enhanced sonography in the diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma < or =2 cm. J Clin Ultrasound 2008; 36: 257-266
28 Bruix J, Sherman M. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 2011; 53: 1020-1022
29 European Association For The Study Of The Liver; European Organisation For Research And Treatment Of Cancer. EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2012; 56: 908-943
30 Vilana R, Forner A, Bianchi L et al. Intrahepatic peripheral cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis patients may display a vascular pattern similar to hepatocellular carcinoma on contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Hepatology 2010; 51: 2020-2029
31 Bernatik T, Seitz K, Blank W et al. Unclear focal liver lesions in contrast-enhanced ultrasonography--lessons to be learned from the DEGUM multicenter study for the characterization of liver tumors. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 577-581
32 Seitz K, Strobel D, Bernatik T 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 Dreiländertreffen 2008, Davos. Ultraschall in Med 2009; 30: 383-389
33 Seitz K, Bernatik T, Strobel D 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 in Med 2010; 31: 492-499