Download PDF
Ultraschall Med 2017; 38(06): 655-660
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-105577
Original Article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Mesenteric Masses on 2D Mode and Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound: A Retrospective Study in 69 Patients

Mesenteriale Raumforderungen in der B-Bild- und Kontrastmittelsonografie: Eine retrospektive Analyse von 69 Patienten
Corinna Trenker
1   Hematology, Oncology and Immunology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Germany
,
Ehsan Safaei Zadeh
2   Interdisciplinary Centre for Ultrasound Diagnostics, Philipps-Universitat Marburg, Germany
,
Golo Petzold
3   Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Oncology, University Medicine Goettingen, Germany
,
Christian Görg
2   Interdisciplinary Centre for Ultrasound Diagnostics, Philipps-Universitat Marburg, Germany
,
Albrecht Neesse
3   Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Oncology, University Medicine Goettingen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

15 September 2016

28 February 2017

Publication Date:
13 July 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose Detection of mesenteric masses (MM) by 2 D ultrasound often causes a diagnostic dilemma, and histological confirmation is required for definite diagnosis. The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the diagnosis of MMs has not been investigated before. Here, we retrospectively evaluate 2D-mode and CEUS patterns of 69 patients with histologically confirmed MMs.

Materials and Methods Between January 2006 and January 2016, n = 69 patients were included in the study. Histopathological data, clinical data, 2D-mode ultrasound and CEUS enhancement were retrospectively analyzed.

Results More than half of the MMs (n = 47/69, 68 %) revealed a malignant histology. The size of the MM, inflammation markers and clinical symptoms did not correlate with the histological outcome. 2 D mode revealed n = 46 (67 %) lesions as hypoechoic, n = 14 (20 %) as hyperechoic, and n = 9 (13 %) with a complex echo pattern. Hypoechogenicity and complex echo patterns as well as regular borders of MMs were significantly associated with malignancy (p < 0.05). On CEUS, malignant MMs showed arterial hyperenhancement (n = 11/47, 23 %), isoenhancement (n = 25/47, 52 %) and hypoenhancement (n = 7/47, 15 %). The majority of malignant MMs (n = 42/47, 89 %) revealed parenchymal hypoenhancement. Benign masses revealed arterial hyperenhancement in n = 1/22 (5 %), isoenhancement in n = 8/22 (36 %), and hypoenhancement in n = 10/22 (45 %). The majority of lesions showed parenchymal hypoenhancement (n = 19/22, 86 %).

Conclusion Hypoechogenicity and complex echogenicity in 2 D mode, irregular borders, and parenchymal wash-out were more often associated with malignancy. However, CEUS did not help to subclassify malignant MMs according to their histological entity.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Der Stellenwert der kontrastunterstützten Sonografie (KUS) zur Beurteilung von mesenterialen Raumforderungen (mRF) ist bisher nicht systematisch untersucht worden. In dieser Arbeit werden 69 Patienten mittels B-Bild Sonografie und KUS retrospektiv analysiert.

Material und Methode Die histopathologischen Befunde, klinische Daten, B-Bild- und KUS Daten von n = 69 Patienten mit mRF wurden über den Zeitraum von 10 Jahren (Januar 2006-Januar 2016) ausgewertet.

Ergebnisse Maligne mRF wurden in n = 47/69 (68 %) gefunden. Weder die Größe, Laborwerte, noch die klinische Symptomatik korrelierte mit der Dignität. In der B-Bild Sonografie zeigten sich n = 46 (67 %) mRF echoarm, n = 14 (20 %) echoreich und n = 9 (13 %) mit einem komplexen Echomuster. Echoarmes und komplexes Echomuster, als auch scharfe Begrenzung der mRF waren signifikant häufiger mit Malignität assoziiert (p < 005). In der KUS zeigten maligne mRF ein arterielles Hyperenhancement (n = 11/47, 24 %), ein Isoenhancement (n = 25/47, 52 %) und ein Hypoenhancement (n = 7/47, 15 %). Ein Großteil der malignen mRF waren durch ein parenchymales Hypoenhancement gekennzeichnet (n = 42/47, 89 %). Gutartige mRF zeigten ein Hyperenhancement in n = 1/22 (5 %), ein Isoenhancement in n = 8/22 (36 %) und ein Hypoenhancement in n = 10/22 (45 %). Die Mehrzahl der benignen mRF wiesen ein parenchymales Hypoenhancement (n = 19/22, 86 %) auf.

Schlussfolgerung Echoarme und komplexe mRF, scharfe Begrenzung und parenchymales wash out sind signifikant häufiger mit Malignität assoziiert. Die KUS scheint jedoch keine Subklassifizierung der histologischen Entitäten zu erlauben.

Key Words

CEUS - mesentery - mesenteric mass

Supplement

 

  • References

  • 1 Levy AD. Shaw JC. Sobin LH. Secondary tumors and tumorlike lesions of the peritoneal cavity: imaging features with pathologic correlation. Radiographics 2009; 29: 347-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lubner MG. Pickhardt PJ. Peritoneal sarcoidosis: the role of imaging in diagnosis. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 2009; 5: 861-863
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bernardino ME. Jing BS. Wallace S. Computed tomography diagnosis of mesenteric masses. Am J Roentgenol 1979; 132: 33-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Johnson PT. Horton KM. Fishman EK. Nonvascular mesenteric disease: utility of multidetector CT with 3D volume rendering. Radiographics 2009; 29: 721-740
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Low RN. MR imaging of the peritoneal spread of malignancy. Abdom Imaging 2007; 32: 267-283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Low RN. Barone RM. Lacey C. et al. Peritoneal tumor: MR imaging with dilute oral barium and intravenous gadolinium-containing contrast agents compared with unenhanced MR imaging and CT. Radiology 1997; 204: 513-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Patel CM. Sahdev A. Reznek RH. CT, MRI and PET imaging in peritoneal malignancy. Cancer Imaging 2011; 11: 123-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Greten TF. Malek NP. Schmidt S. et al. [Diagnosis of and therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma]. Z Gastroenterol 2013; 51: 1269-1326
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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 Dreilandertreffen 2008, Davos. Ultraschall in Med 2009; 30: 383-389
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Seitz K. Strobel D. A Milestone: Approval of CEUS for Diagnostic Liver Imaging in Adults and Children in the USA. Ultraschall in Med 2016; 37: 229-232
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Piscaglia F. Bolondi L. Italian Society for Ultrasound in M. et al. The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound Med Biol 2006; 32: 1369-1375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Görg C. Bert T. Kring R. et al. Transcutaneous contrast enhanced sonography of the chest for evaluation of pleural based pulmonary lesions: experience in 137 patients. Ultraschall in Med 2006; 27: 437-444
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bartelt S. Trenker C. Görg C. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of embolic consolidations in patients with pulmonary embolism: A pilot study. J Clin Ultrasound 2016; 44: 129-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dietrich CF. Mathis G. Cui XW. et al. Ultrasound of the pleurae and lungs. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015; 41: 351-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ignee A. Straub B. Brix D. et al. The value of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the characterisation of patients with renal masses. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 2010; 46: 275-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Neesse A. Huth J. Kunsch S. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound pattern of splenic metastases – a retrospective study in 32 patients. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 264-269
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Braden B. Ignee A. Hocke M. et al. Diagnostic value and clinical utility of contrast enhanced ultrasound in intestinal diseases. Dig Liver Dis 2010; 42: 667-674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ehrhardt AR. Reuter S. Buck AK. et al. Assessment of disease activity in alveolar echinococcosis: a comparison of contrast enhanced ultrasound, three-phase helical CT and [(18)F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Abdom Imaging 2007; 32: 730-736
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cui XW. Ignee A. Baum U. et al. Feasibility and usefulness of using swallow contrast-enhanced ultrasound to diagnose Zenker's diverticulum: preliminary results. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015; 41: 975-981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Piscaglia F. Nolsoe C. Dietrich CF. 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 2012; 33: 33-59
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sidhu PS. Brabrand K. Cantisani V. et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part II. Ultraschall in Med 2015; 36: 566-580
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ignee A. Baum U. Schuessler G. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided percutaneous cholangiography and cholangiodrainage (CEUS-PTCD). Endoscopy 2009; 41: 725-726
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lorentzen T. Nolsoe CP. Ewertsen C. et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part I. General Aspects (long Version). Ultraschall in Med 2015; 36: E1-E14
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Smereczynski A. Kolaczyk K. Bernatowicz E. Intra-abdominal fat. Part III. Neoplasms lesions of the adipose tissue. J Ultrason 2016; 16: 145-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Que Y. Wang X. Tao C. et al. Peritoneal metastases: evaluation with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Abdom Imaging 2011; 36: 327-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Tana C. Dietrich CF. Schiavone C. Hepatosplenic sarcoidosis: contrast-enhanced ultrasound findings and implications for clinical practice. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014 DOI: 10.1155/2014/926203.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Badea R. Chiorean L. Damian D. et al. Ultrasound aspect of mesenteric panniculitis. Case report. Med Ultrason 2013; 15: 247-249
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Smereczynski A. Starzynska T. Kolaczyk K. Mesenteric changes in an ultrasound examination can facilitate the diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumors of the small intestine. J Ultrason 2015; 15: 274-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar