Clinically Useful Diagnostic Tool of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasonography for Focal Liver Masses: Comparison to Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
- Author:
Sung Woo RYU
1
;
Gene Hyun BOK
;
Jae Young JANG
;
Soung Won JEONG
;
Nam Seok HAM
;
Ji Hye KIM
;
Eui Ju PARK
;
Jin Nyoung KIM
;
Woong Cheul LEE
;
Kwang Yeun SHIM
;
Sae Hwan LEE
;
Sang Gyune KIM
;
Sang Woo CHA
;
Young Seok KIM
;
Young Deok CHO
;
Hong Soo KIM
;
Boo Sung KIM
Author Information
1. Institution for Digestive Research, Digestive Disease Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. jyjang@schmc.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Comparative Study ; Evaluation Studies
- Keywords:
Contrast enhanced ultrasonography;
Liver masses
- MeSH:
Adult;
Aged;
Contrast Media/diagnostic use;
Female;
Humans;
Liver Diseases/pathology/radiography/*ultrasonography;
Magnetic Resonance Imaging;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
- From:Gut and Liver
2014;8(3):292-297
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the diagnostic value of contrast (SonoVue(R)) enhancement ultrasonography (CEUS) and to compare this method with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluating liver masses. METHODS: CEUS (n=50), CT (n=47), and MRI (n=43) were performed on 50 liver masses in 48 patients for baseline mass characterization. The most likely impression for each modality and the final diagnosis, based on the combined biopsy results (n=14), angiography findings (n=36), and clinical course, were determined. The diagnostic value of CEUS was compared to those of CT and MRI. RESULTS: The final diagnosis of the masses was hepatocellular carcinoma (n=43), hemangioma (n=3), benign adenoma (n=2), eosinophilic abscess (n=1), and liver metastasis (n=1). The overall diagnostic agreement with the final diagnosis was substantial for CEUS, CT, and MRI, with kappa values of 0.621, 0.763, and 0.784, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 83.3%, 87.5%, and 84.0%, respectively, for CEUS; 95.0%, 87.5%, and 93.8%, respectively, for CT; and 94.6%, 83.3%, and 93.0%, respectively for MRI. After excluding the lesions with poor acoustic sonographic windows, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for CEUS were 94.6%, 87.5%, and 93.3%, respectively, with a kappa value of 0.765. CONCLUSIONS: If an appropriate acoustic window is available, CEUS is comparable to CT and MRI for the diagnosis of liver masses.
