1.Irreversible electroporation of hepatocellular carcinoma: the role of ultrasonography
Katsutoshi SUGIMOTO ; Masakazu ABE ; Yu YOSHIMASU ; Hirohito TAKEUCHI ; Yoshitaka KASAI ; Takao ITOI
Ultrasonography 2020;39(3):229-237
Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a novel form of soft tissue ablation therapy that uses highcurrent electrical pulses to induce the formation of pores in the cell membrane, leading to cell death. Although outcome data for the ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by IRE are limited, early results are encouraging and may suggest equivalency to the outcomes achieved by thermal ablation methods such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA). However, IRE can be a challenging and very time-consuming procedure compared to RFA and MWA. In this review article, we not only evaluate the efficacy and safety of IRE for the treatment of HCC, but also discuss imaging guidance, ablation monitoring, and endpoint assessment, with a particular focus on ultrasonography.
2.Clinical utilization of shear wave dispersion imaging in diffuse liver disease
Katsutoshi SUGIMOTO ; Fuminori MORIYASU ; Hisashi OSHIRO ; Hirohito TAKEUCHI ; Yu YOSHIMASU ; Yoshitaka KASAI ; Takao ITOI
Ultrasonography 2020;39(1):3-10
Shear wave (SW) dispersion imaging is a newly developed imaging technology for assessing the dispersion slope of SWs, which is related to tissue viscosity in diffuse liver disease. Our preclinical and preliminary clinical studies have shown that SW speed is more useful than dispersion slope for predicting the degree of fibrosis and that dispersion slope is more useful than SW speed for predicting the degree of necroinflammation. Thus, dispersion slope, which reflects viscosity, may provide additional pathophysiological insight into diffuse liver disease.
3.Washout-parametric imaging with Sonazoid for enhanced differentiation of focal liver lesions
Tatsuya KAKEGAWA ; Katsutoshi SUGIMOTO ; Naohisa KAMIYAMA ; Hiroshi HASHIMOTO ; Hiroshi TAKAHASHI ; Takuya WADA ; Yu YOSHIMASU ; Hirohito TAKEUCHI ; Ryohei NAKAYAMA ; Kentaro SAKAMAKI ; Takao ITOI
Ultrasonography 2024;43(6):457-468
Purpose:
The study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of washout-parametric imaging (WOPI) with that of conventional contrast-enhanced ultrasound (cCEUS) in differentiating focal liver lesions (FLLs).
Methods:
A total of 181 FLLs were imaged with contrast-enhanced ultrasound using Sonazoid, and the recordings were captured for 10 minutes in a prospective setting. WOPI was constructed from three images, depicting the arterial phase (peak enhancement), the early portal venous phase (1-minute post-injection), and the vasculo-Kupffer phase (5 or 10 minutes post-injection). The intensity variations in these images were color-coded and superimposed to produce a single image representing the washout timing across the lesions. From the 181 FLLs, 30 hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), 30 non-HCC malignancies, and 30 benign lesions were randomly selected for an observer study. Both techniques (cCEUS and WOPI) were evaluated by four off-site readers. They classified each lesion as benign or malignant using a continuous rating scale, with the endpoints representing "definitely benign" and "definitely malignant." The diagnostic performance of cCEUS and WOPI was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with the DeLong test. Interobserver agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results:
The difference in average AUC values between WOPI and cCEUS was 0.0062 (95% confidence interval, -0.0161 to 0.0285), indicating no significant difference between techniques. The interobserver agreement was higher for WOPI (ICC, 0.77) than cCEUS (ICC, 0.67).
Conclusion
The diagnostic performance of WOPI is comparable to that of cCEUS in differentiating FLLs, with superior interobserver agreement.
4.Washout-parametric imaging with Sonazoid for enhanced differentiation of focal liver lesions
Tatsuya KAKEGAWA ; Katsutoshi SUGIMOTO ; Naohisa KAMIYAMA ; Hiroshi HASHIMOTO ; Hiroshi TAKAHASHI ; Takuya WADA ; Yu YOSHIMASU ; Hirohito TAKEUCHI ; Ryohei NAKAYAMA ; Kentaro SAKAMAKI ; Takao ITOI
Ultrasonography 2024;43(6):457-468
Purpose:
The study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of washout-parametric imaging (WOPI) with that of conventional contrast-enhanced ultrasound (cCEUS) in differentiating focal liver lesions (FLLs).
Methods:
A total of 181 FLLs were imaged with contrast-enhanced ultrasound using Sonazoid, and the recordings were captured for 10 minutes in a prospective setting. WOPI was constructed from three images, depicting the arterial phase (peak enhancement), the early portal venous phase (1-minute post-injection), and the vasculo-Kupffer phase (5 or 10 minutes post-injection). The intensity variations in these images were color-coded and superimposed to produce a single image representing the washout timing across the lesions. From the 181 FLLs, 30 hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), 30 non-HCC malignancies, and 30 benign lesions were randomly selected for an observer study. Both techniques (cCEUS and WOPI) were evaluated by four off-site readers. They classified each lesion as benign or malignant using a continuous rating scale, with the endpoints representing "definitely benign" and "definitely malignant." The diagnostic performance of cCEUS and WOPI was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with the DeLong test. Interobserver agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results:
The difference in average AUC values between WOPI and cCEUS was 0.0062 (95% confidence interval, -0.0161 to 0.0285), indicating no significant difference between techniques. The interobserver agreement was higher for WOPI (ICC, 0.77) than cCEUS (ICC, 0.67).
Conclusion
The diagnostic performance of WOPI is comparable to that of cCEUS in differentiating FLLs, with superior interobserver agreement.
5.Washout-parametric imaging with Sonazoid for enhanced differentiation of focal liver lesions
Tatsuya KAKEGAWA ; Katsutoshi SUGIMOTO ; Naohisa KAMIYAMA ; Hiroshi HASHIMOTO ; Hiroshi TAKAHASHI ; Takuya WADA ; Yu YOSHIMASU ; Hirohito TAKEUCHI ; Ryohei NAKAYAMA ; Kentaro SAKAMAKI ; Takao ITOI
Ultrasonography 2024;43(6):457-468
Purpose:
The study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of washout-parametric imaging (WOPI) with that of conventional contrast-enhanced ultrasound (cCEUS) in differentiating focal liver lesions (FLLs).
Methods:
A total of 181 FLLs were imaged with contrast-enhanced ultrasound using Sonazoid, and the recordings were captured for 10 minutes in a prospective setting. WOPI was constructed from three images, depicting the arterial phase (peak enhancement), the early portal venous phase (1-minute post-injection), and the vasculo-Kupffer phase (5 or 10 minutes post-injection). The intensity variations in these images were color-coded and superimposed to produce a single image representing the washout timing across the lesions. From the 181 FLLs, 30 hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), 30 non-HCC malignancies, and 30 benign lesions were randomly selected for an observer study. Both techniques (cCEUS and WOPI) were evaluated by four off-site readers. They classified each lesion as benign or malignant using a continuous rating scale, with the endpoints representing "definitely benign" and "definitely malignant." The diagnostic performance of cCEUS and WOPI was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with the DeLong test. Interobserver agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results:
The difference in average AUC values between WOPI and cCEUS was 0.0062 (95% confidence interval, -0.0161 to 0.0285), indicating no significant difference between techniques. The interobserver agreement was higher for WOPI (ICC, 0.77) than cCEUS (ICC, 0.67).
Conclusion
The diagnostic performance of WOPI is comparable to that of cCEUS in differentiating FLLs, with superior interobserver agreement.
6.Washout-parametric imaging with Sonazoid for enhanced differentiation of focal liver lesions
Tatsuya KAKEGAWA ; Katsutoshi SUGIMOTO ; Naohisa KAMIYAMA ; Hiroshi HASHIMOTO ; Hiroshi TAKAHASHI ; Takuya WADA ; Yu YOSHIMASU ; Hirohito TAKEUCHI ; Ryohei NAKAYAMA ; Kentaro SAKAMAKI ; Takao ITOI
Ultrasonography 2024;43(6):457-468
Purpose:
The study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of washout-parametric imaging (WOPI) with that of conventional contrast-enhanced ultrasound (cCEUS) in differentiating focal liver lesions (FLLs).
Methods:
A total of 181 FLLs were imaged with contrast-enhanced ultrasound using Sonazoid, and the recordings were captured for 10 minutes in a prospective setting. WOPI was constructed from three images, depicting the arterial phase (peak enhancement), the early portal venous phase (1-minute post-injection), and the vasculo-Kupffer phase (5 or 10 minutes post-injection). The intensity variations in these images were color-coded and superimposed to produce a single image representing the washout timing across the lesions. From the 181 FLLs, 30 hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), 30 non-HCC malignancies, and 30 benign lesions were randomly selected for an observer study. Both techniques (cCEUS and WOPI) were evaluated by four off-site readers. They classified each lesion as benign or malignant using a continuous rating scale, with the endpoints representing "definitely benign" and "definitely malignant." The diagnostic performance of cCEUS and WOPI was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with the DeLong test. Interobserver agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results:
The difference in average AUC values between WOPI and cCEUS was 0.0062 (95% confidence interval, -0.0161 to 0.0285), indicating no significant difference between techniques. The interobserver agreement was higher for WOPI (ICC, 0.77) than cCEUS (ICC, 0.67).
Conclusion
The diagnostic performance of WOPI is comparable to that of cCEUS in differentiating FLLs, with superior interobserver agreement.
7.Washout-parametric imaging with Sonazoid for enhanced differentiation of focal liver lesions
Tatsuya KAKEGAWA ; Katsutoshi SUGIMOTO ; Naohisa KAMIYAMA ; Hiroshi HASHIMOTO ; Hiroshi TAKAHASHI ; Takuya WADA ; Yu YOSHIMASU ; Hirohito TAKEUCHI ; Ryohei NAKAYAMA ; Kentaro SAKAMAKI ; Takao ITOI
Ultrasonography 2024;43(6):457-468
Purpose:
The study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of washout-parametric imaging (WOPI) with that of conventional contrast-enhanced ultrasound (cCEUS) in differentiating focal liver lesions (FLLs).
Methods:
A total of 181 FLLs were imaged with contrast-enhanced ultrasound using Sonazoid, and the recordings were captured for 10 minutes in a prospective setting. WOPI was constructed from three images, depicting the arterial phase (peak enhancement), the early portal venous phase (1-minute post-injection), and the vasculo-Kupffer phase (5 or 10 minutes post-injection). The intensity variations in these images were color-coded and superimposed to produce a single image representing the washout timing across the lesions. From the 181 FLLs, 30 hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), 30 non-HCC malignancies, and 30 benign lesions were randomly selected for an observer study. Both techniques (cCEUS and WOPI) were evaluated by four off-site readers. They classified each lesion as benign or malignant using a continuous rating scale, with the endpoints representing "definitely benign" and "definitely malignant." The diagnostic performance of cCEUS and WOPI was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with the DeLong test. Interobserver agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results:
The difference in average AUC values between WOPI and cCEUS was 0.0062 (95% confidence interval, -0.0161 to 0.0285), indicating no significant difference between techniques. The interobserver agreement was higher for WOPI (ICC, 0.77) than cCEUS (ICC, 0.67).
Conclusion
The diagnostic performance of WOPI is comparable to that of cCEUS in differentiating FLLs, with superior interobserver agreement.