Clinically useful diagnostic tool of contrast enhanced ultrasonography for focal liver masses: comparison to computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging

• Published in: Gut and liver Vol. 8; no. 3; pp. 292 - 297
• Main Authors: Ryu, Sung Woo, Bok, Gene Hyun, Jang, Jae Young, Jeong, Soung Won, Ham, Nam Seok, Kim, Ji Hye, Park, Eui Ju, Kim, Jin Nyoung, Lee, Woong Cheul, Shim, Kwang Yeun, Lee, Sae Hwan, Kim, Sang Gyune, Cha, Sang Woo, Kim, Young Seok, Cho, Young Deok, Kim, Hong Soo, Kim, Boo Sung
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korea (South) The Korean Society of Gastroenterology; the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; the Korean Association for the Study of the Liver; the Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility; Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases; Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research; Korean Pancreatobiliary Association; Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Cancer 01.05.2014; Gastroenterology Council for Gut and Liver; 거트앤리버 소화기연관학회협의회
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; contrast enhanced ultrasonography; Contrast Media; Female; Humans; Liver Diseases - diagnostic imaging; Liver Diseases - pathology; liver masses; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Middle Aged; Original; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Ultrasonography; 내과학; Contrast enhanced ultrasonography; Liver masses
• ISSN: 1976-2283; 2005-1212
• DOI: 10.5009/gnl.2014.8.3.292

To evaluate the diagnostic value of contrast (SonoVue(®)) enhancement ultrasonography (CEUS) and to compare this method with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluating liver masses. CEUS (n=50), CT (n=47), and MRI (n=43) were performed on 50 liver masses in 48 patients for baseline mass haracterization. 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. 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 κ 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 κ value of 0.765. If an appropriate acoustic window is available, CEUS is comparable to CT and MRI for the diagnosis of liver masses.