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: Sung Woo Ryu, 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
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Korean
• Published: 대한간학회 30.05.2014
• Subjects: Contrast enhanced ultrasonography; Liver masses
• ISSN: 1976-2283

Background/Aims: To evaluate the diagnostic value of con-trast (SonoVue®) enhancement ultrasonography (CEUS) and to compare this method with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluating liver mass-es. 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 clini-cal course, were determined. The diagnostic value of CEUS was compared to those of CT and MRI. Results: The final di-agnosis 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 diag-nostic 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. Conclusions: If an appropriate acoustic window is available, CEUS is compa-rable to CT and MRI for the diagnosis of liver masses.(Gut Liver 2014;8:292-297)