Characterisation of focal liver lesions undetermined at grey-scale US: contrast-enhanced US versus 64-row MDCT and MRI with liver-specific contrast agent

Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the role of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in the characterisation of focal liver lesions in comparison with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with liver-specific contrast agent. Materials and methods O...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Radiologia medica 2010-08, Vol.115 (5), p.714-731
Main Authors: Bartolotta, T. V., Taibbi, A., Midiri, M., La Grutta, L., De Maria, M., Lagalla, R.
Format: Article
Language:eng ; ita
Subjects:
Abdominal Radiology
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biopsy
Biopsy, Fine-Needle
Contrast Media
Diagnostic Radiology
Female
Humans
Imaging
Interventional Radiology
Liver Diseases - diagnosis
Liver Diseases - diagnostic imaging
Liver Neoplasms - diagnosis
Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Neuroradiology
Predictive Value of Tests
Radiologia Addominale
Radiology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods
Ultrasonography
Ultrasound
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the role of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in the characterisation of focal liver lesions in comparison with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with liver-specific contrast agent. Materials and methods One hundred and eighty-seven focal liver lesions, 91 malignant and 96 benign (mean size 3.2 cm) — proved by biopsy (n=12), histology (n=4), MDCT (n=108), MRI (n=44) MDCT/MRI (n=19) — in 159 patients were studied by CEUS. Two expert radiologists consensually evaluated the contrast-enhancement patterns at CEUS. For each lesion, they assessed: (a) nature (benign, malignant, not assessable), (b) specific diagnosis and (c) need for further radiological evaluation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and diagnostic accuracy of CEUS were calculated. Results A total of 167/187 (89.3%) lesions were correctly assessed as benign or malignant at CEUS, whereas 14/187 (7.5%) lesions remained undetermined and 6/187 (3.2%) were incorrectly assessed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and diagnostic accuracy of CEUS were, respectively, 89%, 89.6%, 89%, 89.6% and 89.3%. The need for further radiological evaluation decreased to 46/187 (24.6%) lesions after CEUS ( p
ISSN:0033-8362
1826-6983
DOI:10.1007/s11547-010-0506-3