Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Aug;115(5):714-31.
doi: 10.1007/s11547-010-0506-3. Epub 2010 Jan 15.

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

[Article in English, Italian]
Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

[Article in English, Italian]
T V Bartolotta et al. Radiol Med. 2010 Aug.

Abstract

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<0.001).

Conclusions: In selected cases, CEUS can be considered an effective alternative to MDCT and MRI and reduce the need for further radiological workup.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Eur Radiol. 2005 Apr;15(4):685-93 - PubMed
    1. Radiol Med. 2008 Feb;113(1):76-86 - PubMed
    1. Radiology. 2005 Jul;236(1):166-77 - PubMed
    1. Eur Radiol. 2004 Apr;14(4):583-91 - PubMed
    1. Radiology. 2004 Aug;232(2):420-30 - PubMed

Publication types