Diagnosis efficacy of CEUS for hepatic inflammatory lesions

Application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of tuberous vas deferens tuberculosis

BACKGROUND

To assess the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the diagnosis of tuberous vas deferens tuberculosis (VD TB) and improve the positive diagnostic rate of VD TB.

METHODS

CEUS and routine ultrasound (US) images of 17 patients with tuberous VD TB confirmed by surgery, pathology, or laboratory semen examination were retrospectively analyzed and summarized, and the positive rates of both imaging techniques were compared.

RESULTS

The 19 VD lesions of the 17 patients were divided into two types according to the CEUS findings: Type I and Type II, and type II was divided into Types IIa, IIb, and IIc. Of the nodules with transverse diameters > 1 cm, 100% presented as type II. Of the nodules with transverse diameters < 1 cm, 37.5% (3/8) presented as type I and 62.5% (5/8) presented as type II. The sonographic manifestations of tuberous VD TB were hypoechoic and mixed echoic. The positive diagnostic rate was 89.5% for CEUS and 68.4% for US, but the difference was not significant (χ2 = 2.533; P = 0.111).

CONCLUSIONS

CEUS was able to show the blood supply characteristics of tuberous VD TB, the internal necrosis of nodules was more easily observed by CEUS than by routine US, which is helpful for the diagnosis of tuberous VD TB.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease. Worldwide, it ranks sixth in terms of incidence of cancer, and fourth in terms of cancer-related deaths. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is used as an add-on test to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma after prior diagnostic tests such as abdominal ultrasound or measurement of alpha-foetoprotein, or both. According to guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging investigation, with either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), may show the typical hepatocellular carcinoma hallmarks in people with cirrhosis, which will be sufficient to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas show atypical imaging features, and therefore, are missed at imaging. Dynamic CEUS images are obtained similarly to CT and MRI images. CEUS differentiates between arterial and portal venous phases, in which sonographic hepatocellular carcinoma hallmarks, such as arterial hyperenhancement and subsequent washout appearance, are investigated. The advantages of CEUS over CT and MRI include real-time imaging, use of contrast agents that do not contain iodine and are not nephrotoxic, and quick image acquisition. Despite the advantages, the use of CEUS in the diagnostic algorithm for HCC remains controversial, with disagreement on relevant guidelines. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival as the conflicting results can be a consequence of an inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Therefore, assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma is needed for either diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma or ruling it out in people with chronic liver disease who are not included in surveillance programmes.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease, in a surveillance programme or in a clinical setting. 2. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in people with chronic liver disease and identify potential sources of heterogeneity in the results.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The last date of search was 5 November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver, and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods to screen studies, extract data, and assess the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We used the bivariate model and provided estimates of summary sensitivity and specificity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We presented uncertainty-of-the-accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies with 6546 participants. Studies were published between 2001 and 2021. We judged all 23 studies at high-risk of bias in at least one domain, and 13/23 studies at high concern for applicability. Most studies used different reference standards to exclude the presence of the target condition. The time interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. We also had major concerns on their applicability due to the characteristics of the participants. - CEUS for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 77.8% (95% CI 69.4% to 84.4%) and specificity 93.8% (95% CI 89.1% to 96.6%) (23 studies, 6546 participants; very low-certainty evidence). - CEUS for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 77.5% (95% CI 62.9% to 87.6%) and specificity 92.7% (95% CI 86.8% to 96.1%) (13 studies, 1257 participants; low-certainty evidence). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, including only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted with no knowledge of the results about the index test, showed no differences in the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that by using CEUS, as an add-on test following abdominal ultrasound, to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 22% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 6% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would unnecessarily undergo further testing or inappropriate treatment. As to resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 23% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would incorrectly be unresected, while 8% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo further inappropriate testing or treatment. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias of the included studies, heterogeneity, and imprecision of the results and concerns on their applicability limit our ability to draw confident conclusions.

Magnetic resonance imaging of inflammatory pseudotumor of the liver: a 2021 systematic literature update and series presentation

PURPOSE

Inflammatory pseudotumors of the liver (IPTL) are not exceptional benign lesions with various etiologies, histology, and imaging appearances. The incomplete knowledge of this pathology and the wide polymorphism sometimes resembling malignancy often induce long and expensive diagnostic flow, biopsy and occasionally unnecessary surgery. We propose a systematic revision of MRI literature data (2000-2021) with some narrative inserts and 10 new complete MRI cases, with the aim of organizing the data about IPTL and identifying some typical features able to improve its diagnosis from imaging.

METHODS

We performed a systematic revision of literature from 2000 to 2021 to obtain MRI features, epidemiological, and clinical data of IPTL. The basic online search algorithm on the PubMed database was "(pseudotumor) AND (liver) AND (imaging)." Quality assessment was performed using both scales by Moola for case report studies and by Munn for cross-sectional studies reporting prevalence data. A case-based retrospective study by collecting patients diagnosed with IPTL from three different university hospitals from 2015 to 2021 was done as well. Only cases with MR examinations complete with T1/T2/contrast-enhanced T1/Diffusion-Weighted (W) images and pathology-proven IPTL were selected.

RESULTS

After screening/selection 38 articles were included for a total of 114 patients. In our experience we selected 10 cases for a total of 16 IPTLs; 8 out of 10 patients underwent at least 1 MRI follow-up. Some reproducible and rather typical imaging findings for IPTL were found. The targetoid aspect of IPTL is very frequent in our experience (75% on T1W, 44% on T2W, 81% on contrast-enhanced T1W (at least one phase), 100% on Diffusion-W images) but is also recurrent in the literature (6% on T1W, 31% on T2W, 51% on CE-T1W (at least one phase), 18% on Diffusion-W images, and 67% on hepatobiliary phase). In our experience, Apparent Diffusion Coefficient map values were always equal to or higher than those of the surrounding parenchyma, and at MRI follow-up, nodule/s disappeared at first/second control, in six patients, while in the remaining 2, lesions persisted with tendency to dehydration.

CONCLUSION

A targetoid-like aspect of a focal liver lesion must raise diagnostic suspicion, especially if IgG4-positive plasma is detected. MRI follow-up mainly shows the disappearance of the lesion or its reduction with dehydration.

Diagnosis efficacy of CEUS for hepatic inflammatory lesions

Purpose

In this study, the efficacy of US/CEUS and clinicopathologic parameters in differential diagnosis of hepatic inflammatory lesions were evaluated.

Methods

This was a retrospective study in which CEUS imaging was performed on 182 patients. Among these patients, 44 patients had hepatic inflammatory lesions and 138 patients had malignant lesions. The ultrasound (US), CEUS, and clinicopathologic parameters with respect to differential diagnosis of hepatic inflammatory lesions were analyzed.

Results

Irregular lesion shape and unclear margin were commonly seen in hepatic inflammatory lesions by US/CEUS examination. Hypoenhancement in arterial phase (AP) and portal venous phase (PVP), and isoenhancement in delayed phase (DP) were more commonly found in inflammatory lesions rather than malignant lesions [9% (4/44), 68% (30/44), and 16% (7/44) vs 2% (3/138), 11% (15/138), 1% (1/138), respectively; P < .05]. The enhancement coverage was also a significant indicator for the differentiation of inflammatory lesions and malignant lesions (P < .05). History of hepatitis or cirrhosis, and higher serum alpha‐fetoprotein (AFP) level were indicators for malignant lesions, while liver parasites and higher body temperature were indicators for inflammatory lesions. When the US/CEUS findings were combined with clinicopathologic parameters, the diagnostic accuracy of inflammatory lesions could reach 93.3%, with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 63.64%, 96.03%, 84.85%, and 88.32%, respectively.

Conclusion

The US/CEUS findings combined with clinical characteristics can accurately differentiate hepatic inflammatory lesions and malignant lesions. The results of study will improve the diagnostic confidence for hepatic inflammatory lesions.