4.7 Article

A Prospective Assessment of the Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound, Dynamic Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Patients with Small Liver Tumors

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 8, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm8091353

Keywords

contrast-enhanced ultrasound; computed tomography; diagnosis; hepatocellular carcinoma; liver tumor; magnetic resonance imaging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: This prospective study assessed the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) using long Kupffer phase enhancement for adults with liver tumor size of less than 3 cm. Performance comparisons were also conducted with dynamic computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Background: CEUS has emerged as a reliable image modality, since the development of second-generation contrast medium with long Kupffer phase enhancement. Nonetheless, dynamic CT and MRI are currently the standard imaging tools for the diagnosis of liver cancers, and the diagnostic value of CEUS for liver cancer has yet to be universally accepted. Methods: Sixty-six adult patients suspected of having liver tumors smaller than 3 cm underwent CEUS, dynamic CT, and MRI examinations independently. Subsequent tumor biopsies were used to verify the diagnostic performance of the three imaging modalities. Results: The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR, 95% CI) for hepatocellular carcinoma were as follows: CEUS (52.8, 11.4-243), MRI (29.29, 7.36-116), and CT (19.43, 5.44-69.4); for metastasis: CEUS (200, 19.1-2095), MRI (24, 5.05-114), and CT (32, 6.56-156); and all liver malignancy: CEUS (260, 12.7-5310), MRI (2.57, 0.55-12.1), and CT (5.22, 1.25-21.8). CEUS achieved the best differentiation performance. Conclusions: CEUS outperformed dynamic CT and MRI in terms of diagnostic performance when dealing with small liver tumors (<3 cm).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available