4.1 Article

Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for blood flow detection in hepatocellular carcinoma during lenvatinib therapy

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ULTRASONICS
Volume 49, Issue 3, Pages 425-432

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10396-022-01204-8

Keywords

Ultrasonography; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Lenvatinib mesylate; Computed tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to compare the blood flow detectability of CEUS, CT, and MRI in hepatocellular carcinoma during lenvatinib therapy. Results showed that CEUS was more effective in detecting blood flow than CT and MRI, which can help confirm the viability of the tumor.
Purpose Blood flow reduction after initiation of lenvatinib therapy may not always indicate tumor necrosis. This study aimed to compare the blood flow detectability of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) during lenvatinib therapy. Methods A total of 12 cases underwent CEUS and contrast-enhanced CT/MRI within 2 weeks during lenvatinib therapy. Vascularity on CEUS and CT/MRI was compared. Results At the time of CEUS examination, the median period from the start of lenvatinib was 227 +/- 210 (31-570) days. CEUS showed hyperenhancement in eight cases (66.7%), hypoenhancement in two cases (16.7%), and no enhancement in one case (8.3%), while CT/MRI showed hyperenhancement in one case (8.3%), ring enhancement in three cases (25.0%), and hypoenhancement in eight cases (66.7%) (p = 0.007). Transarterial chemoembolization (n = 3), radiofrequency ablation (n = 2), and stereotactic body radiation therapy (n = 2) were performed after blood flow detection by CEUS. Conclusions The viability of the HCC should be confirmed using CEUS when contrast-enhanced CT/MRI reveals lesion hypoenhancement during lenvatinib therapy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available