4.5 Article

Percutaneous Treatment of Malignant Liver Lesions: Evaluation of Success Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) and Perfusion Software

期刊

ULTRASCHALL IN DER MEDIZIN
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 440-447

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-119353

关键词

abdomen; interventional procedures; ultrasound; contrast agents

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Using new perfusion software for evaluation of the success of percutaneous treatments of malignant liver tumors with CEUS. Materials and Methods Retrospective analysis of 88 patients (74 male, 14 female; 30 - 84 years) with 165 malignant liver lesions. The lesions were 57 metastases and 108 HCCs. The success of interventional treatment (IRE n = 47; RFA n = 38; MWA n = 44; TACE n = 36) was evaluated by CEUS and perfusion software (VueBox (R)). CEUS was performed after injection of 1 - 2.4ml of sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles (SonoVue (R)) using a 1-5MHz convex probe. DICOM loops up to 1 min. in the ablation area were stored digitally in the PACS. Regions of interest (ROI) were manually placed in the center, the margins of the lesions as well as in the surrounding tissue. Using VueBox (R) peak, time to peak (TTP), mean transit time (mTT), rise time (RT), the wash-in and wash-out rate were calculated for the regions, in order to evaluate the success of the percutaneous treatment after the ablation in comparison to the ceCT/ceMRI up to 6 months after the treatment. Results There were significant differences in all cases between the center compared to the margins for the main perfusion parameters (peak, mTT, RT) (p < 0.001). Peak, wash-in and wash-out ratios were further analyzed with the type of lesion and the method of ablation. All parameters were significantly different between lesions treated successfully vs. lesions with recurrence. Conclusion A combination of CEUS with perfusion imaging enables critical assessment of successful treatment after percutaneous interventional procedures for a malignant liver lesion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据