Histology-Based Assessment of Sonazoid-Enhanced Ultrasonography for the Diagnosis of Liver Metastasis

Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound With Perfluorobutane for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis: Comparison of Imaging Phases and Diagnostic Criteria

BACKGROUND. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with perfluorobutane has used varying protocols and diagnostic criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to assess diagnostic performance for HCC of CEUS with perfluorobutane in high-risk patients using various criteria. METHODS. This retrospective post hoc study evaluating individual patient data from three earlier prospective studies from one hospital included 204 patients (136 men, 68 women; mean age, 63 ± 11 [SD] years) at high risk of HCC with 213 liver observations. Patients underwent CEUS using perfluorobutane from March 2019 to June 2022. Three radiologists (the examination's operator and two subsequent reviewers) independently interpreted examinations, assessing arterial, portal venous (arterial phase completion through 2 minutes), transitional (2-5 minutes after injection), and Kupffer (≥ 10 minutes after injection) phase findings. Six criteria for HCC were tested: 1, any arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) with Kupffer phase hypoenhancement; 2, nonrim APHE with Kupffer phase hypoenhancement; 3, nonrim APHE with portal venous washout; 4, nonrim APHE with portal venous washout and/or Kupffer phase hypoenhancement; 5, nonrim APHE with portal venous and/or transitional washout; 6, nonrim APHE with any of portal venous washout, transitional washout, or Kupffer phase hypoenhancement. Depending on the criteria, observations were instead deemed to be a non-HCC malignancy if showing rim APHE, early washout (at < 1 minute), or marked washout (at 2 minutes). Reference was pathology for malignant observations and pathology or imaging follow-up for benign observations. Diagnostic performance was assessed, pooling readers' data. RESULTS. Criterion 1 (no recognized features of non-HCC malignancy) had highest sensitivity (86.9%) but lowest specificity (43.2%) for HCC. Compared with nonrim APHE and portal venous washout (criterion 3), the addition of Kupffer phase hypoenhancement (criterion 4), transitional washout (criterion 5), or either feature (criterion 6) significantly increased sensitivity (34.4% vs 62.6-64.2%) and accuracy (61.8% vs 75.1-76.5%), but significantly decreased specificity (98.5% vs 91.9-94.1%). Criteria 2, 4, 5, and 6 (all incorporating transitional washout and/or Kupffer phase hypoenhancement) showed no significant differences in sensitivity (62.6-64.2%), specificity (91.9-94.1%), or accuracy (75.1-76.5%). CONCLUSION. Recognition of features of non-HCC malignancy improved specificity for HCC. Incorporation of the findings of transitional washout and/or Kupffer phase hypoenhancement improved sensitivity and accuracy, albeit lowered specificity, versus arterial and portal venous findings alone, without further performance variation among criteria incorporating those two findings. CLINICAL IMPACT. Kupffer phase acquisition may be optional for observations classified as HCC or non-HCC malignancy by arterial, portal venous, and transitional phases.

Perfluorobutane-Enhanced Ultrasound for Characterization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma From Non-hepatocellular Malignancies or Benignancy: Comparison of Imaging Acquisition Methods

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the work described here was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of perfluorobutane (PFB)-enhanced ultrasound in differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from non-HCC malignancies and other benign lesions using different acquisition methods.

METHODS

This prospective study included 69 patients with solid liver lesions larger than 1 cm who were scheduled for biopsy or radiofrequency ablation between September 2020 and March 2021. Lesion diagnosis was designated by three blinded radiologists after reviewing three different sets of acquired images selected according to the following presumed acquisition methods: (i) method A, acquisition up to 5 min after contrast injection; (ii) method B, acquisition up to 1 min after contrast injection with additional Kupffer phase; and (iii) method C, acquisition up to 5 min after contrast injection with additional Kupffer phase.

RESULTS

After excluding 7 technical failures, 62 patients with liver lesions (mean size: 24.2 ± 14.8 mm), which consisted of 7 benign lesions, 37 non-HCC malignancies and 18 HCCs. For the HCC diagnosis, method C had the highest sensitivity (75.9%), followed by method B (72.2%) and method A (68.5%), but failed to exhibit statistical significance (p = 0.12). There was no significant difference with respect to the pooled specificity between the three methods (p = 0.28). Diagnostic accuracy was the highest with method C (87.1%) but failed to exhibit statistical significance (p = 0.24).

CONCLUSION

Image acquisition up to 5 min after contrast injection with additional Kupffer phase could potentially result in high accuracy and sensitivity without loss of specificity in diagnosing HCC with PFB-enhanced ultrasound.

Usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for biliary tract disease

Conventional ultrasonography (US) for biliary tract disease shows high time and spatial resolution. In addition, it is simple and minimally invasive, and is selected as a first-choice examination procedure for biliary tract disease. Currently, contrast-enhanced US (CEUS), which facilitates the more accurate assessment of lesion blood flow in comparison with color and power Doppler US, is performed using a second-generation ultrasonic contrast agent. Such agents are stable and provide a timeline for CEUS diagnosis. Gallbladder lesions are classified into three types: gallbladder biliary lesion (GBL), gallbladder polypoid lesion (GPL), and gallbladder wall thickening (GWT). Bile duct lesions can also be classified into three types: bile duct biliary lesion (BBL), bile duct polypoid lesion (BDPL), and bile duct wall thickening (BDWT). CEUS facilitates the differentiation of GBL/BBL from tumorous lesions based on the presence or absence of blood vessels. In the case of GPL, it is important to identify a vascular stalk attached to the lesion. In the case of GWT, the presence or absence of a non-contrast-enhanced area, the Rokitansky-Aschoff sinus, and continuity of a contrast-enhanced gallbladder wall layer are important for differentiation from gallbladder cancer. In the case of BDWT, it is useful to evaluate the contour of the contrast-enhanced medial layer of the bile duct wall for differentiating IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis from primary sclerosing cholangitis. CEUS for ampullary carcinoma accurately reflects histopathological findings of the lesion. Evaluating blood flow in the lesion, continuity of the gallbladder wall, and contour of the bile duct wall via CEUS provides useful information for the diagnosis of biliary tract disease.

Imaging Features of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Non-Cirrhotic Liver with Sonazoid-Enhanced Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound

Purpose: To investigate the Sonazoid-enhanced contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) features of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a non-cirrhosis liver background, in comparison to those in liver cirrhosis. Methods: In this retrospective study, 19 patients with surgery and histopathologically proven HCC lesions in non-cirrhosis liver background were included regarding Sonazoid-enhanced CEUS characteristics. Two radiologists evaluated the CEUS features of HCC lesions according to the WFUMB (World Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology) guidelines criteria. Thirty-six patients with HCC lesions in liver cirrhosis were included as a control group. Final diagnoses were confirmed by surgery and histopathological results. Results: Liver background of the non-cirrhosis group including normal liver (n = 7), liver fibrosis (n = 11), and alcoholic liver disease (n = 1). The mean size of non-cirrhosis HCC lesions was 60.8 ± 46.8 mm (ranging from 25 to 219 mm). During the arterial phase of Sonazoid-enhanced CEUS, most HCCs in non-cirrhotic liver (94.7%, 18/19) and in cirrhotic liver (83.3%, 30/36) presented non-rim hyperenhancement. During the portal venous phase, HCC lesions in the non-cirrhosis liver group showed relatively early washout (68.4%, 13/19) (p = 0.090). Meanwhile, HCC lesions in liver cirrhosis background showed isoenhancement (55.6%, 20/36). All lesions in the non-cirrhotic liver group showed hypoenhancement in the late phase and the Kupffer phase (100%, 19/19). Five cases of HCC lesions in liver cirrhosis showed isoenhancement during the late phase and hypoenhancement during the Kupffer phase (13.9%, 5/36). The rest of the cirrhotic HCC lesions showed hypoenhancement during the late phase and the Kupffer phase (86.1%, 31/36). Additional hypoenhanced lesions were detected in three patients in the non-cirrhosis liver group and eight patients in the liver cirrhosis group (mean size: 13.0 ± 5.6 mm), which were also suspected to be HCC lesions. Conclusions: Heterogeneous hyperenhancement during the arterial phase as well as relatively early washout are characteristic features of HCC in the non-cirrhotic liver on Sonazoid-enhanced CEUS.

Protocol of Kupffer phase whole liver scan for metastases: A single-center prospective study

Introduction

As the presence of hepatic metastases is very important to cancer patients' clinical stage which would directly affect the selection and application of anti-cancer treatments. Although conventional ultrasound is commonly performed as a screening tool, most of the examinations have relatively poor sensitivity and specificity for detecting liver metastases. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with Sonazoid has been reported to have the advantage of the diagnosis and therapeutic support of focal hepatic lesions and its specific Kupffer phase whole liver scan (KPWLS) is believed to be sensitive to detect liver metastases. And the purpose of this study is to determine the number, size, location and diagnosis of metastatic lesions, and to compare the results with conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT), thus to clarify the application value, indications of Sonazoid-CEUS in screening liver metastasis.

Methods and analysis

Kupffer phase whole liver scan for metastases (KPWLSM) is a self-control, blind map-reading, single-center, prospective superiority trial. Approved by the institutional review committee, the study period is planned to be from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2025. Our study will include 330 patients with history of malignant tumors that cling to metastasize to liver. All patients will undergo the examinations of conventional ultrasound, Sonazoid-CEUS, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI), and 65 of them should have additional CECT scans. The primary endpoint is the comparative analysis of the numbers of detected liver metastatic lesions among Sonazoid-CEUS, conventional ultrasound and CECT in screening liver metastases. Subjective conditions of patient after injection of Sonazoid will be followed up 3 and 30 days after KPWLSM, and any short-term and long-term adverse events are to be recorded with telephone interviews.

Ethics and dissemination

This study has been granted by the Ethics Committee of Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital (Approval No: 2021-197). When the KPWLSM is completed, we will publish it in an appropriate journal to promote further widespread use.

Registration

Trial Registration Number and Date of Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2100054385, December 16, 2021.

Prospective assessment of diagnostic efficacy and safety of SonazoidTM and SonoVue® ultrasound contrast agents in patients with focal liver lesions

Objectives

To assess the respective diagnostic value of Sonazoid™ and SonoVue® for characterizing FLLs as benign or malignant and the corresponding safety.

Methods

This prospective Phase 3 study was conducted at 17 centres in China and Korea (May 2014 to April 2015); 424 patients (20 to 80 years) with at least 1 untreated focal liver lesion (FLL) (< 10 cm in diameter) underwent a contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) examination (218 received Sonazoid of 0.12 μL microbubbles/kg; 206 received SonoVue of 2.4 mL). Three independent blinded readers evaluated pre- and post-contrast images characterising the FLLs as benign or malignant.

Results

Sonazoid-enhanced and SonoVue-enhanced ultrasound provided a statistically significant improvement in specificity for all 3 readers comparing to unenhanced ultrasound (for Sonazoid: p = 0.0093, < 0.0001, 0.0011; for SonoVue: p = 0.002, 0.03, 0.12, respectively). Difference in accuracy improvement between the 2 groups was within the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 20% for all 3 readers (6.1%, 95% CI: − 5.0 to 17.2; − 7.5%, 95% CI: − 18.4 to 3.5; − 0.3%, 95% CI: − 11.3 to 10.7).

The diagnostic confidence level for all 3 readers increased with post-contrast images relative to pre-contrast images. Both contrast agents were well tolerated.

Conclusion

Results showed a similar efficacy for Sonazoid™ and SonoVue® in diagnosing FLLs as benign or malignant, and underlined the benefit of CEUS imaging over unenhanced ultrasound imaging in reaching a confident diagnosis without having to refer patients for additional imaging exams.

The AFSUMB Consensus Statements and Recommendations for the Clinical Practice of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound using Sonazoid

The first edition of the guidelines for the use of ultrasound contrast agents was published in 2004, dealing with liver applications. The second edition of the guidelines in 2008 reflected changes in the available contrast agents and updated the guidelines for the liver, as well as implementing some nonliver applications. The third edition of the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) guidelines was the joint World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology-European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (WFUMB-EFSUMB) venture in conjunction with other regional US societies such as Asian Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, resulting in a simultaneous duplicate on liver CEUS in the official journals of both WFUMB and EFSUMB in 2013. However, no guidelines were described mainly for Sonazoid due to limited clinical experience only in Japan and Korea. The new proposed consensus statements and recommendations provide general advice on the use of Sonazoid and are intended to create standard protocols for the use and administration of Sonazoid in hepatic and pancreatobiliary applications in Asian patients and to improve patient management.

The AFSUMB Consensus Statements and Recommendations for the Clinical Practice of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound using Sonazoid

The first edition of the guidelines for the use of ultrasound contrast agents was published in 2004, dealing with liver applications. The second edition of the guidelines in 2008 reflected changes in the available contrast agents and updated the guidelines for the liver, as well as implementing some nonliver applications. The third edition of the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) guidelines was the joint World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology-European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (WFUMB-EFSUMB) venture in conjunction with other regional US societies such as Asian Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, resulting in a simultaneous duplicate on liver CEUS in the official journals of both WFUMB and EFSUMB in 2013. However, no guidelines were described mainly for Sonazoid due to limited clinical experience only in Japan and Korea. The new proposed consensus statements and recommendations provide general advice on the use of Sonazoid and are intended to create standard protocols for the use and administration of Sonazoid in hepatic and pancreatobiliary applications in Asian patients and to improve patient management.

Lipid/PLGA Hybrid Microbubbles as a Versatile Platform for Noninvasive Image-Guided Targeted Drug Delivery

Microbubbles (MBs) have recently emerged as promising theranostic carriers for ultrasound contrast imaging and drug delivery. However, conventional lipid-based MBs have a poor drug encapsulation efficiency, and polymer-based MBs show a weak capability in contrast imaging and ultrasound-triggered drug release. Here, we developed a novel type of multiporous lipid/PLGA hybrid MBs (lipid/PLGA MBs) that solved the dilemma of MBs as imaging agents and drug carriers. The lipid/PLGA MBs were designed through regulating the elasticity of the bubble shells using lipids to incorporate into the PLGA shells and ammonium bicarbonate as a gas-generating agent. The softened shells and the porous bubble structure make them be able to generate stronger harmonic signals and be more vulnerable to ultrasound irradiation, leading to their excellent performance in ultrasound contrast imaging and ultrasound-triggered MB destruction in vitro and in vivo. By using doxorubicin (Dox) as a model drug, the Dox-loaded lipid/PLGA MBs (Dox-lipid/PLGA MBs) were prepared and achieved a high drug encapsulation efficiency. The real-time tracking of drug delivery and on-command controlled drug release by ultrasound were successfully realized in the tumor-bearing mice. A significantly enhanced tumor growth inhibition effect could be observed when using Dox-lipid/PLGA MBs combined with ultrasound irradiation, compared with free Dox and Dox-lipid/PLGA MBs without ultrasound. Our study provides an innovative multifunctional platform of MBs for ultrasound contrast imaging and drug delivery applications.

Comparison of Sonazoid and SonoVue in the Diagnosis of Focal Liver Lesions: A Preliminary Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of Sonazoid and SonoVue in subjects with focal liver lesions.

METHODS

The patients who had untreated focal solid liver lesions confirmed by B-mode ultrasonography were eligible for the study. The target lesion and whole liver were scanned by gray scale ultrasonography; then, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography was performed, and the results were evaluated blindly. The main end point was accuracy improvement with postcontrast versus precontrast ultrasound examination for diagnosis of the target lesion of interest as malignant or benign against the reference standard.

RESULTS

There were 65 patients with 65 hepatic tumors enrolled in the study. The improvement of diagnostic accuracy was 0.30 in the Sonazoid group and 0.16 in the SonoVue group (95% confidence interval, -0.828-0.168; P = .24). Using 20% as the noninferiority margin, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (0.168) was less than 0.20. The number of lesions detected during the whole-liver scanning in the Sonazoid group was significantly more than that detected in the SonoVue group (P = .024).

CONCLUSION

The diagnosis value of Sonazoid is noninferior to SonoVue, and this new contrast agent can improves the whole-liver image quality.

Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for detecting colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for detecting colorectal liver metastases.

METHODS

We performed comprehensive searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies reporting the per-lesion diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for detecting colorectal liver metastases. Studies published between January 2003 and December 2018 with reference standards, including histopathology and intraoperative observation, and/or follow-up, were included. Sources of bias were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. A linear mixed-effects regression model was used to determine sensitivity estimates.

RESULTS

Overall, 47 articles were included. The sensitivity estimates for contrast-enhanced ultrasound, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for detecting colorectal liver metastases were 85.3%, 83.0%, and 90.1%, respectively. For lesions ≥10 mm in diameter, the sensitivities were 93.1%, 92.9%, and 94.5%, respectively. In 21 articles using histopathology as the only reference standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio for contrast-enhanced ultrasound/contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging were 86%/91%, 91%/95%, 9.2/16.6, 0.15/0.10, and 61/170, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

CEUS showed a diagnostic ability comparable to that of DWI and CEMRI, particularly for lesions ≥10 mm in diameter.

Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Shear Wave Elastography in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Lesions: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background: We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and shear wave elastography (SWE) in differentiating benign and malignant lesions in different body sites.

Methods: A computerized literature search of Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, and Web of Science was performed using relevant keywords. Following data extraction, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for CEUS, and SWE compared to histopathology as a reference standard. Statistical analyses were conducted by MetaDiSc (version 1.4) and R software (version 3.4.3).

Results: One hundred and fourteen studies (15,926 patients) were pooled in the final analyses. Network meta-analysis showed that CEUS had significantly higher DOR than SWE (DOR = 27.14, 95%CI [2.30, 51.97]) in breast cancer detection. However, there were no significant differences between CEUS and SWE in hepatic (DOR = −6.67, 95%CI [−15.08, 1.74]) and thyroid cancer detection (DOR = 3.79, 95%CI [−3.10, 10.68]). Interestingly, ranking analysis showed that CEUS achieved higher DOR in detecting breast and thyroid cancer, while SWE achieved higher DOR in detecting hepatic cancer. The overall DOR for CEUS in detecting renal cancer was 53.44, 95%CI [29.89, 95.56] with an AUROC of 0.95, while the overall DOR for SWE in detecting prostate cancer was 25.35, 95%CI [7.15, 89.89] with an AUROC of 0.89.

Conclusion: Both diagnostic tests showed relatively high sensitivity and specificity in detecting malignant tumors in different organs. Network meta-analysis showed that CEUS had higher diagnostic accuracy than SWE in detecting breast and thyroid cancer, while SWE had higher accuracy in detecting hepatic cancer. However, the results were not statistically significant in hepatic and thyroid malignancies. Further head-to-head comparisons are needed to confirm the optimal imaging technique to differentiate each cancer type.