Real-Time Contrast-Enhanced-Guided Biopsy Compared with Conventional Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Hepatic Tumors on a Background of Advanced Chronic Liver Disease: A Prospective, Randomized, Clinical Trial

Intraluminal Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography Application in Dogs and Cats

Administering intraluminal fluid can improve the acoustic window for the visualization of the lumen and wall layers in the cavitary organs. Microbubbles in ultrasound contrast agents can also be used for intracavitary applications to enhance visualization of the lesion in human patients. However, there was no literature extending the clinical application of intraluminal contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) to patients with naturally occurring diseases in veterinary medicine. This case series aims to describe the detailed application and diagnostic value of intraluminal CEUS in six clinical cases with naturally occurring gastrointestinal (GI) and urinary tract diseases.

Contrast-enhanced US versus US-guided biopsy for abdominal and pelvic neoplasm in paediatric patients: a propensity score matching study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic performance of CEUS-guided biopsy (CEUS-GB) and ultrasound-guided biopsy (US-GB) in evaluating abdominal and pelvic (abdominopelvic) neoplasms in paediatric patients.

METHODS

Patients aged < 18 years with abdominopelvic tumours who underwent either CEUS-GB or US-GB between April 2005 and May 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. Tumours diagnosed as malignancies by pathology were considered true-positive findings. Benign lesions were identified by pathology or clinical follow-up of at least 6 months. The diagnostic performance of the two groups was compared using propensity score matching (PSM). Complications were also analysed.

RESULTS

The present study included 764 paediatric patients (437 boys; median age, 24 months; interquartile range, 10-60 months); 151 were in the CEUS-GB group, and 613 were in the US-GB group. The sample adequacy rate was 100% (151 of 151) for the CEUS-GB group, which was greater than the 97.4% (597 of 613) for the US-GB group (p < 0.001). The overall diagnostic accuracy of the CEUS-GB group and US-GB group was 98.7% (149 of 151) versus 97.3% (581 of 597) in the total cohort (p = 0.551) and 98.7% (149 of 151) versus 92.7% (140 of 151) in the PSM cohort (p = 0.020). Two patients (0.3%) in the US-GB group experienced complications (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), grade 1-2) correlated with the biopsy. No adverse reactions occurred in the CEUS-GB group.

CONCLUSION

CEUS-GB of abdominopelvic tumours in paediatric patients is an effective and safe procedure with greater diagnostic accuracy than US-GB, especially for tumours with necrotic areas.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Contrast-enhanced US-guided biopsy of solid abdominal and pelvic tumours in paediatric patients is an effective and safe procedure with greater diagnostic accuracy than US-guided biopsy, especially for tumours with necrotic areas.

KEY POINTS

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) may be superior to conventional ultrasound at guiding biopsy of abdominopelvic masses in paediatric patients. CEUS-guided core needle biopsy of abdominopelvic masses in children was safe and resulted in a diagnostic yield of 98.7%. CEUS guidance should be considered in this population when colour Doppler US is unable to determine a biopsy site.

Increasing utilization of contrast-enhanced ultrasound during abdominal biopsies: impact of an educational training program

RATIONAL AND OBJECTIVES

To increase utilization of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) during ultrasound-guided targeted liver biopsies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two educational training interventions performed to increase use of CEUS. First, 14 radiologists (fellowship-trained in Abdominal Imaging) given didactic teaching and case presentations on the use of CEUS. Second, hands-on teaching on how to use CEUS provided to the same group. To determine the efficacy of these two interventions, radiologists completed anonymous surveys to determine the level of understanding and acceptability of using CEUS before and 6 months after CEUS training. In addition, the percentage of CEUS assisted liver biopsies was compared for the 6 months before and 6 months after the training.

RESULTS

Pre-training survey completed by 11 radiologists and post-training survey completed by 9 radiologists. Before training, 11% survey responders use CEUS routinely, whereas 89% never or rarely used it. After training, 54% of respondents were new users and 100% reported they planned to use CEUS in the future. Unfamiliarity (71%) was the main reason for not using it. After training, 25% reported lack of comfort with using CEUS as the main reason for not using CEUS. During six months before training, CEUS was administered in 6% (10/172) of targeted liver biopsies. Six months after training, CEUS was used nearly twice as often (10%, 16/160, P = 0.09, 1-sided Boschloo test). The number of radiologists using CEUS increased to 57% (8/14) after training compared to 20% (3/14, P = 0.03, 1-sided Boschloo) before training.

CONCLUSION

Educational training intervention increases use of CEUS during ultrasound-guided targeted liver biopsies.

The Role of Immunohistochemistry in the Differential Diagnosis between Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma, Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Liver Metastasis, as Well as Its Prognostic Value

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is the second most frequent primary hepatic malignant tumor, after hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Its incidence has risen worldwide, yet the only potentially curative treatment, surgical resection, is seldom applicable, and the median overall survival remains extremely low. So far, there are no personalized therapy regimens. This study investigated whether routine immunohistochemical stains have diagnostic and/or prognostic value in iCCA. Clinical, imaging, and pathology data were retrospectively gathered for patients diagnosed with iCCA, HCC, or liver metastases assessed using liver needle biopsies. Three study groups with an equal number of cases (n = 65) were formed. In the iCCA group, CK19, CA19-9, CK7, and CEA demonstrated the highest sensitivities (100%, 100%, 93.7%, and 82.6%, respectively). The most relevant stains used for diagnosing HCCs were Glypican 3, CD34 (sinusoidal pattern), and Hep Par 1, with corresponding sensitivities of 100%, 100%, and 98.2%. The immunohistochemical panels for diagnosing metastatic tumors were chosen after correlating the clinical data and morphologic H&E aspects. Moderate/intensely positive CK7 expression and absent/low amount of intratumoral immune cells were favorable prognostic factors and correlated with increased overall survival in both the univariate analysis and the multivariate regression adjusted for age, existence of cirrhosis, number of tumors, and tumor differentiation.

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study of Contrast-enhanced US versus US-guided Biopsy of Focal Liver Lesions

Background Retrospective or single-center prospective studies with relatively small samples have shown that contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) can improve the diagnostic accuracy of percutaneous biopsy, but larger prospective studies are lacking. Purpose To assess the diagnostic performance of CEUS-guided biopsy (CEUS-GB) of focal liver lesions (FLLs) compared with US-guided biopsy (US-GB) in a prospective multicenter study. Materials and Methods In this randomized controlled study conducted in nine hospitals in China between March 2016 and August 2019, adult participants with FLLs detected with US, CT, or MRI and planned for percutaneous biopsy were randomly assigned to undergo either US-GB or CEUS-GB. Lesions diagnosed as malignant at histopathologic analysis were considered true-positive findings. Benign or indeterminate lesions required further confirmation with either repeat biopsy or clinical follow-up at 6 months or later. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic accuracy rate, and comparison between groups was made using the χ² test. Results In this study, 2056 participants (1297 men, 759 women; mean age, 58 years ± 11 [SD]) were analyzed: 1030 underwent biopsy with US guidance and 1026 underwent biopsy with CEUS guidance. The overall diagnostic accuracy rate of CEUS-GB was 96% (983 of 1026) versus 93% (953 of 1030) for US-GB (P = .002), CEUS-GB enabled correct identification in 96% of participants (983 of 1026) compared with 92% (953 of 1030) with US-GB (P = .002). The negative predictive value (NPV) for both biopsy methods was moderate but significantly higher for CEUS-GB than for US-GB (74% vs 57%, P = .001). The difference was remarkable for lesions smaller than 2.0 cm, with CEUS-GB showing higher diagnostic accuracy (96% vs 88%, P = .004) and sensitivity (95% vs 87%, P = .007) than US-GB. Among lesions smaller than 2.0 cm, the accuracy of CEUS-GB and US-GB for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma was 93% and 80%, respectively (P = .008), while it was comparable for liver metastases (98% vs 95%, P = .63). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced US-guided biopsy of focal liver lesions is an effective and safe procedure with a higher diagnostic accuracy than US-guided biopsy, especially for lesions smaller than 2.0 cm and for hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02413437 © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

The benefit of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in biopsies for focal liver lesions: a retrospective study of 820 cases

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the performance between ultrasound (US)- and contrast-enhanced US (CEUS)-guided liver biopsies and evaluated the benefit of CEUS in percutaneous biopsy for focal liver lesions (FLLs).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 820 patients with FLLs, who underwent percutaneous liver biopsy in our center between 2017 and 2019. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether US (n = 362) or CEUS (n = 458) used before a biopsy. The two groups were compared based on specimen adequacy for pathological diagnosis and diagnostic accuracy of liver biopsy. Stratification analysis was performed based on lesion and protocol characteristics to provide detailed information for selecting the imaging guidance for biopsy.

RESULTS

Compared with the US group, the CEUS group yielded more acceptable samples (97.6% vs. 99.4%, p < 0.05) and improved diagnostic accuracy (92.6% vs. 96.4%, p < 0.05), and achieved better sensitivity (92.5% vs. 96.2%, p < 0.05) for liver biopsies, especially in FLLs ≥ 5 cm, heterogeneous hypoechoic FLLs, or FLLs with an obscure boundary. The CEUS group showed significantly higher accuracy compared with the US group pertaining to single-puncture biopsies (100% vs. 92.7%, p < 0.05) or biopsies with punctures ≤ 2 (97.6% vs. 94.3%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

CEUS achieved an enhanced success rate for sampling and diagnostic accuracy of liver biopsies, especially in FLLs ≥ 5 cm, heterogeneous hypoechoic FLLs, or FLLs with an obscure boundary. CEUS can be used to decrease the number of punctures needed, which might increase the safety of liver biopsy.

KEY POINTS

• CEUS can help confirm an adequate biopsy site, increasing the sampling success rate and diagnostic accuracy of the liver biopsy. • CEUS can be used to decrease the number of punctures needed to improve the safety of liver biopsy. • It is recommended to use CEUS guidance for liver biopsies, especially with FLLs ≥ 5 cm, heterogeneous hypoechoic FLLs, or FLLs with an obscure boundary.

Contrast enhancement for ultrasound-guided interventions: when to use it and what to expect?

The use of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) has recently become synonymous with high-standard ultrasonography (US). From expanding the reach of US diagnostics to improving the precision of various invasive procedures, CEUS is rapidly becoming a standard in numerous niches. However, proficiency in CEUS comes with a cost, both from a learning curve and material standpoint, and as every growing field, lacks firm evidence and standardization. Therefore, in the current paper, we aim to provide an evidence-based review of available methods and to discuss the advantages and pitfalls of CEUS in interventional procedures, trying to provide strong evidence whenever available, or at least an educated expert opinion if data are lacking.

Role of Liver Biopsy in Assessment of Radiologically Identified Liver Masses

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in imaging techniques that have enhanced the ability to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), histopathological evaluation of many other types of liver masses is critical.

AIMS

To evaluate the utility of liver biopsy in patients with radiologically undiagnosed liver masses.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 293 consecutive patients who had a liver biopsy for evaluation of an undiagnosed liver mass between January 2014 and January 2018.

RESULTS

Out of 293 biopsies, 246 patients were found to have malignancy (84%), including 210 (72%) patients with metastatic malignancy and 36 with primary hepatic malignancies (20 HCC and 16 others). In the 47 patients without malignancy, 17 patients had necrotic abscess/granuloma, 16 patients had normal histology, eight patients had hepatic fibrosis/cirrhosis without malignant foci, and six patients had benign tumors. The most common primary lesion in patients with liver metastasis was breast carcinoma (32/293, 11%), followed by colon and pancreas (31 (each)/293, 11%), and lung (9%) adenocarcinomas. Histopathological analysis confirmed the presence of metastasis in 165/200 (83%) patients with a history of oncological malignancy and in 45/93 (48%) patients who had no malignancy history.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with a radiologically identified liver mass of unclear etiology, liver biopsy/histology made a diagnosis in 95% (277/293) of patients, including 84% (246/293) found to have an oncological malignancy. Liver biopsy/histology also identified malignancy in a high proportion of patients without known underlying cancer. We conclude that liver biopsy is valuable for evaluation of radiologically identified liver masses of unclear etiology.

Image-guided Percutaneous Biopsy of the Liver

Percutaneous Biopsy of the Liver (PBL) is a cornerstone in the diagnosis of parenchymal liver disease and focal hepatic lesions. The indications for PBL can broadly be divided into those used to garner information regarding diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment. While the diagnosis of many common liver diseases can usually be made with imaging and serologic testing alone, PBL may be indicated in situations where the diagnosis is in question. Furthermore, liver biopsies are a foundational element for personalized treatment approaches for cancer patients; increasing emphasis is being placed on acquiring sufficient tissue for molecular profiling. While a variety of image guidance and procedural techniques have been applied to PBL, following conventional principles can ensure technical success and minimize complication risks. In this technique article, we review the practical periprocedural considerations of PBL with emphasis on recent advancements and societal recommendations.

Role of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Detection of Complications After Ultrasound-Guided Liver Interventional Procedures

The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in interventional ultrasound-guided procedures in the liver has been increasingly recognized. However, little is known about the capability of CEUS for diagnosing complications after liver biopsy and ablation with special regard to postprocedural hemorrhage. The aim of this Pictorial Essay is to present the CEUS features of a wide spectrum of vascular complications (with or without bleeding) and injuries of the surrounding abdominal and chest wall occurring after liver interventional procedures.

Guidelines on the use of liver biopsy in clinical practice from the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathology

Liver biopsy is required when clinically important information about the diagnosis, prognosis or management of a patient cannot be obtained by safer means, or for research purposes. There are several approaches to liver biopsy but predominantly percutaneous or transvenous approaches are used. A wide choice of needles is available and the approach and type of needle used will depend on the clinical state of the patient and local expertise but, for non-lesional biopsies, a 16-gauge needle is recommended. Many patients with liver disease will have abnormal laboratory coagulation tests or receive anticoagulation or antiplatelet medication. A greater understanding of the changes in haemostasis in liver disease allows for a more rational, evidence-based approach to peri-biopsy management. Overall, liver biopsy is safe but there is a small morbidity and a very small mortality so patients must be fully counselled. The specimen must be of sufficient size for histopathological interpretation. Communication with the histopathologist, with access to relevant clinical information and the results of other investigations, is essential for the generation of a clinically useful report.

Intracavitary contrast-enhanced ultrasound in ultrasound-guided percutaneous management of abdominal fluid collections/abscesses by a single clinician: an example of point-of-care ultrasound

PURPOSE

To assess the role of intracavitary contrast-enhanced ultrasound (IC-CEUS) as a focused ultrasound (US) examination aimed at supporting a single physician in the management of interventional procedures for abdominal fluid collections/abscesses.

METHODS

In 43 patients (27 M/16 F, median age 68 years, range 35-91), a single physician performed catheter drainage (42) or needle aspiration (3) for the following: 14 infected abdominal fluid collections, 11 non-infected abdominal fluid collections, 9 pyogenic liver abscesses, 8 gallbladder empyema, and 3 infected pancreatic fluid collections. IC-CEUS (0.1-0.2 mL of SonoVue in 20 mL of saline) was carried out during catheter/needle placement and during the follow-up for catheters left in place.

RESULTS

Immediate IC-CEUS allowed to verify the (1) correct positioning of the needle/catheter inside the target in all cases and (2) communication with adjacent structures so as to choose a proper treatment in 21% of the cases. Follow-up IC-CEUS aided in the management of 40 catheters left in place. Appropriate treatment was implemented in 19.3% of the cases because of the presence of biliary fistulas and gallbladder perforation. IC-CEUS helped the physician with the appropriate timing of catheter removal by providing information on catheter malfunction (due to obstruction/dislodgement) and the size of residual undrained cavities. No side effects were registered following IC-CEUS.

CONCLUSION

Even if not strictly performed at bedside, IC-CEUS may represent an example of point-of-care ultrasound since it allows an interventional clinician to assess needle/catheter placement success, make treatment decisions, and choose the optimal timing for catheter removal with low costs and without side effects.