Download PDF
Ultraschall Med 2011; 32(2): 148-153
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1245934
Originalarbeiten/Original Article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Efficacy of Contrast-Enhanced US versus CT or MRI for the Therapeutic Control of Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation in the Case of Hepatic Malignancies

Aussagekraft der kontrastmittelverstärkten Sonografie im Vergleich mit CT oder MR in der Kontrolle nach perkutaner Radiofrequenzablation von LebertumorenM. Frieser1 , J. Kiesel1 , A. Lindner1 , T. Bernatik1 , J. M. Haensler1 , 1 , R. Janka2 , E. G. Hahn1 , D. Strobel1
  • 1Department of Medicine I, NOZ
  • 2Department of Radiology, NOZ
Further Information

Publication History

received: 14.4.2010

accepted: 18.11.2010

Publication Date:
11 January 2011 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Zur Beurteilung der Aussagekraft kontrastmittelunterstützter Verfahren nach Radiofrequenzablationen (RFA) wurden Patienten mit malignen Lebertumoren nach RFA mit kontrastmittelverstärktem Ultraschall (CEUS), Computertomografie (CT) und Magnetresonanztomografie (MRI) verlaufskontrolliert und die Ergebnisse miteinander verglichen. Material und Methoden: Analysiert wurden über einen Zeitraum von 7 Jahren 194 RFAs von 76 Patienten mit 118 Raumforderungen der Leber (n = 55 HCC, n = 63 Metastasen), die mit Bildgebung (CEUS und CT/MRI) im Verlauf (Goldstandard zur Diagnosestellung) untersucht wurden. Kriterien für ein Rezidiv waren eine KM-Anreicherung im Bereich der behandelten Raumforderung von mehr als 5 mm und Größenwachstum von mind. 25 % im Follow-up. Ergebnisse: Vergleichsgruppe CEUS-CT: Von insgesamt 65 Vergleichsuntersuchungen stimmten die Befunde in 54 Fällen (83,1 %) überein. In 7 Fällen (10,8 %) wurde die korrekte Diagnose nur im CEUS gestellt, in 2 Fällen (3,1 %) nur im CECT. In 2 Fällen (3,1 %) lieferten beide Verfahren falsche Ergebnisse. Korrektklassifikationsrate (DA): CEUS 93,8 %, CT 86,2 %. Vergleichsgruppe CEUS-MRI: Von insgesamt 26 Vergleichsuntersuchungen stimmten CEUS und MRI in 23 Fällen bzw. 88,5 % überein. In den 3 diskordanten Fällen (11,5 %) wurde die korrekte Diagnose nur im CEUS gestellt. DA (n = 26): CEUS 100 %, MRI 88,4 %. Schlussfolgerung: Im Follow-up von Tumorbehandlungen der Leber ist CEUS der CT und der MRI ebenbürtig.

Abstract

Purpose: The goal of this study was to assess the informative value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound after radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Patients who had undergone RFA of malignant liver tumors were followed up with contrast-enhanced sonography (CEUS), computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance tomography (MRI), and the outcomes were compared. Materials and Methods: 76 patients undergoing 194 RFAs for 118 hepatic neoplasms (n = 55 HCC, n = 63 metastases) in the course of a 7-year period were examined post-interventionally using CEUS and CT or MRI. During follow-up (gold standard of evaluation), contrast agent rim accumulations with a diameter greater than 5 mm and a growth rate of at least 25 % were counted as a recurrence. Results: CEUS-CT comparison group: A total of 65 scan pairs were compared. In 54 cases (83.1 %) the findings were the same with either method. In 7 cases (10.8 %) CEUS confirmed the correct diagnosis, and in 2 cases (3.1 %) only CT was correct. In 2 cases (3.1 %) both methods yielded incorrect results. Diagnostic accuracy (DA): CEUS 93.8 %, CT 86.2 %. CEUS-MRI comparison group: In 23 cases (88.5 %) of a total of 26 scan pairs, the findings were the same for both CEUS and MRI. In 3 discordant cases only CEUS confirmed the correct diagnosis (3 cases, 11.5 %). Diagnostic accuracy DA (n = 26): CEUS 100 %, MRI 88.4 %. Conclusion: CEUS performs equally to CT and MRI in the follow-up of patients treated for liver tumors by RFA.

Key words

abdomen - ablation procedures - contrast agents

References

  • 1 Spangenberg H C, Thimme R, Blum H E. Evolving therapies in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.  Biologics. 2008;  2 453-462
    Google Scholar
  • 2 El-Serag H B, Marrero J A, Rudolph L et al. Diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.  Gastroenterology. 2008;  134 1752-1763
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Lau W Y, Lai E C. Hepatocellular carcinoma: current management and recent advances.  Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2008;  7 237-257
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Abdalla E K, Vauthey J N, Ellis L M et al. Recurrence and outcomes following hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation, and combined resection/ablation for colorectal liver metastases.  Ann Surg. 2004;  239 818-825 ; discussion 825 – 827
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Abdel-Misih S R, Schmidt C R, Bloomston P M. Update and review of the multidisciplinary management of stage IV colorectal cancer with liver metastases.  World J Surg Oncol. 2009;  7 72
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Guan Y S, Sun L, Zhou X P et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma treated with interventional procedures: CT and MRI follow-up.  World J Gastroenterol. 2004;  10 (24) 3543-3548
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Goldberg S N, Grassi C J, Cardella J F et al. Image-guided tumor ablation: standardization of terminology and reporting criteria.  Radiology. 2005;  235 728-739 Epub 2005 Apr 21. Review
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Couinaud C. Segmental and lobar left hepatectomies, studies on anatomical conditions.  J Chir. 1952;  68 697-715
    Google Scholar
  • 9 EFSUMB Study Group . Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound.  Ultraschall in Med. 2004;  25 249-256
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Claudon M, Cosgrove D, Albrecht T et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) – update 2008.  Ultraschall in Med. 2008;  29 28-44
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Strobel D, Seitz K, Blank W et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of focal liver lesions – diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice (DEGUM multicenter trial).  Ultraschall in Med. 2008;  29 499-505
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Strobel D, Seitz K, Blank W et al. Tumor-specific vascularization pattern of liver metastasis, hepatocellular carcinoma, hemangioma and focal nodular hyperplasia in the differential diagnosis of 1,349 liver lesions in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS).  Ultraschall in Med. 2009;  30 376-382 Epub 2009 Aug 17
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Seitz K, Strobel D, Bernatik T et al. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterization of focal liver lesions – prospective comparison in clinical practice: CEUS vs. CT (DEGUM multicenter trial). Parts of this manuscript were presented at the Ultrasound Dreiländertreffen 2008, Davos.  Ultraschall in Med. 2009;  30 383-389 Epub 2009 Aug 17
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Choi D, Lim H K, Lee W J et al. Radiofrequency ablation of liver cancer: early evaluation of therapeutic response with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography.  Korean J Radiol. 2004;  5 185-198
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Lu M D, Yu X L, Li A H et al. Comparison of contrast enhanced ultrasound and contrast enhanced CT or MRI in monitoring percutaneous thermal ablation procedure in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a multi-center study in China.  Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007;  33 (11) 1736-1749 Epub 2007 Jul 16
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Shimizu M, Iijima H, Horibe T et al. Usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with a new contrast mode, Agent Detection Imaging, in evaluating therapeutic response in hepatocellular carcinoma treated with radio-frequency ablation therapy.  Hepatol Res. 2004;  29 235-242
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Imai Y, Okamoto N, Tateiwa N et al. Assessment of treatment efficacy in radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Comparison between multiplanar reconstruction by multi-detector row CT and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography by Truagent detection mode.  Hepatol Res. 2006;  35 69-75. Epub 2006 Mar 10
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Kim C K, Choi D, Lim H K et al. Therapeutic response assessment of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: utility of contrast-enhanced agent detection imaging.  Eur J Radiol. 2005;  56 66-73
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Solbiati L, Ierace T, Tonolini M et al. Guidance and monitoring of radiofrequency liver tumor ablation with contrast-enhanced ultrasound.  Eur J Radiol. 2004;  51 S19-S23
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Meloni M F, Livraghi T, Filice C et al. Radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors: the role of microbubble ultrasound contrast agents.  Ultrasound Q. 2006;  22 41-47
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Ricci P, Cantisani V, Drudi F et al. Is contrast-enhanced US alternative to spiral CT in the assessment of treatment outcome of radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma?.  Ultraschall in Med. 2009;  30 252-258 Epub 2009 Mar 11
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Vogt F M, Antoch G, Veit P et al. Morphologic and functional changes in nontumorous liver tissue after radiofrequency ablation in an in vivo model: comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, ultrasound, and CT.  J Nucl Med. 2007;  48 1836-1844. Epub 2007 Oct 17
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Schraml C, Clasen S, Schwenzer N F et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the immediate assessment of radiofrequency ablation success in colorectal liver metastases.  Abdom Imaging. 2008;  33 643-651
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Kim S K, Lim H K, Kim Y H et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma treated with radio-frequency ablation: spectrum of imaging findings.  Radiographics. 2003;  23 107-121
    Google Scholar

Dr. Markus Frieser

Department of Medicine I, NOZ

Ulmenweg 18

91054 Erlangen

Germany

Phone: ++ 49/91 31/8 53 50 00

Fax: ++ 49/91 31/8 53 52 52

Email: markus.frieser@uk-erlangen.de

      >