RSS-Feed abonnieren

DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1811553
Assessment of Kupffer Cell–Specific Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Characterization of Suspicious Malignant Focal Liver Lesions
Authors
Funding None.

Abstract
Background
This article aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of Kupffer cell–specific contrast-enhanced ultrasound (Sonazoid) for characterization of suspicious malignant focal liver lesions and the diagnostic accuracy of Sonazoid in differentiating tumoral thrombosis of the portal vein from bland thrombosis.
Materials and Methods
This was a single-center, prospective, cross-sectional study conducted in the Department of Radiology. Baseline gray-scale ultrasound, along with contrast-enhanced imaging, was performed in patients who met the inclusion criteria. CEUS images were read by two radiologists with an experience of 3 and 15 years, respectively. Interobserver agreement between two observers was calculated. CECT and CEMRI images were read by a third radiologist with an experience of around 7 years; he was also blinded to the histopathology and CEUS results. CECT/CEMRI was taken as a gold standard for HCC (based on the evidence-based practice/AASLD guidelines); for non-HCC lesions, histopathology was taken as a gold standard. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of CEUS were then calculated with respect to the gold standard. In eight cases included in our study, portal vein thrombosis was present, and so the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS with Sonazoid for differentiating tumoral and bland thrombosis was also calculated.
Results
CEUS with Sonazoid has a sensitivity of 90%, an accuracy of 87%, and a PPV of 96% for characterizing focal liver lesions. CEUS with Sonazoid (with respect to histopathology) has a sensitivity of 87.5%, specificity of 87.5%, and diagnostic accuracy of 77.8% for the characterization of lesions. In a limited number of patients included in our study, CEUS had a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and PPV of 100% for differentiating between tumoral and bland thrombus.
Conclusion
CEUS is an excellent modality for differentiating tumoral from bland thrombus, and it can be safely used for lesion characterization in patients where CT/MRI contrast agent is contraindicated. In cases of diagnostic dilemma, CEUS can be used as an alternative modality. Since it is radiation free, it can be used in regular surveillance of high-risk patients.
Publikationsverlauf
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
08. September 2025
© 2025. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Alazawi W, Cunningham M, Dearden J, Foster GR. Systematic review: outcome of compensated cirrhosis due to chronic hepatitis C infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; 32 (03) 344-355
- 2 Matsui O. Imaging of multistep human hepatocarcinogenesis by CT during intra-arterial contrast injection. Intervirology 2004; 47 (3-5): 271-276
- 3 Westwood M, Joore M, Grutters J. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound using SonoVue® (sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles) compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the characterisation of focal liver lesions and detection of liver metastases: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2013; 17 (16) 1-243
- 4 Quaia E, Palumbo A, Rossi S. et al. Comparison of visual and quantitative analysis for characterization of insonated liver tumors after microbubble contrast injection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186 (06) 1560-1570
- 5 Minami Y, Kudo M. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with Sonazoid in hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis. Hepatoma Res 2020; 6: 46
- 6 de Jong N, Emmer M, van Wamel A, Versluis M. Ultrasonic characterization of ultrasound contrast agents. Med Biol Eng Comput 2009; 47 (08) 861-873
- 7 Lee JY, Minami Y, Choi BI. et al. The AFSUMB consensus statements and recommendations for the clinical practice of contrast-enhanced ultrasound using Sonazoid. J Med Ultrasound 2020; 28 (02) 59-82
- 8 Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI. et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver–update 2012. Ultraschall in der Medizin-. Eur J Ultrasound 2013; 34 (01) 11-29
- 9 Kudo M. Diagnostic imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: recent progress. Oncology 2011; 81 (Suppl. 01) 73-85
- 10 Kudo M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma in Japan as a world-leading model. Liver Cancer 2018; 7 (02) 134-147
- 11 Wilson SR, Lyshchik A, Piscaglia F. et al. CEUS LI-RADS: algorithm, implementation, and key differences from CT/MRI. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018; 43 (01) 127-142
- 12 Mukund A, Bansal A, Patidar Y, Thapar S, Sharma MK, Sarin SK. Role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound with Perfluorobutane in lesion detection, guidance for microwave ablation, and response assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2022; 47 (10) 3459-3467
- 13 Cao J, Wang H, Ling W. Compared with SonoVue® LR-5, Sonazoid® modified LR-5 has better diagnostic sensitivity for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2024; 14 (04) 2978-2992
- 14 Wu M, Li L, Wang J. et al. Contrast-enhanced US for characterization of focal liver lesions: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2018; 28 (05) 2077-2088
- 15 Luo W, Numata K, Morimoto M. et al. Focal liver tumors: characterization with 3D perflubutane microbubble contrast agent-enhanced US versus 3D contrast-enhanced multidetector CT. Radiology 2009; 251 (01) 287-295
- 16 Hsiao CY, Chen PD, Huang KW. A prospective assessment of the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound, dynamic computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for patients with small liver tumors. J Clin Med 2019; 8 (09) 1353
- 17 Huang Z, Zhu RH, Li SS, Luo HC, Li KY. Diagnostic performance of Sonazoid-enhanced CEUS in identifying definitive hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients according to KLCA-NCC 2022 and APASL 2017 guidelines. Insights Imaging 2024; 15 (01) 263
- 18 Jang HJ, Kim TK, Burns PN, Wilson SR. Enhancement patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma at contrast-enhanced US: comparison with histologic differentiation. Radiology 2007; 244 (03) 898-906
- 19 Moudgil S, Kalra N, Prabhakar N. et al. Comparison of contrast enhanced ultrasound with contrast enhanced computed tomography for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Exp Hepatol 2017; 7 (03) 222-229
- 20 Hwang JA, Jeong WK, Min JH, Kim YY, Heo NH, Lim HK. Sonazoid-enhanced ultrasonography: comparison with CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System in patients with suspected hepatocellular carcinoma. Ultrasonography 2021; 40 (04) 486-498
- 21 Chen J, Zhu J, Zhang C, Song Y, Huang P. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of portal vein thrombosis vs tumor-in-vein in HCC patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2020; 30 (05) 2871-2880
- 22 Tarantino L, Ambrosino P, Di Minno MN. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differentiating malignant from benign portal vein thrombosis in hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21 (32) 9457-9460