MPUS is a big step forward for small organs

Multiparametric imaging combines the information from different functional imaging sequences or techniques and is best known from multiparametric MRI in which the information of a number of different sequences is used to investigate lesions. By combining the analysis of several structural and functional tissue properties, the characterization of lesions is much more precise than by just relying on one sequence or technique only. In fact, the combination of the variety of MRI imaging procedures and sequences as a “one-shop” procedure resulted in the term “multiparametric”. Multiparametric MRI is used in daily clinical practice in neuroimaging, liver imaging, musculoskeletal imaging, breast imaging, prostate imaging, etc. The term ‘multiparametric’ can also be applied to computed tomography (CT) as it allows functional imaging, 3D-reconstruction and imaging at different phases after contrast administration. CT has improved the visualization of the chest, pleural and abdominal cavity and revolutionized trauma management and plays a fundamental role in the diagnosis of the acute abdomen. Despite the undisputed strengths of MRI and CT, limitations are obvious: radiation exposure, foreign bodies with contraindication for MRI, patient movement with and without injection of contrast media, high cost and limitations of availability and, above all, impossibity to us CT and MRI on the bedside and directly “at the point of need”, claustrophobia in a significant proportion of patients, sedation in pediatric use and others [1] [2]. In recent decades, ultrasound imaging has also outgrown the one-dimensionality of A-Mode and the frequency-dependent high-resolution visualization of morphological details in B-Mode in several ways: functional processes can be mapped in real time, structural details displayed in 4 D, and the interaction of structures with the propagation characteristics of sound waves can be used for qualitative and quantitative analysis of tissue elasticity in strain and shear wave elastography, fat infiltration on attenuation imaging and potentially necro-inflammation using shear wave dispersion. Doppler techniques and contrast-enhanced techniques quantitatively capture blood flow, vascular density and vascularization patterns in lesions and their surroundings in real-time – with the highest temporal and spatial resolution [3] [4] [5] [6]. This multitude of information on tissue properties is achieved with lower costs and lower patient morbidity than by any other imaging modality. In fact, since the first use of the term ‘multiparametric ultrasound’ (MPUS) [7], years by years more popularity was gained in literature and among scientific societies active in the field of medical imaging on its use to describe modern ultrasound imaging, combining various technologies to precisely characterize focal lesions and their interaction with surrounding parenchyma and combining a multitude of structural and functional tissue features, perhaps similar to the terminology used in MRI [8]. Since its foundation, the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) has established a strong tradition of supporting good clinical practice and in promoting evidence-based medicine [9] [10]. Considering the high clinical utility of those newer ultrasound techniques, EFSUMB has published several clinical guidelines, technical reviews, and position papers on many areas of medical ultrasound including CEUS [11] [12] [13] [14], the analysis of time intensity curves [15], elastographic techniques [5] [6], but also in interventional ultrasound [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] and gastrointestinal ultrasound [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. In light of the increasing number of publications and the need to analyse benefits and limitations, as well as to standardize the use of multiparametric ultrasound (MPUS), EFSUMB has decided to launch the first MPUS guidelines for “small parts” (thyroid, testis, breast) and to proceed with guidelines on the pancreatic application of MPUS. Guidelines on the application of MPUS to the liver have already been published by the World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (WFUMB) in close cooperation with EFSUMB [31] [32].

All the applications will be presented in comparison with other imaging modalities that are necessary to address the various pathological entities. Together with the recently published PoCUS guideline [33], EFSUMB’s multiparametric guidelines are the first to be fully compliant with the EFSUMB Policy Document Development Strategy developed in 2019 [34] and following a systematic evidence-based approach. They have been established in 3 phases, which are guided by the guideline expert panel steering committee:

• Phase 1: Defining clinically relevant key questions by the guideline expert panel, formation of small task force groups from the expert panel for each individual key question, systematic literature search on these key questions and creation of evidence tables

• Phase 2, carried out in small task force groups formed for each individual key question: critical review of the results of the systematic literature search based on evidence tables, drafting statements/recommendations, assigning levels of evidence and grading the strength of recommendation, preparing explanatory comments

• Phase 3: Structured expert panel consensus process including discussion, modification and approval of recommendations and statements by voting.

A comprehensive and systematic literature search using the PRISMA methodology [35] formed the foundation of all MPUS guidelines and consisted of defining specific search strategies in different online databases to retrieve eligible studies. For this reason, 2 scientific librarians were included in the expert group. The key questions were prepared in a PICO format, and for each key question a search strategy was developed based on appropriate search term combinations. The databases MEDLINE (PubMed), CENTRAL, and EMBASE were used to search for full-text articles published in English language in the last 3 decades (systematic review, meta-analysis, guideline, clinical study, clinical trial) matching the predefined search term (PubMed: MeSH term) combinations. Case studies (with fewer than 10 cases), editorials, comments, letters and abstracts without full-text paper have been excluded.

In phase 2a thorough and systematic literature search related to the topics and related key questions was performed. The results were assigned to the task forces in order to critically review the selected evidence according to the defined search strategy with regard to its methodological quality. For each key question, the process of evidence selection with inclusions and exclusions according to the defined criteria was displayed in a PRISMA flowchart and in an evidence table. The last step was to draft a statement or recommendation for each key question – based on the results of the systematic literature search and evidence evaluation. Levels of evidence and strength of recommendation (the latter applicable only for recommendations) were assigned, and comments explaining the recommendations and shortly summarizing their evidence basis will be prepared. Comments briefly summarize and critically evaluate the available evidence and their clinical relevance and applicability. Recommendations give specific and precise advice as to which a particular procedure or technique, and under what circumstances, should be applied or not applied. Statements describe the results of an evidence search related to a particular key question without giving action advice. Phrasing follows the „guideline language“ described in the position paper on EFSUMB policy documents [34]. The quality of evidence was assessed using the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence (LoE) which are based on the assessment of type and quality of study design. LoE range from 1–5 (1 being the highest, based on consistent results of systematic reviews and 5 the lowest, based on expert consensus and good clinical practice). Downgrading of the LoE is possible because of limitations in study quality or inconsistency between study results, indirectness of evidence with regard to the key question, or small effect size. Conversely, LoE upgrade is possible if the clinical effect is large [34]. Based on assigning a LoE and considering benefits in relation to possible harm of any suggested or recommended intervention, patients’ preferences, resource implications, feasibility/availability and equity issues, a strong or weak Grade of Recommendation (GoR) was allocated to each recommendation using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE, 2008) approach [34].

Approximately 4 weeks prior to the consensus meeting the drafts (recommendations/statements and related comments and evidence tables) of each task force was send out to all members of the whole expert panel for critical evaluation. At the consensus meetings the prepared recommendations and statements, the underlying evidence and unresolved or controversial issues were presented by the task force for discussion. A structured consensus process, moderated by the steering group, was used to reach agreement on the recommendations and statements prepared by the respective task force group or on alternative phrasings proposed by other expert panel members. Finally, the expert panel voted on each recommendation and statement. A recommendation or statement was approved if > 75 % of voting members are in agreement (strong consensus: ≥ 95 % of votes; broad agreement: > 75–95 % of votes). In case of failure to gain > 75 % agreement for the primary or a rephrased or alternative recommendation, the lack of consent on this particular key question was recorded in the text of the guideline.

With its guideline project on MPUS, EFSUMB aims to contribute to an evidence-based and standardized use of the multiparametric ultrasound approach to the diagnosis of thyroid, testis and breast pathologies. Through the integration of modern ultrasound techniques complementary to B-mode ultrasound in diagnostic algorithms and the weighted inclusion of different structural and functional features of a given lesion in the diagnosis, the rate of false-negative and false-positive diagnostic results may be reduced – and thus unnecessary invasive diagnostics or therapies can be avoided in clinical practice. However, consideration of clinical pre-test probabilities, awareness of the limitations of MPUS technologies, knowledge of alternative imaging modalities, the training required for the professional use of MPUS, the experience required to evaluate results and excellent quality documentation are critical prerequisites for the success of multiparametric ultrasound diagnostics [36].

Conflict of Interest

Disclosure Bracco, Mindray, Samsung, Siemens,Canon feed

• References

• 1 Caraiani C, Petresc B, Dong Y. et al. Contraindications and adverse effects in abdominal imaging. Med Ultrason 2019; 21: 456-463
• 2 Caraiani C, Dong Y, Rudd AG. et al. Reasons for inadequate or incomplete imaging techniques. Med Ultrason 2018; 20: 498-507
• 3 Dietrich CF, Bamber J, Berzigotti A. et al. EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Use of Liver Ultrasound Elastography, Update 2017 (Short Version). Ultraschall in Med 2017; 38: 377-394
• 4 Dietrich CF, Bamber J, Berzigotti A. et al. EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Use of Liver Ultrasound Elastography, Update 2017 (Long Version). Ultraschall in Med 2017; 38: e16-e47
• 5 Bamber J, Cosgrove D, Dietrich CF. et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 1: Basic principles and technology. Ultraschall in Med 2013; 34: 169-184
• 6 Cosgrove D, Piscaglia F, Bamber J. et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 2: Clinical applications. Ultraschall in Med 2013; 34: 238-253
• 7 Cantisani V, DʼAndrea V, Biancari F. et al. Prospective evaluation of multiparametric ultrasound and quantitative elastosonography in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant thyroid nodules: preliminary experience. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 2678-2683
• 8 Sidhu PS. Multiparametric Ultrasound (MPUS) Imaging: Terminology Describing the Many Aspects of Ultrasonography. Ultraschall in Med 2015; 36: 315-317
• 9 Jenssen C, Ewertsen C, Piscaglia F. et al. 50th years anniversary of EFSUMB: Initial roots, maturation, and new shoots. Ultraschall in Med 2022; 43: 227-231
• 10 Dietrich CF, Bolondi L, Duck F. et al. History of Ultrasound in Medicine from its birth to date (2022), on occasion of the 50 Years Anniversary of EFSUMB. A publication of the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound In Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB), designed to record the historical development of medical ultrasound. Med Ultrason 2022; 24: 434-450
• 11 Piscaglia F, Nolsoe C, Dietrich CF. et al. The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33: 33-59
• 12 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
• 13 Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI. et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver – update 2012: A WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013; 39: 187-210
• 14 Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI. et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver – update 2012: a WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultraschall in Med 2013; 34: 11-29
• 15 Dietrich CF, Averkiou MA, Correas JM. et al. An EFSUMB introduction into Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (DCE-US) for quantification of tumour perfusion. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33: 344-351
• 16 Dietrich CF, Lorentzen T, Appelbaum L. et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part III – Abdominal Treatment Procedures (Short Version). Ultraschall in Med 2016; 37: 27-45
• 17 Dietrich CF, Lorentzen T, Appelbaum L. et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part III – Abdominal Treatment Procedures (Long Version). Ultraschall in Med 2016; 37: E1-E32
• 18 Dietrich CF, Lorentzen T, Sidhu PS. et al. An Introduction to the EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS). Ultraschall in Med 2015; 36: 460-463
• 19 Fusaroli P, Jenssen C, Hocke M. et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part V. Ultraschall in Med 2015;
• 20 Jenssen C, Brkljacic B, Hocke M. et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part VI – Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Interventions. Ultraschall in Med 2015;
• 21 Lorentzen T, Nolsoe CP, Ewertsen C. et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part I. General Aspects (long Version). Ultraschall in Med 2015; 36: E1-14
• 22 Lorentzen T, Nolsoe CP, Ewertsen C. et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part I. General Aspects (Short Version). Ultraschall in Med 2015; 36: 464-472
• 23 Sidhu PS, Brabrand K, Cantisani V. et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part II. Diagnostic Ultrasound-Guided Interventional Procedures (Long Version). Ultraschall in Med 2015; 36: E15-E35
• 24 Sidhu PS, Brabrand K, Cantisani V. et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part II. Diagnostic Ultrasound-Guided Interventional Procedures (Short Version). Ultraschall in Med 2015; 36: 566-580
• 25 Hollerweger A, Maconi G, Ripolles T. et al. Gastrointestinal Ultrasound (GIUS) in Intestinal Emergencies – An EFSUMB Position Paper. Ultraschall in Med 2020; 41: 646-657
• 26 Dietrich CF, Hollerweger A, Dirks K. et al. EFSUMB Gastrointestinal Ultrasound (GIUS) Task Force Group: Celiac sprue and other rare gastrointestinal diseases ultrasound features. Med Ultrason 2019; 21: 299-315
• 27 Dirks K, Calabrese E, Dietrich CF. et al. EFSUMB Position Paper: Recommendations for Gastrointestinal Ultrasound (GIUS) in Acute Appendicitis and Diverticulitis. Ultraschall in Med 2019; 40: 163-175
• 28 Nuernberg D, Saftoiu A, Barreiros AP. et al. EFSUMB Recommendations for Gastrointestinal Ultrasound Part 3: Endorectal, Endoanal and Perineal Ultrasound. Ultrasound Int Open 2019; 5: E34-E51
• 29 Maconi G, Nylund K, Ripolles T. et al. EFSUMB Recommendations and Clinical Guidelines for Intestinal Ultrasound (GIUS) in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Ultraschall in Med 2018; 39: 304-317
• 30 Nylund K, Maconi G, Hollerweger A. et al. EFSUMB Recommendations and Guidelines for Gastrointestinal Ultrasound. Ultraschall in Med 2017; 38: e1-e15
• 31 Ferraioli G, Barr RG, Berzigotti A. et al. WFUMB Guideline/Guidance on Liver Multiparametric Ultrasound: Part 1. Update to 2018 Guidelines on Liver Ultrasound Elastography. Ultrasound Med Biol 2024; 50: 1071-1087
• 32 Ferraioli G, Barr RG, Berzigotti A. et al. WFUMB Guidelines/Guidance on Liver Multiparametric Ultrasound. Part 2: Guidance on Liver Fat Quantification. Ultrasound Med Biol 2024; 50: 1088-1098
• 33 Jarman RD, McDermott C, Colclough A. et al. EFSUMB Clinical Practice Guidelines for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Part One (Common Heart and Pulmonary Applications) LONG VERSION. Ultraschall in Med 2023; 44: e1-e24
• 34 Jenssen C, Gilja OH, Serra AL. et al. European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) Policy Document Development Strategy – Clinical Practice Guidelines, Position Statements and Technological Reviews. Ultrasound Int Open 2019; 5: E2-E10
• 35 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71
• 36 Wustner M, Radzina M, Calliada F. et al. Professional Standards in Medical Ultrasound – EFSUMB Position Paper (Long Version) – General Aspects. Ultraschall in Med 2022; 43: e36-e48

Publication History

Article published online:
05 February 2025