Download PDF
Ultraschall Med 2013; 34(6): 529-540
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1355785
Original Article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) Characterization of Grey-scale Sonographic Indeterminate Focal Liver Lesions in Pediatric Practice

Kontrastmittelultraschall (CEUS) in der Pädiatrie zur Charakterisierung von sonografisch nicht-differenzierbaren fokalen Leberläsionen
J. Jacob
1   Radiology, King’s College Hospital, London
,
A. Deganello
1   Radiology, King’s College Hospital, London
,
M. E. Sellars
1   Radiology, King’s College Hospital, London
,
N. Hadzic
2   Pediatric Liver Unit, King’s College Hospital, London
,
P. S. Sidhu
1   Radiology, King’s College Hospital, London
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

19 May 2013

27 September 2013

Publication Date:
16 October 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in characterizing grey-scale sonographic indeterminate focal liver lesions (FLL) in pediatric practice.

Materials and Methods: Local Ethics Board approval waiver was attained. Consent for CEUS examinations was acquired from parents. Forty-four children referred for CEUS assessment of grey-scale sonographic indeterminate FLL over a 5-year period underwent standard multiphase CEUS performed by experienced operators. A phospholipid microbubble agent was used and low mechanical index ultrasound imaging techniques employed. Interpretation by consensus of the CEUS examination was compared to consensus interpretation of other imaging and to histology. Follow-up imaging was used to confirm stability of benign abnormalities. Any contrast reactions were recorded.

Results: The CEUS examination interpretation agreed with reference imaging in 29/34 (85.3 %) of cases. In discordant cases, reference imaging showed no abnormality (n = 5), with fatty change (n = 4) and regenerating nodules (n = 1) on CEUS and follow-up sonography. Where reference imaging was not performed (n = 10), histology (n = 7) or follow-up sonography (n = 3) confirmed the diagnosis. In one discordant case, all imaging modalities showed concordance identifying a malignant lesion; however histology demonstrated a benign hepatocellular adenoma. The specificity was 98.0 % (95 % CI; 86 – 100 %) and the negative predictive value was 100 %. No adverse effects to the contrast material were noted.

Conclusion: These findings demonstrate the usefulness of CEUS in characterizing indeterminate grey-scale sonography FLL in pediatric patients with the potential to reduce exposure to ionizing radiation.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Ermittlung des Nutzens des kontrastverstärkten Ultraschalls (CEUS) zur Charakterisierung von von im Graustufen-Ultraschall nicht-bestimmbaren fokalen Leberläsionen in der pädiatrischen Praxis.

Methoden: Die Zustimmung der örtlichen Ethikkommission wurde erteilt und die Einverständniserklärung zur CEUS-Untersuchung von den Eltern eingeholt. An der CEUS-Bewertung der sonografisch nicht-bestimmbaren FLLs nahmen 44 Kinder über einen Zeitraum von 5 Jahren teil, die sich einem standardisierten Multiphasen-CEUS unterzogen, der von erfahrenen Untersuchern durchgeführt wurde. Hierfür wurde ein Phospholipid-Mikrobläschen Kontrastmittel verabreicht und eine sonografische Technik mit niedrigem mechanischem Index verwendet. Die Auswertung des Konsensus der CEUS-Untersuchung wurde mit der Konsensusauswertung anderer darstellender Verfahren und der histologischen Untersuchung verglichen. Eine Kontrolluntersuchung wurde veranlasst, um die Konstanz der Befunde gutartiger Läsionen von gutartigen Veränderungen zu bestätigen. Alle Kontrastmittelreaktionen wurden erfasst.

Ergebnisse: Die Auswertung der CEUS-Untersuchungen stimmte in 29/34 (85,3 %) der Fälle mit den Referenzmethoden überein. In widersprüchlichen Fällen zeigte die Referenzmethode keine Anomalien (n = 5), die CEUS und die Kontrolluntersuchung jedoch 4 Fettverteilungsstörungen und einen Regenerationsknoten. In Fällen, in denen kein Referenzverfahren gemacht wurde (n = 10) bestätigten Histologie (n = 7) oder Verlaufssonografie (n = 3) die Diagnose. In 2 Fällen zeigten die bildgebenden Verfahren übereinstimmend eine maligne Läsion; die Histologie ergab ein hepatozelluläres Adenom. Die Spezifität betrug 98 % (95 % CI; 86 – 100 %) und der negative Vorhersagewert 100 %. Kontrastmittel-Nebenwirkungen wurden nicht beobachtet.

Schlussfolgerung: Diese Befunde zeigen den Nutzen von CEUS hinsichtlich der Charakterisierung von ungeklärten B-Bild Befunden bei pädiatrischen Patienten mit FLL mit der Möglichkeit, die Strahlenexposition zu verringern.

Key words

ultrasonography - contrast media - liver - neoplasms - paediatrics
 

  • References

  • 1 Gurarangan S, O’Meara A, MacMahon C et al. Primary hepatic tumors in children: a 26 year review. J Surg Oncol 1992; 50: 30-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Weinberg AG, Finegold MJ. Primary hepatic tumors of childhood. Hum Pathol 1983; 14: 512-537
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Meyers R. Tumors of the liver in children. Surg Oncol 2007; 16: 195-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Marion AW, Baker AJ, Dhawan A. Fatty liver disease in children. Arch Dis Child 2004; 89: 648-652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Roebuck D. Focal liver lesions in children. Pediatr Radiol 2008; 38: S518-S522
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed Tomography – an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2277-2284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Kaste SC et al. Image gently: ten steps you can take to optimize iamge quality and lower CT dose for pediatric patients. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 868-873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Strobel D, Seitz K, Blank A et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of focal liver lesions – diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice (DEGUM multicenter trial). Ultraschall in Medizin 2008; 225: 499-505
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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 Med 2013; 34: 11-29
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wilson SR, Burns PN. Microbubble-enhanced US in body imaging: What role?. Radiology 2010; 257: 24-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Zo’o M, Hoermann M, Balassy C et al. Renal safety in pediatric imaging: randomized, double-blind phase IV clinical trial of iobitridol 300 versus iodixanol 270 in multidetector CT. Pediatr Radiol 41 2011; 1393-1400
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Piskunowicz P, Kosiak W, Irga N. Why can’t we use second generation ultrasound contrast agents for the examination of children?. Ultraschall in Med 2011; 32: 83-86
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Piskunowicz P, Kosiak W, Batko T. Intravenous application of second-generation ultrasound contrast agents in children: a review of the literature. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33: 135-140
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 McCarville MB. Contrast-enhanced sonography in pediatrics. Pediatr Radiol 2011; 41 (Suppl. 01) S238-S242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sidhu PS, Choi BI, Bachmann-Nielsen M. The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical practice of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): a new dawn for the escalating use of this ubiquitous technique. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 32: 5-7
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Barr RG. Off-label use of ultrasound contrast agents for abdominal imaging in the United States. J Ultrasound Med 2013; 32: 7-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Piscaglia F, Bolondi L. The safety of SonoVue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound in Med Biol 2006; 32: 1369-1375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Romanini L, Passamonti M, Aiani L et al. Economic assessment of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for evaluation of focal lesions: a multicentre Italian experience. Eur Radiol 2007; 17 (Suppl. 06) F99-F106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Giesel FL, Delome S, Kayczor HU et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of incidental liver lesions – an economical evaluation in comparison with multi-phase computed tomography. Ultraschall in Med 2009; 30: 259-268
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lanka B, Jang HJ, Kim TK et al. Impact of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography in a Tertiary Clinical Practice. J Ultrasound Med 2007; 26: 1703-1714
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 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; 2: 33-59
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Strobel D, Bernatik T, Blank W et al. Diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in the differential diagnosis of small (< 20mm) and subcentimetric (<10 mm) focal liver lesions in comparison with histology. Results of the DEGUM Multicenter Study. Ultraschall in Med 2011; 32: 593-597
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bernatik T, Seitz K, Blank W et al. Unclear focal liver lesions in contrast-enhanced ultrasonography – lessons to be learned from the DEGUM multicenter study for the characterization of liver tumors. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 577-581
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2012; 380: 499-505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Quaia E. Microbubble ultrasound contrast agents; an update. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 1995-2008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Martin D. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Pediatric Radiology 2008; 38: 125-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Conroy S, Choonara I, Impiccaitore P et al. Survey of unlicensed and off label drug use in paediatric wards in European countries. BMJ 2000; 320: 79-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Quaia E. The real capabilities of contrat-enhanced ultrasound in the characterization of solid focal liver lesions. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 457-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bartolotta TV, Taibbi A, Midiri M et al. Indeterminate focal liver lesions incidentally discovered at gray-scale US. role of contrast-enhanced sonography. Invest Radiol 2011; 46: 106-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Dai Y, Chen MH, Yin SS et al. Focal liver lesions: can SonoVue-enhanced ultrasound be used to differentiate malignant from benign lesions?. Invest Radiol 2007; 42: 596-603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bhayana D, Kim TK, Jang HJ et al. Hypervascular liver masses on contrast-enhanced ultrasound: the importance of washout. Am J Roentgenol Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 977-983
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Jang HJ, Kim TK, Burns PN et al. Enhancement Patterns of Hepatocellular Carcinoma at Contrast-enhanced US: Comparison with Histologic Differentiation. Radiology 2007; 244: 898-906
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ricci P, Cantisani V, D’Onofrio M et al. Behavior of Hepatocellular Adenoma on Real-time Low-Mechanical Index Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography With a Second-Generation Contrast Agent. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27: 1719-1726
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Dietrich CF, Schuessler G, Trojan J et al. Differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma by contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Br J Radiol 2005; 78: 704-707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Shanbhogue AK, Prasad SR, Takahashi N et al. Recent advances in cytogentics and molecular biology of adult hepatocellular tumors: implications for imaging and management. Radiology 2011; 258: 673-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Bartolotta TV, Taibbi A, Galia M et al. Characterization of hypoechoic focal lesions in patients with fatty liver: diagnostic performance and confidence of contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 650-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar