Accuracy Of Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Research Articles

The Current Role of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Diagnosis and Staging of Bladder Cancer: A Review of the Available Literature

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an advanced imaging technique that integrates conventional US with the intravenous injection of specific US contrast agents (UCAs), combining the non-invasiveness of US with the higher accuracy of contrast-enhanced imaging. In contrast with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) and cystoscopy, CEUS has few contraindications, and UCAs are non-nephrotoxic agents that can be safely used in patients with kidney failure. CEUS is a well-established method for the detection of liver lesions and for echocardiography, and its indications are expanding. The updated 2018 WFUMB-EFSUMB guidelines have added the urinary bladder under non-hepatic applications of CEUS. The technique is able to distinguish between benign tissue, such as clots or hematoma, and malignant lesions by perfusing the mass with contrast agent. Thanks to the different perfusion rates of the various layers of the bladder wall, CEUS is also able to predict tumor invasion depth and stage. Despite that, current urological guidelines do not include CEUS as a plausible imaging technique for bladder urothelial carcinoma. The main reason for this omission might be the presence of scarce randomized evidence and the absence of large validated series. In this review, we describe the rationale behind the use of CEUS in bladder cancer and the added value of this imaging technique in the detection and staging of bladder lesions. In addition, we researched the available literature on the topic and then described the results of randomized clinical trials and a meta-analysis investigating the accuracy of CEUS in bladder cancer diagnosis and staging. The reported studies show that CEUS is a highly accurate diagnostic and staging tool for BC, reaching levels of specificity and sensitivity in differentiating between Ta-T1, or low-grade BC, and T2, or high-grade BC, that are comparable to those shown by the reference standard methods. Nonetheless, several limitations were found and are highlighted in this review. The aim of this study is to further validate and promote the use of CEUS as a quick, economic and effective diagnostic tool for this high-impact disease.

A Prospective Multicenter Study on the Additive Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Biopsy Decision of Ultrasound BI-RADS 4 Breast Lesions

ObjectiveThe main aim of this study was to determine whether the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) could improve the categorization of suspicious breast lesions based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), thereby reducing the number of benign breast lesions referred for biopsy. MethodsThis prospective study, conducted between January 2017 and December 2018, enrolled consenting patients from eight teaching hospitals in China, who had been diagnosed with solid breast lesions classified as BI-RADS 4 using conventional ultrasound. CEUS was performed within 1 wk of diagnosis for reclassification of breast lesions. Histopathological results obtained from core needle biopsies or surgical excision samples served as the reference standard. The simulated biopsy rate and cancer-to-biopsy yield were used to compare the accuracy of CEUS and conventional ultrasound (US). ResultsAmong the 1490 lesions diagnosed as BI-RADS 4 with conventional ultrasound, 486 malignant and 1004 benign lesions were confirmed based on histology. Following CEUS, 2, 395, and 211 lesions were reclassified as CEUS-based BI-RADS 2, 3, and 5, respectively, while 882 (59%) remained as BI-RADS 4. The actual cancer-to-biopsy yield based on US was 32.6%, which increased to 43.4% when CEUS-based BI-RADS 4A was used as the cut-off point to recommend biopsy. The simulated biopsy rate decreased to 73.4%. Overall, in this preselected BI-RADS 4 population, only 2.5% (12/486) of malignant lesions would have been miscategorized as BI-RADS 3 using CEUS-based reclassification. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of contrast-enhanced ultrasound reclassification were 57.65%, 97.53%, and 38.35%, respectively. ConclusionOur collective findings indicate that CEUS is a valuable tool in further triage of BI-RADS category 4 lesions and facilitates a reduction in the number of biopsies while increasing the cancer-to-biopsy yield.

The Role of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Differential Diagnosis of Malignant and Benign Subpleural Lung Lesions.

Background: The application of transthoracic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to the study of peripheral lung lesions is still a topic of debate. The main objective of this review was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in the diagnosis of malignant subpleural pulmonary consolidations and, therefore, differentiate them from benign ones. Methods: Papers published before December 2023 were detected through a search of PubMed, Cochrane library, and Embase. The pooled specificity and sensitivity, summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were used. Results: CEUS is characterized by a pooled sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97) and a pooled specificity of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.95) in differentiating benign and malignant subpleural lung diseases; the AUC of SROC was 0.97. Homogeneous CE was characterized by a pooled sensitivity of 0.43 (95% CI: 0.40-0.45) and the pooled specificity of 0.49 (95% CI: 0.46-0.52). Non-homogeneous CE displayed a pooled sensitivity of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.55-0.60) and a pooled specificity of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.48-0.54). The lack of CE displayed a pooled sensitivity of 0.01 (95% CI: 0.00-0.06) and a pooled specificity of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64-0.85). Marked CE displayed a pooled sensitivity of 0.41 (95% CI: 0.37-0.44) and a pooled specificity of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.50-0.58). Non-marked CE displayed a pooled sensitivity of 0.59 (95% CI: 0.56-0.63) and a pooled specificity of 0.46 (95% CI: 0.42-0.50). The early AT displayed a pooled sensitivity of 0.04 (95% CI: 0.02-0.08) and a pooled specificity of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.87). The early wash out displayed a pooled sensitivity of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.48-0.72) and a pooled specificity of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.92-1.00). The delayed wash out displayed a pooled sensitivity of 0.15 (95% CI: 0.10-0.20) and a pooled specificity of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.62-0.75). Conclusions: CEUS is characterized by excellent diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of the malignancy of subpleural lung lesions. By separately analyzing the CEUS findings, the diagnostic accuracy values are considerably lower and not significant in some cases. The simultaneous evaluation of multiple CEUS features allows us to reach an excellent diagnostic accuracy. Non-homogeneous CE with early wash out are the most indicative features of malignancy of a lung lesion.

Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Using meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the diagnosis of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC). For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, WanFang Data, VPCS Data, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure electronic databases for diagnostic studies on PTMC by CEUS from January 2013 to November 2022. Data were not available or incomplete such as case reports, nonhuman studies, etc, were excluded. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in diagnosing PTMC. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the QUADAS-2 scale. This study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42023409417. Of 1064 records identified, 33 were eligible. The results showed that the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of CEUS in diagnosing PTMC were 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83-0.86), 0.82 (95% CI = 0.80-0.83), 3.90 (95% CI = 3.23-4.72), 0.21 (95% CI = 0.18-0.25), and 20.01 (95% CI = 14.97-26.74), respectively, and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.8930 (the Q index was 0.8239). The Deek funnel plot indicated publication bias (P ˂.01). This meta-analysis provides an overview of diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in diagnosing PTMC which indicates CEUS has a good diagnostic value for PTMC. The limitations of this study are publication bias and strong geographical bias.

Contrast-enhanced point of care ultrasound for the evaluation of stable blunt abdominal trauma by the emergency physician: A prospective diagnostic study.

Clinical examination alone cannot reliably rule out significant traumatic abdominal injury. Computed tomography (CT) has become the primary method for evaluating blunt abdominal trauma and clinicians rely heavily on it to rule out abdominal injury. Ultrasound examination may miss significant abdominal injury particularly in stable patients. The use of a contrast agent improves ultrasound sensitivity to visceral abdominal injuries. The objective of this diagnostic study is to compare bedside contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) performed by emergency physicians to CT in hemodynamically stable adults for the assessment of blunt abdominal trauma and evaluate CEUS accuracy outcomes. Hemodynamically stable patients with blunt trauma were prospectively enrolled in the trauma bay. After initial evaluation, we included patients at risk of abdominal injury and for whom an abdominal CT was planned by the trauma leader. Ultrasonography was performed prospectively and at the bedside by the emergency physician followed by abdominal CT used as a reference standard. Thirty-three patients were enrolled in the study; among them, 52% showed positive traumatic findings in abdominal CT scans, and 42% were diagnosed with solid organ lesions. Compared to CT, a focused abdominal sonography (FOCUS) examination, looking for free fluid or perirenal hematoma, showed limited performance for traumatic findings with a sensitivity of 65% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 38%-86%), a specificity of 75% (95% CI: 48%-93%), a negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.23-0.95), and a positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 2.59 (95% CI: 1.03-6.48). When combining FOCUS with CEUS, the sensitivity of the sonography increased to 94% (95% CI: 71%-100%) with a specificity of 75% (95% CI: 48%-93%). The PLR was 3.76 (95% CI: 1.6-8.87) and the NLR was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.01-0.54). In our population, abdominal sonography with contrast failed to identify a single positive abdominal CT with a grade 1 kidney injury. A FOCUS examination shows limited sensitivity and specificity to detect positive abdominal CT in stable adults with abdominal trauma. With the addition of contrast and careful inspection of solid organs, abdominal sonography with contrast performed by the emergency physician improves the ability to rule out traumatic findings on abdominal CT. CEUS performed by emergency physicians may miss injuries, especially in the absence of free fluid, in cases of low-grade injuries, simultaneous injuries, or poor-quality examinations.

P482 Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for fibrotic strictures of Crohn’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

Abstract Background Crohn's disease (CD) often leads to the development of intestinal strictures, requiring effective differentiation between inflammatory and fibrotic for the optimal treatment strategies. Despite recent advances in drug development targeting fibrosis, current evaluation methods remain insufficient. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a promising modality for assessing vascularity and inflammation, yet its accuracy in fibrosis detection needs more validation. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using IPD to determine the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in identifying intestinal fibrosis in CD. Our search included databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science up until March 23, 2023. Inclusion criteria required a confirmed diagnosis of CD and studies that evaluated the accuracy of CEUS parameters, including total area under the curve (AUC), wash-in AUC, wash-out AUC, peak enhancement, wash-in perfusion index, wash-in rate, wash-out rate, rise time, fall time, and mean transit time related to fibrosis in CD (Figure 1 (A)). The quality of included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, with each study mandatorily using surgical specimen pathology as a reference standard in at least one instance. Results Our qualitative synthesis included eight studies encompassing 306 patients. These studies were generally assessed to have a high risk of bias. It is important to note that while peak enhancement and AUC were frequently examined across studies, neither parameter had established absolute cutoff values for the diagnosis of fibrosis. From the three studies where IPD was available, detailed data from 80 patients were included in the meta-analysis (colon n=11 and small bowel n= 69). Among them, 54 underwent surgical intervention with fibrosis being confirmed in 31. The highest diagnostic accuracy was observed for total AUC and wash-in AUC, with pooled sensitivity and specificity for predicting fibrosis at 0.86 (95% CI, 0.59–0.97) and 0.25 (95% CI, 0.03–0.76), respectively (Figure 1 (B)). Conclusion This meta-analysis with IPD pioneers the exclusive evaluation of CEUS for fibrotic strictures in CD. It reveals a significant risk of bias in the primary research and a notable absence of consensus on the CEUS parameters' threshold values for distinguishing fibrosis from inflammation. The observed low specificity highlights the need for innovative strategies in future research, such as integrating CEUS with techniques like elastography, to enhance the precision of fibrosis detection in CD. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020214472. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020214472

Value of contrast-enhanced percutaneous ultrasound in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tear subtype

To explore characteristics of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) images features and diagnostic value of rotator cuff tear subtypes. From January 2019 to March 2022, percutaneous ultrasound-guided subacromial bursography (PUSB) with persutaneous ultrasound-guide tendon lesionography (PUTL) was performed on 114 patients with suspected rotator cuff injury were evaluated, including 54 males and 60 females ranged in age from 35 to 75 years old with an average of (58.8±8.7 ) years old;76 patients on the right side and 38 patients on the left side;the course of disease ranged from 0.13 to 111 months with an average of (10.2±9.8) months. GE LOGIQ E9 color doppler ultrasound diagnostic high frequency(6 to 12 MHz) was used to CEUS Using arthroscopy as gold standard, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate diagnostic efficacy of US, MRI and CEUS for rotator cuff injury, also sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were calculated. The sensitivity of US in diagnosing full-thickness tears was 72.1%, specificity was 93.0%, and accuracy was 85.1%. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MRI diagnosis of full-thickness tear were 90.9%, 92.6% and 92.1% respectively. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of CEUS in diagnosis of full-thickness tear were 100%. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of US in the diagnosis of partial tear were 85.7%, 77.2% and 79.8% respectively. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MRI diagnosis of partial tear were 83.7%, 81.7% and 82.5% respectively. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of CEUS in diagnosis of partial tear were 95.7%, 92.6% and 93.9% respectively. There were significant differences in diagnosis results of US, MRI and CEUS for rotator cuff bursa tear (P<0.001). Kapp test showed good consistency between CEUS and arthroscopy in diagnosing rotator cuff tear subtypes (full-thickness and partial tears). Using PUSB/PUTL to observe distribution of contrast media in bursa, tendon and joint cavity to evaluate the type of rotator cuff tear, its diagnostic performance is significantly better than US and MRI. Therefore, percutaneous contrast-enhanced ultrasound can be a reliable method for diagnosing subtypes of rotator cuff tears.

Clinical Practice Report of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Renal Artery Disease.

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of renal artery contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with modified inspection section and summarize subsequent changes in imaging assessment of renal artery disease. A total of 1015 patients underwent renal artery CEUS were included in the study. Among them, 79 patients (156 renal arteries) suspected with renal artery stenosis (RAS) underwent digital subtraction angiography (DSA) subsequently. DSA was used as the gold standard to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEUS in detecting RAS (≥30%) and severe stenosis (≥70%), as well as the diagnostic accuracy of classification of stenosis degree. Besides, 127 of the 1015 patients underwent other imaging examinations such as computed tomography angiography (CTA) or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) after CEUS and annual proportion of these imaging examinations was assessed. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CEUS for detecting RAS (≥30%) was 96.4%, 88.6%, 94.2%, 95.6% and 90.7%, respectively and the kappa value was .857 (P < .01). CEUS had a good performance in distinguishing severe stenosis (≥70%) with a sensitivity of 91.1%, specificity of 95.5%, accuracy of 92.9%, PPV of 96.5%, NPV of 88.7% and the kappa value was 0.857(P < .01). There was no significant difference between CEUS and DSA in detecting stenosis (P = 1.0) and severe stenosis (P = .227). The diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in grading RAS was 85.3% and the kappa value was 0.753 (P < .01). Besides, the annual proportion of other imaging examinations decreased for 4 consecutive years. CEUS is a non-invasive, safe and valuable technique for the assessment of renal artery disease and worthy of promotion.

The Performance of Flash Replenishment Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for the Qualitative Assessment of Kidney Lesions in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease.

We investigated the accuracy of CEUS for characterizing cystic and solid kidney lesions in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Cystic lesions are assessed using Bosniak criteria for computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); however, in patients with moderate to severe kidney disease, CT and MRI contrast agents may be contraindicated. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a safe alternative for characterizing these lesions, but data on its performance among CKD patients are limited. We performed flash replenishment CEUS in 60 CKD patients (73 lesions). Final analysis included 53 patients (63 lesions). Four readers, blinded to true diagnosis, interpreted each lesion. Reader evaluations were compared to true lesion classifications. Performance metrics were calculated to assess malignant and benign diagnoses. Reader agreement was evaluated using Bowker's symmetry test. Combined reader sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for diagnosing malignant lesions were 71%, 75%, 45%, and 90%, respectively. Sensitivity (81%) and specificity (83%) were highest in CKD IV/V patients when grouped by CKD stage. Combined reader sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for diagnosing benign lesions were 70%, 86%, 91%, and 61%, respectively. Again, in CKD IV/V patients, sensitivity (81%), specificity (95%), and PPV (98%) were highest. Inter-reader diagnostic agreement varied from 72% to 90%. In CKD patients, CEUS is a potential low-risk option for screening kidney lesions. CEUS may be particularly beneficial for CKD IV/V patients, where kidney preservation techniques are highly relevant.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography for differentiating mass-forming pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis.

Patients with mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP) or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presented similar clinical symptoms, but required different treatment approaches and had different survival outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in differentiating MFP from PDAC. A literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Weipu (VIP), and WanFang databases to identify original studies published from inception to August 20, 2021. Studies reporting the diagnostic performances of CEUS and CECT for differentiating MFP from PDAC were included. The meta-analysis was performed with Stata 15.0 software. The outcomes included the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves of CEUS and CECT. Meta-regression was conducted to investigate heterogeneity. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to indirectly compare the overall diagnostic performance. Twenty-six studies with 2115 pancreatic masses were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS for MFP were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73%-88%; I2 = 0.00%) and 95% (95% CI, 90%-97%; I2 = 63.44%), respectively; the overall +LR, -LR, and DOR values were 15.12 (95% CI, 7.61-30.01), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.13-0.29), and 78.91 (95% CI, 30.94-201.27), respectively; and the area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-92). However, the overall sensitivity and specificity of CECT were 81% (95% CI, 75-85%; I2 = 66.37%) and 94% (95% CI, 90-96%; I2 = 74.87%); the overall +LR, -LR, and DOR values were 12.91 (95% CI, 7.86-21.20), 0.21 (95% CI, 0.16-0.27), and 62.53 (95% CI, 34.45-113.51), respectively; and, the SROC AUC was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.94). The overall diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was comparable to that of CECT for the differential diagnosis of MFP and PDAC (relative DOR 1.26, 95% CI [0.42-3.83], P > 0.05). CEUS and CECT have comparable diagnostic performance for differentiating MFP from PDAC, and should be considered as mutually complementary diagnostic tools for suspected focal pancreatic lesions.

DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF CONTRAST-ENHANCED PANCREATIC ULTRASOUND FOR DIAGNOSING NEOPLASTIC PANCREATIC LESIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Introduction: In recent years, there has been evidence to support the utility of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) as a minimally invasive diagnostic technique for diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms.&#x0D; Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in distinguishing between benign and malignant pancreatic neoplasms.&#x0D; Methods: A systematic review of literature published between 2012 and August 2023 was performed across several databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, and Google Scholar.&#x0D; Results: A total of 8 studies investigating the diagnostic utility of CEUS for benign and malignant pancreatic neoplasms were eligible for inclusion in this review. These studies included a total of 641 patients who participated in five prospective studies and three retrospective studies. Four studies included patients of Caucasian descent, while the remaining four studies included patients of Asian descent. In seven studies, 2,4 ml of Sonovue was used as the contrast agent, while in one study, 2.5 g of Levovist was used. CEUS has a sensitivity which ranges from 73.7% to 100% and specificity which ranges from 61.7%% to 97.2%, and excellent accuracy for the qualitative diagnosis of benign and malignant pancreatic neoplasms.&#x0D; Conclusion: CEUS has good sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the qualitative diagnosis of benign and malignant pancreatic neoplasms. These data demonstrate that CEUS is an important imaging tool for characterization of pancreatic tumours and is extremely successful for the diagnosis of benign and malignant pancreatic neoplasms.

The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in vascular injury from blunt abdominal trauma in solid organs: Comparison with multidetector computed tomography using angiography as the reference standard.

To evaluate the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for assessing vascular injury from blunt abdominal trauma in solid organs using angiography as the reference standard and to compare it with contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Forty-nine patients with 52 blunt abdominal trauma lesions who underwent CEUS, MDCT, and angiography were enrolled in this retrospective study. Injuries included the liver (n = 23), kidney (n = 10), and spleen (n = 19). Vascular injury in solid organs was classified into 3 types: isolated pseudoaneurysm, pseudoaneurysm with low-velocity extravasation, and active bleeding. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of CEUS and MDCT for the detection and classification of vascular injury in solid organs were calculated based on angiography. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of each test was performed and compared. Thirty-nine vascular injuries in solid organs were detected and classified into 9 isolated pseudoaneurysms, 9 pseudoaneurysms with low-velocity extravasation, and 21 active bleeding based on angiography as the reference standard. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for bleeding detection were 97.44%, 100.00%, 100.00%, 92.86%, and 98.08%, respectively, for CEUS and MDCT. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of classification (isolated pseudoaneurysm vs. pseudoaneurysm with low-velocity extravasation or active bleeding) of bleeding were 96.67%, 87.50%, 96.67%, 87.50%, and 94.74%, respectively, for CEUS and 100.00%, 75.00%, 93.75%, 100.00%, and 94.74%, respectively, for MDCT. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of CEUS and MDCT for bleeding detection was 0.987, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for CEUS and MDCT bleeding classification were 0.921 and 0.875, respectively. CEUS and MDCT exhibited comparable consistency with angiography for detecting and classifying vascular injury from blunt abdominal trauma in solid organs. Therefore, CEUS may be an accurate and rapid imaging tool to detect bleeding and determine the need for transcatheter arterial embolization. We suggest that CEUS could be considered a first-line approach during the preparation time before MDCT to determine the appropriate management for blunt abdominal trauma.

Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound combined with MRI for cervical hyperplastic, tuberculosis-infected, and metastatic lymph nodes.

To explore the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) combined with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for cervical abnormal lymph nodes. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 150 patients undergoing lymph node examinations at Hangzhou Chest Hospital from January 2017 to December 2019. According to the characteristics of lymph nodes, the patients were divided into three groups: 45 patients had hyperplastic lymph nodes (HLNs; Group-A), 55 had lymph node tuberculosis (LNTB; Group-B), 50 had metastatic lymph nodes (MLN; Group-C). We compared the ultrasonic examination and MRI results between the groups, and compared the diagnostic value of CEUS alone and CEUS plus MRI. Lower resistance indexes (RI) for Groups-A and B than Group-C(P<0.05). Mixed blood flow type was predominant in Group-A, while the lymphohilum type was predominant in Group-B, and the marginal type was predominant in Group-C(P<0.05). The proportion of non-uniform types in Group-B was significantly higher than that in Groups-A and C(P<0.05). After enhancement, the proportions of non-uniform types in Groups-A and B were higher than Group-C(P<0.05). The results of MRI examination showed that positive reinforcement integral (PEI) and maximum slope of increase (MSI) values increased sequentially from Group-B to Group-A, and then to Group-C(P<0.05); while time to peak (TTP) values increased sequentially from Group-C to Group-A, and then to Group-B(P<0.05). The diagnosis accuracy of CEUS combined with MRI was significantly higher than that of CEUS alone(P<0.05). RI-PEI, RI-MSI, and RI-TTP showed high specificity and sensitivity in the diagnosis and differentiation of HLNs, LNTB, and MLNs(P<0.05). CEUS combined with MRI can significantly facilitate the differential diagnosis between HLNs, LNTB, and MLNs. The two diagnosis methods combined improve the diagnosis accuracy of cervical lymph node diseases.

Application of Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound and Bosniak Classification to the Diagnosis of Cystic Renal Masses.

The Bosniak classification system based on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is commonly used for the differential diagnosis of cystic renal masses. Contrastenhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a relatively novel technique, which has gradually played an important role in the diagnosis of cystic renal cell carcinoma (CRCC) due to its safety and lowest price. The aim of the study is to investigate the application value of CEUS and Bosniak classification into the diagnosis of cystic renal masses. 32 cystic masses from January 2018 to December 2019 were selected. The images of conventional ultrasound (US), CEUS and CECT from subjects confirmed by surgical pathology were retrospectively analyzed. The Bosniak classification system of cystic renal masses was implemented using CEUS and CECT, and the diagnostic ability was compared. For the 32 cystic masses, postoperative pathology confirmed 11 cases of multilocular CRCC, 15 cases of clear cell carcinoma with hemorrhage, necrosis and cystic degeneration, 5 cases of renal cysts, and 1 case of renal tuberculosis. The Bosniak classification based on CEUS was higher than that based on CECT, and the difference was statistically significant (P = .024). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of CEUS were comparable to CECT. There was no significant difference observed in the diagnosis of CRCC (P >.05). CEUS combined with Bosniak classification greatly improves the diagnosis of CRCC. CEUS shows a comparable diagnostic ability to CECT. In daily clinical routine, patients who require multiple examinations and present contraindications for CECT can particularly benefit from CEUS.

The comparison between contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing bladder urothelial carcinoma.

The surgical treatment of bladder urothelial carcinoma depends on whether the tumor has invaded the bladder muscular layer. Normal ultrasound and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (contrast-enhanced MRI) are widely used in patients bear bladder tumors; the latter is also widely used in estimating the muscularis invasion of bladder cancer (BC). However, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is rarely used in this aspect. As the gold standard in diagnosing muscularis invasion remains being pathological examination, this study was set to find out whether there are differences between CEUS and contrast-enhanced MRI in diagnosing bladder malignant tumors and in diagnosing the muscularis invasion of the bladder urothelial carcinoma under the guide of the pathological results. 160 patients from Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University and The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University were recruited from July 1st, 2021, to June 30th, 2022. Patients are arranged to undergo CEUS, contrast-enhanced MRI and then take a surgery. After surgery, we compare the results of CEUS, MRI and the pathological results, using software to run the statistical examinations. The accuracies of CEUS and contrast-enhanced MRI in diagnosing malignant bladder tumors were 85.90 and 84.62%, and they had no differences (P > 0.05). While the accuracies of CEUS and contrast-enhanced MRI in diagnosing the muscularis invasion were 84.62 and 76.92%, in which CEUS had a better sensitivity (P < 0.05). We found that CEUS and contrast-enhanced MRI had no differences in diagnosing the different pathological types (benign or malignant) of BC, but CEUS holds a better sensitivity in diagnosing muscularis invasions of bladder urothelial carcinoma than the contrast-enhanced MRI.

Accuracy of conventional ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in assessing the size of breast cancer.

This study was performed to investigate the accuracy of conventional ultrasound (US), contrast-enhanced US (CEUS), and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in assessing the size of breast cancer. In total, 49 breast cancer lesions of 48 patients were included in this study. The inclusion criteria were the performance of total mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery for treatment of breast cancer in our hospital from January 2017 to December 2020 with complete pathological results, as well as the performance of conventional US, CEUS, and DCE-MRI examinations with complete results. The exclusion criteria were non-mass breast cancer shown on conventional US or DCE-MRI, including that found on CEUS with no boundary with surrounding tissues and no confirmed tumor scope; a tumor too large to be completely displayed in the US section, thus affecting the measurement results; the presence of two nodules in the same breast that were too close to each other to be distinguished by any of the three imaging methods; and treatment with preoperative chemotherapy. Preoperative conventional US, CEUS, and DCE-MRI examinations were performed. The postoperative pathological results were taken as the gold standard. The lesion size was represented by its maximum diameter. The accuracy, overestimation, and underestimation rates of conventional US, CEUS, and DCE-MRI were compared. The maximum lesion diameter on US, CEUS, DCE-MRI and pathology were 1.62±0.63 cm (range, 0.6-3.5 cm), 2.05±0.75 cm (range, 1.0-4.0 cm), 1.99±0.74 cm (range, 0.7-4.2 cm) and 1.92±0.83 cm (range, 0.5-4.0 cm), respectively. The lesion size on US was significantly smaller than that of postoperative pathological tissue (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the CEUS or DCE-MRI results and the pathological results. The underestimation rate of conventional US (55.1%, 27/49) was significantly higher than that of CEUS (20.4%, 10/49) and DCE-MRI (24.5%, 12/49) (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). There was no significant difference in the accuracy of CEUS (36.7%, 18/49) and DCE-MRI (34.7%, 17/49) compared with conventional US (26.5%, 13/49); however, the accuracy of both groups tended to be higher than that of conventional US. The overestimation rate of CEUS (42.9%, 21/49) and DCE-MRI (40.8%, 20/49) was significantly higher than that of conventional US (18.4%, 9/49) (P = 0.001 and P = 0.015, respectively). CEUS and DCE-MRI show similar performance when evaluating the size of breast cancer. However, CEUS is more convenient, has a shorter operation time, and has fewer restrictions on its use. Notably, conventional US is more prone to underestimate the size of lesions, whereas CEUS and DCE-MRI are more prone to overestimate the size.

Correlations between Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Imaging and Histopathological Results in Salivary Gland Lesions.

The purpose of this study was to search for correlations between contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) imaging and histopathological results in salivary gland lesions and to determine the accuracy of CEUS in the preoperative differentiation of salivary gland tumours according to postoperative histopathological results. The study included 54 consecutive patients with 63 salivary gland lesions who underwent CEUS examination prior to surgical treatment at the Department of Otolaryngology, Medical University of Łódź (Poland) in 2019-2022. The accuracy of CEUS in differential diagnostics of salivary gland lesions was later verified against final histological diagnosis. Among 63 salivary gland lesions, 26 were categorized as malignant or with malignant potential, and 37 were benign. There was a correlation between professional photographs of CEUS imaging and microscope slides containing postoperative specimens. A strong heterogeneous enhancement was observed mainly in benign lesions, with while weak heterogeneity mostly among the malignant or with malignant potential lesions. A pattern of contrast enhancement in specific structures reflected histopathological images. These results suggest that contrast-enhanced ultrasonography is a promising tool for the preoperative diagnostics of salivary gland lesions.

Application value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in preoperative localization of microwave ablation for primary hyperparathyroidism.

Ultrasonography (US) and 99m Technetium-sestamibi scintigraphy (99m Tc-MIBI) are currently first-line imaging modalities to localize parathyroid adenomas with sensitivities of 80% and 84%, respectively. Therefore, finding other modalities to further improve the diagnostic accuracy for preoperative localization is critically needed. To evaluate the application value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the preoperative localization of microwave ablation (MWA) for primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). Between December 2012 and May 2021, 100 PHPT patients (34 males and 66 females; mean age, 56.31±13.43 years; age range, 25-85 years) with 130 suspected parathyroid nodules were enrolled. US, CEUS, and 99m Tc-MIBI were performed for the localization of pathological parathyroid glands. All patients were performed MWA under ultrasound guidance. All the suspected parathyroid nodules underwent core needle biopsy under ultrasound guidance during MWA to confirm the pathology. The diagnostic performance of all the imaging tests was analyzed in comparison with the pathological results. A total of 130 nodules suspected to be of parathyroid origin from preoperative localization images were confirmed by pathological results, of which 116 were of parathyroid origin, and 14 were not of parathyroid origin. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the area under receiver operating characteristic curve of CEUS in the localization of pathological parathyroid glands were 100%, 92.86%, 99.23%, and 0.964, which were significantly higher than those of US (93.10%, 42.86%, 87.69%, and 0.680) and 99m Tc-MIBI (81.90%, 42.86%, 77.69%, and 0.624) (p<0.05). The sensitivity and accuracy of CEUS were 100% and 97.22%, which were higher than those of 99m Tc-MIBI (65.62% and 63.89%) or US (75.00% and 72.22%) in patients with multiple parathyroid glands (p<0.05). For smaller parathyroid adenomas (≤2cm in diameter), the sensitivities of CEUS in locating hyperfunctioning parathyroid glands were 100%, which was significantly higher than that of 99m Tc-MIBI (73.68% and 84.31%, p<0.05). CEUS is a valuable preoperative localization method for PHPT patients performed MWA, especially for the patients with smaller pathological parathyroid gland and multiple glandular lesions.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.

Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease. Worldwide, it ranks sixth in terms of incidence of cancer, and fourth in terms of cancer-related deaths. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is used as an add-on test to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma after prior diagnostic tests such as abdominal ultrasound or measurement of alpha-foetoprotein, or both. According to guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging investigation, with either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), may show the typical hepatocellular carcinoma hallmarks in people with cirrhosis, which will be sufficient to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas show atypical imaging features, and therefore, are missed at imaging. Dynamic CEUS images are obtained similarly to CT and MRI images. CEUS differentiates between arterial and portal venous phases, in which sonographic hepatocellular carcinoma hallmarks, such as arterial hyperenhancement and subsequent washout appearance, are investigated. The advantages of CEUS over CT and MRI include real-time imaging, use of contrast agents that do not contain iodine and are not nephrotoxic, and quick image acquisition. Despite the advantages, the use of CEUS in the diagnostic algorithm for HCC remains controversial, with disagreement on relevant guidelines. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival as the conflicting results can be a consequence of an inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Therefore, assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma is needed for either diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma or ruling it out in people with chronic liver disease who are not included in surveillance programmes. 1. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease, in a surveillance programme or in a clinical setting. 2. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in people with chronic liver disease and identify potential sources of heterogeneity in the results. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The last date of search was 5 November 2021. We included studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver, and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up. We used standard Cochrane methods to screen studies, extract data, and assess the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We used the bivariate model and provided estimates of summary sensitivity and specificity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We presented uncertainty-of-the-accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We included 23 studies with 6546 participants. Studies were published between 2001 and 2021. We judged all 23 studies at high-risk of bias in at least one domain, and 13/23 studies at high concern for applicability. Most studies used different reference standards to exclude the presence of the target condition. The time interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. We also had major concerns on their applicability due to the characteristics of the participants. - CEUS for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 77.8% (95% CI 69.4% to 84.4%) and specificity 93.8% (95% CI 89.1% to 96.6%) (23 studies, 6546 participants; very low-certainty evidence). - CEUS for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 77.5% (95% CI 62.9% to 87.6%) and specificity 92.7% (95% CI 86.8% to 96.1%) (13 studies, 1257 participants; low-certainty evidence). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, including only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted with no knowledge of the results about the index test, showed no differences in the results. We found that by using CEUS, as an add-on test following abdominal ultrasound, to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 22% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 6% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would unnecessarily undergo further testing or inappropriate treatment. As to resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 23% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would incorrectly be unresected, while 8% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo further inappropriate testing or treatment. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias of the included studies, heterogeneity, and imprecision of the results and concerns on their applicability limit our ability to draw confident conclusions.

Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diagnosis and differential diagnosis of polypoid lesions of gallbladder ≥ 1 cm

ObjectivesTo evaluate the usefulness of Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of Polypoid lesions of gallbladder (PLGs) ≥ 1 cm.MethodsA prospective analysis was performed on 180 patients with PLGs ≥ 1 cm. 175 cases were confirmed by pathological diagnosis and the remaining were confirmed by other imaging findings. The characteristics of lesions on conventional Ultrasonography (US) and CEUS were recorded.ResultsSignificant differences were observed in enhancement patterns between benign and malignant PLGs during both arterial (P < 0.001) and venous phases (P < 0.001). The malignant lesions typically yielded a “fast-in and fast-out” enhancement pattern. There was no significant difference in Arrival time (AT) between malignant and benign PLGs. If we consider wash-out time ≤ 40 s as a diagnostic standard for malignant lesions, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 88.24%, 85.62%, and 86.11%, respectively. Destruction of the Gallbladder (GB) wall was a particularly important indication of malignant PLGs, and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 93.33%, 92.12%, and 92.22%, respectively. The accuracy of CEUS in the diagnosis of PLGs, as well as malignant and benign lesions, was 92.22%, 92.47%, and 91.17%, respectively.ConclusionsThe “fast-in and fast-out” enhancement pattern, hyper-enhancement in comparison to the GB wall in the arterial phase, wash-out time ≤ 40 s, GB wall destruction, and hepatic parenchymal infiltration are the characteristic findings of malignant PLGs. Besides, CEUS provides a valuable reference to classify some of the benign lesions.