Author/Authors :
Lee Chang-Hee نويسنده , Kim So Hee نويسنده Department of Radiology, Korea University Guro Hospital,
Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, South
Korea , Choi Jae Woong نويسنده Department of Radiology, Korea University Guro Hospital,
Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, South
Korea , Park Yang Shin نويسنده Department of Radiology, Korea University Guro Hospital,
Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, South
Korea , Lee Jongmee نويسنده Department of Radiology, Korea University Guro Hospital,
Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, South
Korea , Kim Kyeong Ah نويسنده Department of Radiology, Korea University Guro Hospital,
Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, South
Korea , Kim Min Ju نويسنده Department of Radiology, Korea University Anam Hospital,
Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, South
Korea , Park Cheol Min نويسنده Department of Radiology, Korea University Guro Hospital,
Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, South
Korea
Abstract :
Background Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is not feasible when
hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is poorly defined or invisible on
conventional gray-scale ultrasonography (GSUS). Recent introduction of
contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) helps diagnose HCC by showing
its typical enhancement pattern. Objectives The purpose of this study is
to demonstrate the added value of CEUS as a RFA planning modality for
HCC compared with conventional GSUS. Patients and Methods A total of 64
HCCs from 57 patients (men:women = 41:16; mean age, 62.6) who had
undergone GSUS and CEUS for RFA planning in 2011 were retrospectively
reviewed. Ultrasound contrast agent was used for CEUS after conventional
GSUS. The recorded images of GSUS and CEUS were reviewed
retrospectively. On GSUS, the size, location, echogenicity, and margin
of each HCC were reviewed. The visibility scores of HCC on GSUS and CEUS
were measured using a 3-point scale. GSUS visibility score: score 1,
definite nodule with well-defined margin; score 2, slightly
hypo-/hyperechoic nodule with partial margin; score 3, isoechoic nodule
without margin. CEUS visibility score: score 1, arterial enhancement;
score 2, only delay washout; score 3, no arterial enhancement or
washout. Results The mean size of HCCs was 1.8 cm (range, 1.0 - 4.8 cm).
Among 64 HCCs, visibility score 1 were 37; score 2, 8; score 3, 19 on
GSUS. By performing CEUS, 10 out of 19 HCCs with GSUS visibility score 3
showed CEUS visibility score 1. Seven out of 8 HCCs with GSUS visibility
score 2 showed CEUS visibility score 1. Total 37 HCCs showed visibility
score 1 on GSUS; whereas, 53 HCCs showed visibility score 1 on CEUS
(57.8% vs. 82.8%). Conclusions CEUS can be an effective RFA planning
modality when a target HCC is invisible or questionable on GSUS.