Abstract
Background
To show the effectiveness of plane wave HighFrame-Rate CEUS (HiFR-CEUS) compared with “conventional” (plane wave) CEUS (C-CEUS) in the characterization of small (< 2 cm) focal liver lesions (FLLs) not easily detected by CT in cirrhotic patients. HiFR-CEUS exploit an ultra-wideband nonlinear process to combine fundamental, second and higher-order harmonic signals generated by ultrasound contrast agents to increase the frame rate. C-CEUS is limited by the transmission principle, and its frame-rate is around 10 FPS. With HiFR-CEUS (Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., China), the frame-rate reached 60 FPS.
Material and methods
Ultrasound detected small FLLs (< 2 cm) in 63 cirrhotic patients during follow-up (June 2019–February 2020); (7 nodules < 1 cm and were not evaluable by spiral CT). Final diagnosis was obtained with MRI (47) or fine needle aspiration (16 cases) C-CEUS was performed and HiFR-CEUS was repeated after 5 min; 0.8–1.2 ml of contrast media (SonoVue, Bracco, Italy) was used. 57 nodules were better evaluable with HiFR-CEUS; 6 nodules were equally evaluable by both techniques; final diagnosis was: 44 benign lesions (29 hemangiomas, 1 amartoma, 2 hepatic cysts; 2 focal nodular hyperplasias, 3 regenerative macronodules, 3 AV-shunts, 3 hepatic sparing areas and 1 focal steatosis) and 19 malignant one (17 HCCs, 1 cholangioca, 1 metastasis); statistical evaluation for better diagnosis with X2 test (SPSS vers. 26); we used LI-RADS classification for evaluating sensitivity, specificity PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy of C- and HFR-CEUS. Corrispective AU-ROC were calculated.
Results
C-CEUS and HiFR-CEUS reached the same diagnosis in 29 nodules (13 nodules > 1 < 1.5 cm; 16 nodules > 1.5 < 2 cm); HiFR-CEUS reached a correct diagnosis in 32 nodules where C-CEUS was not diagnostic (6 nodules < 1 cm; 17 nodules > 1 < 1.5 cm; 9 nodules > 1.5 < 2 cm); C-CEUS was better in 2 nodules (1 < 1 cm and 1 > 1 < 1.5 cm). Some patient’s (sex, BMI, age) and nodule’s characteristics (liver segment, type of diagnosis, nodule’s dimensions (p = 0.65)) were not correlated with better diagnosis (p ns); only better visualization (p 0.004) was correlated; C-CEUS obtained the following LI-RADS: type-1: 18 Nodules, type-2: 21; type-3: 7, type-4: 7; type-5: 8; type-M: 2; HiFR-CEUS: type-1: 38 Nodules, type-2: 2; type-3:4, type-4: 2; type-5: 15; type-M: 2; In comparison with final diagnosis: C-CEUS: TP: 17; TN: 39; FP: 5; FN:2; HIFR-CEUS: TP: 18; TN: 41; FP: 3; FN:1; C-CEUS: sens: 89.5%; Spec: 88.6%, PPV: 77.3%; NPV: 95.1%; Diagn Acc: 88.6% (AU-ROC: 0.994 ± SEAUC: 0.127; CI: 0.969–1.019); HiHFR CEUS: sens: 94.7%; Spec: 93.2%, PPV: 85.7%; NPV: 97.6%; Diagn Acc: 93.2% (AU-ROC: 0.9958 ± SEAUC: 0.106; CI: 0.975–1.017) FLL vascularization in the arterial phase was more visible with HiFR-CEUS than with C-CEUS, capturing the perfusion details in the arterial phase due to a better temporal resolution. With a better temporal resolution, the late phase could be evaluated longer with HiFR-CEUS (4 min C-CEUS vs. 5 min HiFR-CEUS).
Conclusion
Both C-CEUS and HIFR-CEUS are good non invasive imaging system for the characterization of small lesions detected during follow up of cirrhotic patients. HiFR-CEUS allowed better FLL characterization in cirrhotic patients with better temporal and spatial resolution capturing the perfusion details that cannot be easily observed with C-CEUS.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Cirrhosis is a risk condition for development of hepatocellular carcinoma [1]; In the United States, HCC related to hepatitis C has recently become the fastest rising cause of cancer-related death, and during the past two decades, the incidence of HCC has tripled while the 5-years survival rate has remained below 12% [2]; In Europe annual incidence is actually about 10% [3]; the main (American -AASLD- [4], European -EASL- [5], Asian -APASL- [6, 7]) guidelines recommend surveillance for patients with cirrhosis because of their high risk of developing HCC. The APASL and EASL guidelines extend surveillance to certain non-cirrhotic high-risk groups, while the AASLD guidelines do not address the issue of HCC in non-cirrhotic livers [8].
Compared to the previous guidelines, there have been changes in the diagnostic tests and in the decision algorithm. For example, the 2018 updated guidelines from AASLD [4] and EASL [5] now include gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI as a diagnostic test, while the new EASL [5], Asian -APASL- [6, 7] and Korean (KLCA) [9] guidelines now include CEUS as a second-line diagnostic test.
Regarding the surveillance mode, all guidelines agree on the use of ultrasound but differ concerning the utilization of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP).
The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the detection of small nodules in cirrhotic patients is not considered because this technique is not “panoramic” of the whole liver in arterial phase [10]; instead it’s use in the diagnosis is controversial: AASLD does not recommend contrast enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), APASL considers it to be as sensitive as CT or MRI, and EASL considers it to be sufficient for the diagnosis of nodules ≥ 1 cm in size in cirrhotic patients. In general, several studies have confirmed the utility of CEUS for diagnosing HCC [11,12,13]. However, some have cautioned against using just CEUS to diagnose HCC, because intrahepatic Cholangiocellular carcinoma (iCC) might display the same vascular pattern as HCC [14, 15]. Subsequent studies have demonstrated that the washout in iCC begins earlier (less than 60 s) after contrast injection than in HCC [16,17,18,19], which has led to a slightly modified definition of the typical hallmark of HCC at CEUS, i.e. arterial phase hyperenhancement followed by late (> 60 s) washout of mild degree [20, 21]. Recent large multicentre study [22] confirmed in daily practice the high specificity of CT, MRI and CEUS imaging techniques for HCC between 20 and 30 mm, and therefore authors validated the EASL-AASLD recommendations for these lesions, but they found a drop in specificity using CT or MRI in 10–20 mm HCC and they don’t recommend systematic combined imaging at first as sensitivity would be very low. This explains the sequential strategy used in the EASL/EORTC and AASLD guidelines allowing HCC diagnosis in cirrhosis based on a single technique (CT or MRI). A recent review [23] discusses the emerging role of hepatobiliary magnetic resonance contrast media and contrast-enhanced ultrasound for noninvasive diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: the best sequential approach combined MRI and CEUS. The explanation of the phenomenon is that there are several distinctive features of CEUS, in comparison to CT/MRI, that reflect the dissimilarities in their underlying methods of image acquisition and types of contrast agent used [23]. First, CEUS allows real-time evaluation of the enhancement of a nodule, resulting in more sensitive detection of arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) than CT or MRI which may fail to demonstrate transient APHE in the early arterial phase. Therefore, CEUS can be considered to be an alternative imaging option for nodules categorized in CT or MRI as LR-3 or LR-4 due to the absence of APHE, because some of these nodules potentially could be upgraded to LR-5 if APHE is shown on CEUS [24]. Second, there are no vascular pseudolesions on CEUS [23].
Nevertheless, MRI and CT are the first methods of choice for diagnosing HCC, because they enable examination of the liver as a whole [25].
Even if CEUS has no detection power [25], it still rises to characterize well even small nodules (< 2 cm) detected during ultrasound surveillance [26]. This technique serves as a one-stop diagnostic test for 80.8% of the patients, reducing the need for CT-MR scans and providing savings in terms of radiation exposure, time, and money [27]. The use of contrast agents may improve the ability of US to distinguish between liver cancer and benign abnormalities and, because it can be performed at the same appointment as unenhanced US, more rapid diagnoses may be possible and some CT and MRI examinations may be avoided [12].
Conventional (baseline and contrast-enhanced) ultrasonography is based technically on Delay And Sum (DAS) technique [28]; the DAS technique uses several transmissions of US signals focused in one or more regions to scan the entire area to be analyzed and to form the scan lines that will be used to reconstruct the final image. This process is time-consuming and limits the frame rate to approximately 30–40 frames per second.
In recent years, new conventional and contrastographic ultrasound technology has developed: the so called “Plane-Wave Imaging” (PWI), that works with the simultaneous excitation of all available elements in a certain transducer. This technology transmits a single “plane wave” to insonate the entire region of interest and collect the same ultrasonic signals reflected and refracted in a single impulse; this means a global reduction of number of insonations (per second) to obtain the ultrasonographic image with a consequent increase in the number of images obtainable.
PWI has been applied to most fields in medical ultrasound [29] yielding framerates as high as several thousands of images per second. The simultaneous excitation of all available elements in a certain transducer to transmit and collect ultrasonic signals is necessary; At first this increase in framerate was obtained at the expense of reduced contrast and resolution. However, this drawback was skillfully addressed by Coherent Plane-Wave Compounding (CPWC) [30, 31], that, using a significantly smaller number of insonations (at least ten times lower), is able to reach an image quality comparable to conventional B-mode [32] and contrast enhanced ultrasonography [33]. Furthermore, this technology, by spreading the spatial peak acoustic intensity over more pulses, reduces the peak pressure and, hence, preserves the microbubbles [33].
Other studies have demonstrated that CPWC technology is more sensible to detect the contrast agent in comparison to conventional CEUS [34], and consequently offers an improvement in the CPWC-contrast imaging in comparison to the conventional one [35].
Recently, Schiefler [36] demonstrated that the acquisition of multiple frames and the angulation, used to excite the transducer elements, tends to compensate the information lost by the use of sparse conditions, improving the lateral and axial resolutions besides the contrast.
This new technology was implemented for transient elastography [32], for the study of flow inside the vessels [37, 38] and for echocardiography [39], which introduced a trade-off between framerate and image quality;
The CPWC contrast enhanced ultrasound (C-CEUS) has a limited frame-rate (around 10 FPS); recently a new CPWC with high frame rate (about 60 FPS) has been developed (HiFR-CEUS) (Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., China); the higher frame rate technology may be able to give better details of small lesions, less contrast agent destruction and consequently its longer persistence in late phase [40].
Aim of this prospective study is to show the effectiveness of High Frame-Rate CEUS (HiFR-CEUS) compared with conventional CEUS (C-CEUS) in the characterization of small (< 2 cm) focal liver lesions (FLLs) not easily detected by CT in cirrhotic patients.
Material and methods
Materials
63 cirrhotic patients in child A, during ultrasonographic semiannual surveillance from 1st June 2019 to 29th February 2020 demonstrated a new hepatic lesion ≤ 2 cm; these patients have been submitted to C-CEUS and thereafter HiFR-CEUS in the same examination session.
Equipment
A commercially available ultrasound machine, equipped with Plane wave technology, was used for this study (Resona series, Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., China), that works with a new ultrasound technology called zone sonography [41, 42] and based on Plane-Wave Imaging (PWI) [43] with Pixel compounding [44].
Conventional (baseline and contrast-enhanced) ultrasonography is based technically on Delay and Sum (DAS) technique [28]; the DAS technique uses several transmissions of US signals focused in one or more regions to scan the entire area to be analyzed and to form the scan lines that will be used to reconstruct the final image. This process is time-consuming and limits the frame rate to approximately 30 to 40 frames per second (Fig. 1).
Zone sonography yields framerates as high as several thousands of images per second with a low frame rate (around 10 FPS). The system works with the simultaneous excitation of all available elements in a certain transducer to transmit and collect ultrasonic signals (Fig. 2); At first this increase in framerate was obtained at the expense of reduced contrast and resolution. However, this drawback was skillfully addressed by Coherent Plane-Wave Compounding (CPWC) for very high frame rate ultrasonography and transient elastography [32], for the study of flow inside the vessels [37, 38] and for echocardiography [39], which introduced a trade-off between framerate and image quality; coherent plane-wave compounding has many advantages because it provides an image of a full region of interest for each ultrasonic transmission using all array elements [32].
Study protocol: First, grayscale US was used to scan the whole liver and locate the lesion. The blood flow of the target lesion was evaluated using color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI). Second, C-CEUS scanning was performed. Third, HIFR-CEUS was performed after no less than 10 min, when the microbubbles from the previous injection had disappeared. 0.8–1.2 ml of contrast media (SonoVue, Bracco, Italy) was used. Both C-CEUS and HIFR-CEUS used the same scanning protocol. For the arterial and portal venous phase, scanning of the FLL was continuous, while late phase scanning of the FLL was intermittent to avoid the destruction of contrast agents. Both the C-CEUS and HIFR-CEUS scanning lasted for at least 5 min after the injection of contrast agent. All imaging data were recorded. Diagnostic gold standard techniques were or radiological with MRI (according to recent literature [22]) or with biopsy 57 nodules were better evaluable with HiFR-CEUS; 6 nodules were equally evaluable by both techniques; Spiral Ct and MRI were performed in all patients; 7 nodules < 1 cm were not evaluable by spiral CT. Final diagnosis was obtained with MRI [47] and/or fine needle aspiration (16 cases).
Final diagnosis was: 45 benign lesions (27 hemangiomas, 1 hamartoma, 3 hepatic cysts; 2 focal nodular hyperplasia, 5 regenerative macronodules, 3 AV-shunts, 3 hepatic sparing areas and 1 focal steatosis) and 18 malignant one (15 HCCs, 1 cholangioca, 2 metastases); statistical evaluation was performed with SPSS vers. 26.
The American College of Radiology (ACR) [45] issued classification criteria for the characterization of hepatocellular carcinoma (li-rads); The contrast-enhanced US Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (CEUS LI-RADS) algorithm was an effective tool for characterization of small (< 20 mm) liver nodules in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma [21, 46] (Fig. 3).
Statistical analysis
Conspicuity score: Subjective measures included image quality, lesion conspicuity, and reader confidence. Reader agreement was measured with kappa statistic; correlation with truth by Pearson coefficient, CNR with repeated mANOVA; subjective quality measures utilized Tukey-Cramer corrections for multiple testing, p < 0.05 considered significant. Sensitivity (Sens), Specificity (Spec), Overall Diagnostic Accuracy (ODA), Positive Predictive values (PPV) and Negative predictive Values (NPV) were evaluated in comparison to final diagnosis; Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were evaluated; Fischer X2 exact test was performed for differences between the two types of CEUS.
Results
The population consists of 63 cirrhotic patients (mean age ± , with six-monthly ultrasound follow-up. 25 men (mean age ± standard deviation: 69 ± 12.46) and 38 women (mean age + standard deviation), all HCV positive.
final diagnosis was: 44 benign lesions (29 hemangiomas, 1 amartoma, 2 hepatic cysts; 2 focal nodular hyperplasias, 3 regenerative macronodules, 3 AV-shunts, 3 hepatic sparing areas and 1 focal steatosis) and 19 malignant one.
LI-RADS score obtained by C-CEUS and HiFR-CEUS are described in Table 1; C-CEUS and HiFR-CEUS reached the same diagnosis in 29 nodules (13 nodules > 1 < 1.5 cm; 16 nodules > 1.5 < 2 cm); HiFR-CEUS reached a correct diagnosis in 32 nodules where C-CEUS was not diagnostic (6 nodules < 1 cm; 17 nodules > 1 < 1.5 cm; 9 nodules > 1.5 < 2 cm); C-CEUS was better in 2 nodules (1 < 1 cm and 1 > 1 < 1.5 cm). Some patient’s (sex, BMI, age) and nodule’s characteristics (liver segment, type of diagnosis, nodule’s dimensions (p = 0.65)) were not correlated with better diagnosis (p ns); only better visualization (p 0.004) was correlated;
In comparison with final diagnosis (Table 2) C-CEUS obtained 17 true malignant nodules; 39 true “non malignant” nodules; 5 nodules, incorrectly considered malignant, and 2 incorrectly considered benign; HIFR-CEUS revealed obtained 18 true malignant nodules; 41 true “non malignant” nodules; 3 nodules, incorrectly considered malignant, and 1 incorrectly considered benign.
C-CEUS reached the following corresponding values: sensitivity: 89.5%; Specificity: 88.6%, PPV: 77.3%; NPV: 95.1%; Diagn Acc: 88.6% (AU-ROC: 0.9940 ± SEAUC: 0.127; CI: 0.969–1.019); HiHFR CEUS reached the following corresponding values: sens: 94.7%; Spec: 93.2%, PPV: 85.7%; NPV: 97.6%; Diagn Acc: 93.2% (AU-ROC: 0.9958 ± SEAUC: 0.106; CI: 0.975–1.017). Differences in AUC are small but remarkable in comparison to diagnostic accuracy [47].
Differences
FLL vascularization in the arterial phase was more visible with HiFR-CEUS than with C-CEUS, capturing the perfusion details in the arterial phase due to a better temporal resolution. With a better temporal resolution, the late phase could be evaluated longer with HiFR-CEUS (4 min C-CEUS vs. 5 min HiFR-CEUS).
Discussion
Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fastest increasing cause of cancer-related death over the past decade in the United States and the third leading cause of cancer- related death worldwide [48]. The detection of a tumor, amenable to surgical resection, thermal ablation, or liver transplantation could improve the prognosis, which is severe, in absence of indications to radical treatment. Being the third leading cause of death from cancer worldwide, accurate tests are needed to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. The HCC diagnosis and staging in people with chronic liver disease needs Computed tomography (CT) and/or MRI. CT/MRI are currently the second step after ultrasound and alpha-foetoprotein (or their combination). As an ideal diagnostic test, CT/MRI should ensure a low proportion of false-negative results because people with undetected hepatocellular carcinoma cannot receive proper treatment. People with false-positive results are exposed to unnecessary further diagnostic workup and possible invasive treatment. The estimated pooled sensitivity and specificity derived from one recent analysis suggest that 22.5% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 8.7% of people would be unnecessarily treated [49].
Furthermore, spiral CT and MRI are not able to correctly characterize small nodules sometimes because they aren’t able to detect the entire pattern of vascularization, even if they have a panoramic view (not available for ultrasound). On the opposite, Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) is able to evaluate frame-by frame the microvascularization of a single nodule but has not panoramic view.
CEUS has several advantages over CT or MRI: firstly, microbubbles can be safely injected in patients with renal failure as there is no renal excretion of the contrast. CEUS is therefore a useful problem-solving method for characterizing liver masses when CT or MRI is contraindicated due to renal failure. There is no need of blood test for renal function before contrast injection. Secondly, CEUS allows real-time assessment of arterial- phase enhancement, eliminating the issue of appropriate arterial-phase timing. CEUS often detects arterial-phase hypervascularity when CT or MRI fails to show it because of incorrect arterial-phase timing. Thirdly, washout phenomenon (negative enhancement of liver lesion relative to the liver in the late phase) in malignant liver lesions is more consistently seen on CEUS than CT/MRI [50].
The meta-analysis performed by Niu [11] on CEUS for the diagnosis of small HCC (< 2 cm) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.77, 0.90) and pooled specificity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.81, 0.94) for SonoVue. These results provide strong support for the use of CEUS as a useful diagnostic tool with high sensitivity and specificity for the identification of small HCC.
CEUS is now recognized as a useful imaging modality for non-invasive diagnosis of small (1–2 cm) newly detected liver nodules during HCC surveillance. However, in those small nodules related to cirrhosis, there is a considerable overlap in the imaging findings between benign and malignant nodules, requiring biopsy or close follow-up [51].
Forner et al. [52] demonstrated that absence of contrast hyperenhancement on CEUS during the arterial phase in nodules < 2 cm in a cirrhotic liver does not predict a less malignant profile. According to authors, priority for diagnostic work-up and treatment should not differ according to contrast profiles on CEUS.
A first meta-analysis [53] demonstrated an overall CEUS high sensitivity (81%), specificity (86%) with AUC equal to 0.92; a second meta-analysis [54] confirmed the same data and compared CEUS and CT, concluding that CEUS showed a diagnostic ability comparable to that of CECT in characterizing small HCC.
A third meta-analysis [55] analyzed the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in differentiating malignant from benign focal liver lesions evaluating also the type of contrast agent (CA) (first vs second generation and SONOVUE vs SONAZOID). The second-generation CAs (especially Sonazoid) may greatly improve diagnostic performance (POOLED SENS: 0.92; SPEC: 0.87, AUC: 0.96).
Barr [56] reviewed literature regarding sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles (Lumason in the USA and Sonovue in the rest of the world), and in particular outlined its main advantages: CEUS has similar specificity to CECT and CEMRI and CEUS may have increased sensitivity to CECT and gadolinium CEMRI; CEUS is less expensive than CECT or CEMRI; there is no significant difference of specificity (88% vs. 83%, p = 0.11) between CEUS and CT/MRI and sensitivity is significantly better with CEUS than CT/MRI (95% vs. 89%, p = 0.033); iCC can be differentiated from HCC based on rapidity and marked washout. Author concludes that international literature suggests a wide spread use of CEUS and that, in the USA, standard of care needs to change to include CEUS for characterization of FLL.
All the previous literature data has been obtained with DAS technology; in our experience, on the other hand, the new technology, called “plane wave” was used: Plane-Wave Imaging (PWI) [43] with Pixel compounding [44] is a new technology, able to enhance ultrasound visibility. The evolution of this new technology, called High Frame Rate, is able to better detect microvascularization of CEUS.
Comparison between the diagnostic accuracy data of DAS technology CEUS and that with “plane wave” technology demonstrates an advantage of the latter over that available in the literature (DAS system diagnostic accuracy: 84% vs “plane wave” system diagnostic accuracy: 88.6%); The present experience compares the plane wave CEUS technology (Conventional CEUS) with the “high frame rate” plane wave one (Hi-FR CEUS) to understand if this tool may be useful in the characterization of small hepatic nodules during follow up of cirrhotic patients. C-CEUS has a good performance (Sens: 88.6%; Spec: 88.6%; diagnostic accuracy:88%) but not optimal; instead HiFR-CEUS has an optimal performance (Sens: 94.7; spec: 93.2% overall diagnostic accuracy more than 93% (Table 2)). Differences in AUC (Fig. 1) are small but remarkable in comparison to diagnostic accuracy. An “optimal accuracy” is obtained when AUC is more than 90% [47].
Lastly, another recent Chinese experience with the same technology (57) confirmed that HIFR-CEUS provides more vascular information, which could help differentiate malignant from benign FLLs, especially for lesions 1–3 cm in size; HIFR-CEUS showed sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values comparable to our experience and higher than those for C-CEUS.
References
Bruix J, Sherman M (2011) American association for the study of liver D. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53(3):1020–1022
El-Serag HB (2011) Hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 365(12):1118–1127
Singal AG, Lampertico P, Nahon P (2020) Epidemiology and surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma: new trends. J Hepatol 72(2):250–261
Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS, Sirlin CB, Abecassis MM, Roberts LR et al (2018) AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 67(1):358–380
Liver (2018) EAftSot. EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 69(1):182–236
Omata M, Lesmana LA, Tateishi R, Chen PJ, Lin SM, Yoshida H et al (2010) Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver consensus recommendations on hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Int 4(2):439–474
Shiina S, Gani RA, Yokosuka O, Maruyama H, Nagamatsu H, Payawal DA et al (2020) APASL practical recommendations for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in the era of COVID-19. Hepatol Int 14:920–929
Kim TH, Kim SY, Tang A, Lee JM (2019) Comparison of international guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 update. Clin Mol Hepatol 25(3):245–263
Korean Liver Cancer A, National Cancer C (2019) 2018 Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center Korea practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut Liver 13(3):227–299
Foerster F, Galle PR (2019) Comparison of the current international guidelines on the management of HCC. JHEP Rep 1(2):114–119
Niu Y, Huang T, Lian F, Li F (2013) Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for the diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis. Tumour Biol 34(6):3667–3674
Westwood M, Joore M, Grutters J, Redekop K, Armstrong N, Lee K et al (2013) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound using SonoVue (R) (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 17(16):1–243
Hanna RF, Miloushev VZ, Tang A, Finklestone LA, Brejt SZ, Sandhu RS et al (2016) Comparative 13-year meta-analysis of the sensitivity and positive predictive value of ultrasound, CT, and MRI for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Radiol 41(1):71–90
Vilana R, Forner A, Bianchi L, Garcia-Criado A, Rimola J, de Lope CR et al (2010) Intrahepatic peripheral cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis patients may display a vascular pattern similar to hepatocellular carcinoma on contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Hepatology 51(6):2020–2029
Galassi M, Iavarone M, Rossi S, Bota S, Vavassori S, Rosa L et al (2013) Patterns of appearance and risk of misdiagnosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis at contrast enhanced ultrasound. Liver Int 33(5):771–779
de Sio I, Iadevaia MD, Vitale LM, Niosi M, Del Prete A, de Sio C et al (2014) Optimized contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for characterization of focal liver lesions in cirrhosis: a single-center retrospective study. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2(4):279–287
Liu GJ, Wang W, Lu MD, Xie XY, Xu HX, Xu ZF et al (2015) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Liver cancer 4(4):241–252
Wildner D, Bernatik T, Greis C, Seitz K, Neurath MF, Strobel D (2015) CEUS in hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma in 320 patients—early or late washout matters: a subanalysis of the DEGUM multicenter trial. Ultraschall Med 36(2):132–139
Wildner D, Pfeifer L, Goertz RS, Bernatik T, Sturm J, Neurath MF et al (2014) Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (DCE-US) for the characterization of hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocellular carcinoma. Ultraschall Med. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1354813
Piscaglia F, Kudo M, Han KH, Sirlin C (2017) Diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma with non-invasive imaging: a plea for worldwide adoption of standard and precise terminology for describing enhancement criteria. Ultraschall Med 38(1):9–11
Piscaglia F, Wilson SR, Lyshchik A, Cosgrove D, Dietrich CF, Jang HJ et al (2017) American College of Radiology contrast enhanced ultrasound liver imaging reporting and data system (CEUS LI-RADS) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a pictorial essay. Ultraschall Med 38(3):320–324
Aube C, Oberti F, Lonjon J, Pageaux G, Seror O, N’Kontchou G et al (2017) EASL and AASLD recommendations for the diagnosis of HCC to the test of daily practice. Liver Int 37(10):1515–1525
Kim TH, Yoon JH, Lee JM (2019) Emerging role of hepatobiliary magnetic resonance contrast media and contrast-enhanced ultrasound for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: emphasis on recent updates in major guidelines. Korean J Radiol 20(6):863–879
Kim JJ, Kim JY, Kang HJ, Shin JK, Kang T, Lee SW et al (2017) Computer-aided diagnosis-generated kinetic features of breast cancer at preoperative MR imaging: association with disease-free survival of patients with primary operable invasive breast cancer. Radiology 284:162079
Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, Cosgrove DO, Kudo M, Nolsoe CP et al (2013) 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 39(2):187–210
Xu HX, Lu MD, Liu LN, Zhang YF, Guo LH, Xu JM et al (2012) Discrimination between neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions in cirrhotic liver using contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Br J Radiol 85(1018):1376–1384
Cokkinos DD, Blomley MJ, Harvey CJ, Lim A, Cunningham C, Cosgrove DO (2007) Can contrast-enhanced ultrasonography characterize focal liver lesions and differentiate between benign and malignant, thus providing a one-stop imaging service for patients? (). J Ultrasound 10(4):186–193
Lu JY, Zou H, Greenleaf JF (1994) Biomedical ultrasound beam forming. Ultrasound Med Biol 20(5):403–428
Tanter M, Fink M (2014) Ultrafast imaging in biomedical ultrasound. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 61(1):102–119
Camacho J, Parrilla M, Fritsch C (2009) Phase coherence imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 56(5):958–974
Fritsch C, Camacho J, Parrilla M (2010) New ultrasound imaging techniques with phase coherence processing. Ultrasonics 50(2):122–126
Montaldo G, Tanter M, Bercoff J, Benech N, Fink M (2009) Coherent plane-wave compounding for very high frame rate ultrasonography and transient elastography. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 56(3):489–506
Couture O, Fink M, Tanter M (2012) Ultrasound contrast plane wave imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 59(12):2676–2683
Viti J, Vos HJ, De Jong N, Guidi F, Tortoli P. Contrast detection efficacy for plane vs. focused wave transmission. In: IEEE International ultrasonics symposium proceedings. 2014:1750–3.
Viti J, Vos HJ, Jong N, Guidi F, Tortoli P (2016) Detection of contrast agents: plane wave versus focused transmission. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 63(2):203–211
Schiefler NT Jr, Maia JM, Schneider FK, Zimbico AJ, Assef AA, Costa ET (2018) Generation and analysis of ultrasound images using plane wave and sparse arrays techniques. Sensors (Basel). 18(11):3660
Tanter M, Bercoff J, Sandrin L, Fink M (2002) Ultrafast compound imaging for 2-D motion vector estimation: application to transient elastography. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 49(10):1363–1374
Bercoff J, Montaldo G, Loupas T, Savery D, Meziere F, Fink M et al (2011) Ultrafast compound Doppler imaging: providing full blood flow characterization. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 58(1):134–147
Hasegawa H, Kanai H (2011) High-frame-rate echocardiography using diverging transmit beams and parallel receive beamforming. J Med Ultrason (2001) 38(3):129–140
Kusunose J, Caskey CF (2018) Fast, low-frequency plane-wave imaging for ultrasound contrast imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 44(10):2131–2142
Jedrzejewicz T, Napolitano D, DeBusschere D, Chou CH, McLaughlin G. Two-way continuous transmit and receive focusing in ultrasound imaging. In: 2013 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium. IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium. New York: Ieee; 2013.
Napolitano D, McLaughlin GW, DeBusschere D, Mo LYL. Zone-based B-mode imaging. Proc IEEE Ultrasonics Symp. 2003;23–8.
Holfort IK, Gran F, Jensen JA, editors. Plane wave medical ultrasound imaging using adaptive beamforming. In: 2008 5th IEEE Sensor Array and Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop; 2008 21–23 July 2008.
Yang Z, Tuthill TA, Raunig DL, Fox MD, Analoui M (2007) Pixel compounding: resolution-enhanced ultrasound imaging for quantitative analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 33(8):1309–1319
Kono Y, Lyshchik A, Cosgrove D, Dietrich CF, Jang HJ, Kim TK et al (2017) Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS (R)): the official version by the American College of Radiology (ACR). Ultraschall Med 38(1):85–86
Huang JY, Li JW, Lu Q, Luo Y, Lin L, Shi YJ et al (2020) Diagnostic Accuracy of CEUS LI-RADS for the characterization of liver nodules 20 mm or smaller in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 294(2):329–339
Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240(4857):1285–1293
Parikh ND, Singal AG, Hutton DW, Tapper EB (2020) Cost-effectiveness of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance: an assessment of benefits and harms. Am J Gastroenterol 115(10):1642–1649
Nadarevic T, Giljaca V, Colli A, Fraquelli M, Casazza G, Miletic D et al (2021) Computed tomography for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:CD013362
Wang JH, Lu SN, Hung CH, Chen TY, Chen CH, Changchien CS et al (2006) Small hepatic nodules (< or =2 cm) in cirrhosis patients: characterization with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Liver Int 26(8):928–934
Kim TK, Lee KH, Khalili K, Jang HJ (2011) Hepatocellular nodules in liver cirrhosis: contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Abdom Imaging 36(3):244–263
Forner A, Vilana R, Bianchi L, Rodriguez-Lope C, Reig M, Garcia-Criado MA et al (2015) Lack of arterial hypervascularity at contrast-enhanced ultrasound should not define the priority for diagnostic work-up of nodules <2 cm. J Hepatol 62(1):150–155
Bota S, Piscaglia F, Marinelli S, Pecorelli A, Terzi E, Bolondi L (2012) Comparison of international guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Cancer 1(3–4):190–200
Huang J, Chen W, Yao S (2017) Assessing diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography in detecting small hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 96(30):e7555
Wu M, Li L, Wang J, Zhang Y, Guo Q, Li X et al (2018) Contrast-enhanced US for characterization of focal liver lesions: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 28(5):2077–2088
Barr RG (2018) Contrast enhanced ultrasound for focal liver lesions: how accurate is it? Abdom Radiol (NY) 43(5):1128–1133
Fei X, Han P, Jiang B, Zhu L, Tian W, Sang M et al (2022) High frame rate contrast-enhanced ultrasound helps differentiate malignant and benign focal liver lesions. J Clin Transl Hepatol 10(1):26–33
Funding
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by FG. The first draft of the manuscript was written by FG and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No authors have Any conflict of interest (any financial or personal relationship with a third party whose interest could be positively or negatively influenced by the article’s content).
Ethical approval
This is an observational study. The Codogno Hospital Research Ethics Committee has confirmed that no ethical approval is required.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Giangregorio, F., Garolfi, M., Mosconi, E. et al. High frame-rate contrast enhanced ultrasound (HIFR-CEUS) in the characterization of small hepatic lesions in cirrhotic patients. J Ultrasound 26, 71–79 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-022-00724-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-022-00724-w