Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in interventional oncology
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has evolved from the use of agitated saline to second generation bioengineered microbubbles designed to withstand insonation with limited destruction. While only one of these newer agents is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use outside echocardiography, interventional radiologists are increasingly finding off-label uses for ultrasound contrast agents. Notably, these agents have an extremely benign safety profile with no hepatic or renal toxicities and no radiation exposure. Alongside diagnostic applications, CEUS has begun to develop its own niche within the realm of interventional oncology. Certainly, the characterization of focal solid organ lesions (such as hepatic and renal lesions) by CEUS has been an important development. However, interventional oncologists are finding that the dynamic and real-time information afforded by CEUS can improve biopsy guidance, ablation therapy, and provide early evidence of tumor viability after locoregional therapy. Even more novel uses of CEUS include lymph node mapping and sentinel lymph node localization. Critical areas of research still exist. The purpose of this article is to provide a narrative review of the emerging roles of CEUS in interventional oncology.
KeywordsContrast-enhanced ultrasound Interventional oncology Interventional radiology
Compliance with ethical standards
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institutes of Health under the award numbers R01CA194307 and R01CA215520. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Conflicts of interest
The authors report non-financial and grant support from GE Healthcare and Toshiba Medical Systems outside the submitted work.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Because all clinical vignettes contain only de-identified retrospective data and are utilized for educational purposes only, no consent outside standard procedural consent was requested of any patients.
- 3.Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, et al. (2013) Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver—update 2012. Ultraschall in der Medizin-Eur J Ultrasound 34(01):11–29Google Scholar
- 6.Definity (R) [Package Insert] (2017) Lantheus Medical Imaging, North Billerica, MA, http://www.definityimaging.com/pdf/DEFINITY_US_PI_515987-0117.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
- 8.Lyshchik A, Kono Y, Dietrich CF, et al. (2017) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the liver: technical and lexicon recommendations from the ACR CEUS LI-RADS working group. Abdom Radiol 38:1–19Google Scholar
- 12.Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, 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):187–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Wilson SR, Lyshchik A, Piscaglia F, et al. (2017) CEUS LI-RADS: algorithm, implementation, and key differences from CT/MRI. Abdom Radiol 43(1):1–16Google Scholar
- 20.Sparchez Z, Radu P, Zaharia T, et al. (2011) Usefulness of contrast enhanced ultrasound guidance in percutaneous biopsies of liver tumors. J Gastrointest Liver Dis 20(2):191–196Google Scholar
- 24.Wang S, Yang W, Zhang H, et al. (2015) The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in selection indication and improveing diagnosis for transthoracic biopsy in peripheral pulmonary and mediastinal lesions. BioMed Res Int 2015:1–8Google Scholar
- 25.Mao F, Dong Y, Ji Z, et al. (2017) Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and conventional ultrasound for guiding peripheral pulmonary biopsies. Int J Clin Exp Med 10(2):3677Google Scholar
- 40.Iqbal SI, Stuart KE (2018) Assessment of tumor response in patients receiving systemic and nonsurgical locoregional treatment of hepatocellular cancer. In: Goldberg RM (ed) UpToDate. Waltham: UpToDateGoogle Scholar
- 41.Hines-Peralta A, Goldberg SN (2016) Radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation of renal cell carcinoma. In: Ross ME (ed) UpToDate. Waltham: UpToDate IncGoogle Scholar
- 48.Du J, Li H-L, Zhai B, et al. (2015) Radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: utility of conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in guiding and assessing early therapeutic response and short-term follow-up results. Ultrasound Med Biol 41(9):2400–2411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Seicean A, Badea R, Moldovan-Pop A, et al. (2017) Harmonic contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography for the guidance of fine-needle aspiration in solid pancreatic masses. Ultraschall in der Medizin-Eur J Ultrasound 38(02):174–182Google Scholar
- 61.Garbajs M, Popovic P (2016) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for assessment of therapeutic response after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of small renal tumors. Age (years) 77:58–94Google Scholar
- 66.Yu X-L, Li A-H, Jiang T-A, et al. (2007) Comparison of contrast enhanced ultrasound and contrast enhanced CT or MRI in monitoring percutaneous thermal ablation procedure in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a multi-center study in China. Ultrasound Med Biol 33(11):1736–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 73.Liu M, Lin M-X, Xu Z-F, et al. (2015) Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography in evaluating the treatment response to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma using modified RECIST. Eur Radiol 25(8):2502–2511CrossRefGoogle Scholar