European Radiology

, Volume 21, Issue 8, pp 1739–1746 | Cite as

Contrast enhanced ultrasound in the detection of liver metastases: a prospective multi-centre dose testing study using a perfluorobutane microbubble contrast agent (NC100100)

  • Jean-Michel Correas
  • Gavin Low
  • Laurence Needleman
  • Michelle L. Robbin
  • David Cosgrove
  • Paul S. Sidhu
  • Chris J. Harvey
  • Thomas Albrecht
  • Jarl A. Jakobsen
  • Knut Brabrand
  • Manfred Jenett
  • Jane Bates
  • Michel Claudon
  • Edward Leen
Contrast Media

Abstract

Objective

To conduct a dose testing analysis of perfluorobutane microbubble (NC100100) contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to determine the optimal dose for detection of liver metastases in patients with extra-hepatic primary malignancy.

Methods

157 patients were investigated with conventional US and CEUS. CEUS was performed following intravenous administration of perfluorobutane microbubbles (using one dose of either 0.008, 0.08, 0.12 or 0.36 μL/kg body weight). Three blinded off-site readers recorded the number and locations of metastatic lesions detected by US and CEUS. Contrast enhanced CT and MRI were used as the “Standard Of Reference” (SOR). Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of liver metastasis detection with US versus CEUS, for each dose group were obtained. Dose group analysis was performed using the Chi-square test.

Results

165 metastases were present in 92 patients who each had 1–7 lesions present on the SOR. Sensitivity of US versus CEUS (for all doses combined) was 38% and 67% (p = 0.0001). The 0.12 dose group with CEUS (78%) had significantly higher sensitivity and accuracy (70%) compared to other dose groups (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The diagnostic performance of CEUS is dose dependent with the 0.12 μL/kg NC100100 dose group showing the greatest sensitivity and accuracy in detection of liver metastases.

Keywords

Liver Ultrasonography Contrast media Microbubbles Liver neoplasms Neoplasm metastasis 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by a grant from Amersham AG, Oslo, Norway.

References

  1. 1.
    Yanagisawa K, Moriyasu F, Miyahara T et al (2007) Phagocytosis of ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles by Kupffer cells. Ultrasound Med Biol 33:318–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kindberg GM, Tolleshaug H, Roos N et al (2003) Hepatic clearance of Sonazoid perfluorobutane microbubbles by Kupffer cells does not reduce the ability of the liver to phagocytose or degrade albumin microspheres. Cell Tissue Res 312:49–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Watanabe R, Matsumura M, Munemasa T et al (2007) Mechanism of hepatic parenchyma specific contrast of microbubble based contrast agent for ultrasonography: microscopic studies in rat liver. Invest Radiol 42:643–651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nakano H, Ishida Y, Hatakeyama T et al (2008) Contrast-enhanced intraoperative ultrasonography equipped with late Kupffer-phase image obtained by sonazoid in patients with colorectal liver metastases. World J Gastroenterol 14:3207–3211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sugimoto K, Shiraishi J, Moriyasu F et al (2009) Computer-aided diagnosis of focal liver lesions by use of physicians’ subjective classification of echogenic patterns in baseline and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Acad Radiol 16:401–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luo W, Numata K, Morimoto M et al (2009) Focal liver tumours: Characterization with 3D perflubutane microbubble contrast agent enhanced US versus 3D contrast enhanced multidetector CT. Radiology 251:287–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hatanaka K, Kudo M, Minami Y et al (2008) Differential diagnosis of hepatic tumours: Value of contrast enhanced harmonic sonography using the newly developed contrast agent, Sonazoid. Intervirology Suppl 51:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sugimoto K, Shiraishi J, Moriyasu F et al (2009) Improved detection of hepatic metastases with contrast-enhanced low mechanical-index pulse inversion ultrasonography during the liver-specific phase of sonazoid: observer performance study with JAFROC analysis. Acad Radiol 16:798–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luo W, Numata K, Kondo M et al (2009) Sonazoid-enhanced ultrasonography for evaluation of the enhancement patterns of focal liver tumours in the late phase by intermittent imaging with a high mechanical index. J Ultrasound Med 28:439–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nino-Murcia M, Olcott EW, Jeffrey RB Jr et al (2000) Focal liver lesions: pattern-based classification scheme for enhancement at arterial phase CT. Radiology 215:746–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elsayes KM, Narra VR, Yuming Y et al (2005) Diagnostic value of enhancement pattern approach with contrast enhanced 3D gradient echo MR imaging. Radiographics 25:1299–1320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edey AJ, Ryan SM, Beese RC et al (2008) Ultrasound imaging of liver metastases in the delayed parenchymal phase following administration of Sonazoid using a destructive mode technique (Agent Detection Imaging). Clin Radiol 63:1112–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leen E, Kumar S, Khan SA et al (2009) Contrast-enhanced 3D ultrasound in the radiofrequency ablation of liver tumours. World J Gastroenterol 15:289–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Michel Correas
    • 1
  • Gavin Low
    • 2
    • 3
    • 13
  • Laurence Needleman
    • 4
  • Michelle L. Robbin
    • 5
  • David Cosgrove
    • 6
  • Paul S. Sidhu
    • 7
  • Chris J. Harvey
    • 6
  • Thomas Albrecht
    • 8
  • Jarl A. Jakobsen
    • 9
  • Knut Brabrand
    • 9
  • Manfred Jenett
    • 10
  • Jane Bates
    • 11
  • Michel Claudon
    • 12
  • Edward Leen
    • 3
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Adult RadiologyGroupe Hospitalier Necker Enfants-MaladesParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Alberta HospitalEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyGlasgow Royal InfirmaryGlasgowUK
  4. 4.Thomas Jefferson UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.University of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  6. 6.Hammersmith HospitalImperial CollegeLondonUK
  7. 7.Department of RadiologyKing’s College HospitalLondonUK
  8. 8.Institut of Radiology and Interventional TherapyVivantes Klinikum NeuköllnBerlinGermany
  9. 9.Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine- Rikshopitalet, Division of Diagnostics and InterventionOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  10. 10.Department of RadiologyUniversitätsklinikumWürzburgGermany
  11. 11.Department of RadiologySt James’s University HospitalLeedsUK
  12. 12.Department of RadiologyCHU BraboisNancyFrance
  13. 13.Department of Radiology & Diagnostic ImagingUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations