Diagnosis value of focal liver lesions with SonoVue®-enhanced ultrasound compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced MRI: a meta-analysis
- 710 Downloads
This study is aimed at evaluating diagnostic value of focal liver lesions (FLLs) with SonoVue®-enhanced ultrasound compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI).
PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register were searched for English language articles published from January 2000 to May 2011. Histopathologic analysis and/or close clinical and imaging follow-up (except CECT or CEMRI) for at least 6 months were used as golden reference. Sensitivity, specificity, summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves, and area under the curve (AUC) were extracted to test heterogeneity.
In 21 included studies, for the SonoVue®-enhanced ultrasound studies, sensitivity was 88% (95% CI 87–90), specificity was 81% (95% CI 79–84), and 38.62 (95% CI 13.64–109.35) for diagnostic odds ratio (DOR); for the CECT studies, sensitivity was 90% (95% CI 88–92), specificity was 77% (95% CI 71–82), and 30.84 (95% CI 11.11–85.61) for DOR; for the CEMRI studies, sensitivity was 86% (95% CI 83–88), specificity was 81% (95% CI 76–85), and 27.63 (95% CI 11.28–67.70) for DOR.
In comparison, SonoVue®-enhanced ultrasound had high pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity. SROC analysis showed the diagnostic value of FLLs with SonoVue®-enhanced ultrasound has no significant difference compared with CECT and CEMRI. SonoVue®-enhanced ultrasound is highly sensitive and specific in the characterization of FLLs to support an effective diagnostic method.
KeywordsFLLs SonoVue®-enhanced ultrasound CECT CEMRI Meta-analysis
Conflict of interest
We declare that we have no financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence our work, there is no professional or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be construed as influencing the position presented in, or the review of, the manuscript entitled, “Diagnosis Value of Focal Liver Lesions with SonoVue®-Enhanced Ultrasound Compared with Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography, Contrast-Enhanced MRI: A Meta-Analysis”.
- Cosgrove D (2007) Achieving optimal diagnostic yield through the use of real-time contrast enhanced ultrasonography. Eur Radiol 17(Suppl 6):F71–F72Google Scholar
- Dai Y, Chen MH, Fan ZH, Yan K, Yin SS, Zhang XP (2008) Diagnosis of small hepatic nodules detected by surveillance ultrasound in patients with cirrhosis: comparison between contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced helical computed tomography. Hepatol Res 38:281–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pirovano G, Vanzulli A, Marti-Bonmati L, Grazioli L, Manfredi R, Greco A, Holzknecht N, Daldrup-Link HE, Rummeny E, Hamm B, Arneson V, Imperatori L, Kirchin MA, Spinazzi A (2000) Evaluation of the accuracy of gadobenate dimeglumine–enhanced MR imaging in the detection and characterization of focal liver lesions. AJR 75:1111–1120Google Scholar
- Quaia E, D’Onofrio M, Palumbo A, Rossi S, Bruni S, Cova M (2006) Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography versus baseline ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography in metastatic disease of the liver: diagnostic performance and confidence. Eur Radiol 16:1599–1609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Quaia E, Alaimo V, Baratella E, Medeot A, Midiri M, Cova MA (2009) The added diagnostic value of 64-row multidetector CT combined with contrast-enhanced US in the evaluation of hepatocellular nodule vascularity implications in the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with liver cirrhosis. Eur Radiol 19:651–663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Regge D, Campanella D, Anselmetti GC, Cirillo S, Gallo TM, Muratore A, Capussotti L, Galatola G, Floriani I, Aglietta M (2006) Diagnostic accuracy of portal-phase CT and MRI with mangafodipir trisodium in detecting liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Clin Radiol 61:338–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Seitz K, Strobel D, Bernatik T, Blank W, Friedrich-Rust M, Herbay A, Dietrich CF, Strunk H, Kratzer W, Schuler A (2009) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterization of focal liver lesions—prospective comparison in clinical practice: CEUS vs. CT (DEGUM multicenter trial). Parts of this manuscript were presented at the Ultrasound Dreiländertreffen 2008, Davos. Ultraschall Med 30:383–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Seitz K, Bernatik T, Strobel D, Blank W, Friedrich-Rust M, Strunk H, Greis C, Kratzer W, Schuler A (2010) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterization of focal liver lesions in clinical practice (DEGUM Multicenter Trial): CEUS vs. MRI–a prospective comparison in 269 patients. Ultraschall in Med 31:492–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Strobel D, Seitz K, Blank W, Schuler A, Dietrich C, von Herbay A, Friedrich-Rust M, Kunze G, Becker D, Will U, Kratzer W, Albert FW, Pachmann C, Dirks K, Strunk H, Greis C, Bernatik T (2008) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of focal liver lesions–diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice (DEGUM multicenter trial). Ultraschall in Med 29:499–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Suzuki S, Iijima H, Moriyasu F, Sasaki S, Yanagisawa K, Miyahara T, Oguma K, Yoshida M, Horibe T, Ito N, Kakizaki D, Abeb K, Tsuchiya K (2004) Differential diagnosis of hepatic nodules using delayed parenchymal phase imaging of Levovist contrast ultrasound: comparative study with SPIO-MRI. Hepatol Res 29:122–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tranquart F, Correas JM, Ladam Marcus V, Manzoni P, Vilgrain V, Aube C, Elmaleh A, Chami L, Claudon M, Cuilleron M, Diris B, Garibaldi F, Lucidarme O, Marion D, Beziat C, Rode A, Tasu JP, Trillaud H, Bleuzen A, Le Gouge A, Giraudeau B, Rusch E (2009) Real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the evaluation of focal liver lesions: diagnostic efficacy and economical issues from a French multicentric study. J Radiol 90:109–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar