Diagnosis value of focal liver lesions with SonoVue®-enhanced ultrasound compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced MRI: a meta-analysis

  • Yang Guang
  • LiMei Xie
  • Hailong Ding
  • AiLu Cai
  • Ying Huang
Original Paper



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.


FLLs 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”.


  1. Basilico R, Blomley MJ, Harvey CJ, Filippone A, Heckemann RA, Eckersley RJ, Cosgrove DO (2002) Which continuous US scanning mode is optimal for the detection of vascularity in liver lesions when enhanced with a second generation contrast agent? Eur J Radiol 41:184–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burns PN, Wilson SR (2007) Focal liver masses: enhancement patterns on contrast-enhanced images–concordance of US scans with CT scans and MR images. Radiology 242:162–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cabassa P, Bipat S, Longaretti L, Morone M, Maroldi R (2010) Liver metastases: sulphur hexafluoride-enhanced ultrasonography for lesion detection: a systematic review. Ultrasound Med Biol 10:1561–1567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Catala V, Nicolau C, Vilana R, Pages M, Bianchi L, Sanchez M, Bru C (2007) Characterization of focal liver lesions: comparative study of contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus spiral computed tomography. Eur Radiol 17:1066–1073PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chami L, Lassau N, Malka D, Ducreux M, Bidault S, Roche A, Elias D (2008) Benefits of contrast-enhanced sonography for the detection of liver lesions: comparison with histologic findings. AJR 190:683–690PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cho CS, Curran S, Schwartz LH, Kooby DA, Klimstra DS, Shia J, Munoz A, Fong Y, Jarnagin WR, DeMatteo RP, Blumgart LH (2008) Preoperative radiographic assessment of hepatic steatosis with histologic correlation. J Am Coll Surg 206:480–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cieszanowski A, Szeszkowski W, Golebiowski M, Bielecki DK, Grodzicki M, Pruszynski B (2002) Discrimination of benign from malignant hepatic lesions based on their T2-relaxation times calculated from moderately T2-weighted turbo SE sequence. Eur Radiol 12:2273–2279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Claudon M, Cosgrove D, Albrecht T et al (2008) Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)—update 2008. Ultraschall Med 29:28–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cosgrove D (2007) Achieving optimal diagnostic yield through the use of real-time contrast enhanced ultrasonography. Eur Radiol 17(Suppl 6):F71–F72Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. de Groot MC, van Zwieten-Boot BJ, van Grootheest AC (2004) Severe adverse reactions after the use of sulphur hexafluoride (SonoVue) as an ultrasonographic contrast agent. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 148:1887–1888PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Deville′ WL, Bezemer PD, Bouter LM (2000) Publications ondiagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals: an optimal search strat-egy. J Clin Epidemiol 53:65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donati OF, Hany TF, Reiner CS, von Schulthess GK, Marincek B, Seifert B, Weishaupt D (2010) Value of retrospective fusion of PET and MR images in detection of hepatic metastases: comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT and Gd-EOB-DTPA–enhanced MRI. J Nucl Med 51(5):692–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. D’souza MM, Sharma R, Mondal A, Jaimini A, Tripathi M, Saw SK, Singh D, Mishra A, Tripathi RP (2009) Prospective evaluation of CECT and 18F-FDG-PET/CT in detection of hepatic metastases. Nucl Med Commun 30:117–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC (2003) The comparison of proportions from several independent samples: estimation of the marginal mean pro-portion. In: Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC (eds) Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 3rd edn. Wiley, New Jersey, pp 212–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC, Mosteller F (1994) Guidelines for meta-analysis evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 120:667–676PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kong G, Jackson C, Koh DM, Lewington V, Sharma B, Brown G, Cunningham D, Cook GJ (2008) The use of 18F-FDG PET/CT in colorectal liver metastases–comparison with CT and liver MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 07:1323–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Konopke R, Bunk A, Kersting S (2007) The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for focal liver lesion detection: an overview. Ultrasound Med Biol 33:1515–1526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krix M, Kiessling F, Essig M, Herth F, Karcher A, Le-Huu M, Kauczor HU, Delorme S (2004) Low mechanical index contrast-enhanced ultrasound better reflects high arterial perfusion of liver metastases than arterial phase computed tomography. Invest Radiol 39:216–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee MG, Auh YH, Cho KS, Chung YH, Lee IC, Kang EM (1996) Color Doppler flow imaging of hepatocellular carcinomas. Comparison with metastatic tumors and hemangiomas by three-step grading for color hues. Clin Imaging 20:199–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leen E, Becker D, Bolondi L, Steinbach R, Weskott H, Stacul F, Ricci P (2003) Prospective, open-label, multi-centre study evaluating the accuracy of unenhanced versus SonoVue enhanced ultrasonography in the characterization of focal liver lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol 29:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lencioni R, Cioni D, Crocetti L, Donati F, Franchini C, Giusti S, Bartolozzi C (2002) Ultrasound imaging of focal liver lesions with a second-generation contrast agent. Acad Radiol 9(Suppl 2):S371–S374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lencioni R, Della Pinna C, Crocetti L, Bozzi E, Cioni D (2007) Clinical management of focal liver lesions: the key role of real time contrast-enhanced US. Eur Radiol 17(Suppl 6):F73–F79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Luo BM, Wen YL, Yang HY, Zhi H, Ou B, Ma JH, Pan JS, Dai XN (2005) Differentiation between malignant and benign nodules in the liver: use of contrast C3-MODE technology. World J Gastroenterol 11:2402–2407PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B (1993) Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: dataanalytic ap-proaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 12:1293–1316PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Nicolau C, Vilana R, Catalá V, Bianchi L, Gilabert R, García A, Brú C (2006) Importance of evaluating all vascular phases on contrast-enhanced sonography in the differentiation of benign from malignant focal liver lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:158–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pan L, Han Y, Sun X, Liu J, Gang H (2010) FDG-PET and other imaging modalities for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases: a meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 07:1007–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parikh T, Drew SJ, Lee VS, Wong S, Hecht EM, Babb JS, Taouli B (2008) Focal liver lesion detection and characterization with diffusion-weighted MR imaging: comparison with standard breath-hold T2-weighted imaging. Radiology 246:812–822PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Reinhold C, Hammers L, Taylor CR, Quedens-Case CL, Holland CK, Taylor KJ (1995) Characterization of focal hepatic lesions with duplex sonography: findings in 198 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 164:1131–1135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Romanini L, Passamonti M, Aiani L, Cabassa P, Raieli G, Montermini I, Martegani A, Grazioli L, Calliada F (2007) Economic assessment of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for evaluation of focal liver lesions: a multicentre Italian experience. Eur Radiol 17:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Sodhi KS, Sidhu R, Gulati M, Saxena A, Suri S, Chawla Y (2005) Role of tissue harmonic imaging in focal hepatic lesions: comparison with conventional sonography. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 20:1488–1493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Tateishi U, Hasegawa T, Muramatsu Y, Moriyama N (2003) Hepatic metastases of soft tissue angiosarcoma: CT and MR imaging findings. Abdom Imaging 28:660–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Torzilli G (2005) Adverse effects associated with SonoVue use. Expert Opin Drug Saf 4:399–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Wang ZL, Tang J, Weskott HP, Li JL, Wang W, Luo YK, An LC, Xu JH (2008) Undetermined focal liver lesions on gray-scale ultrasound in patients with fatty liver: characterization with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 23:1511–1519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J (2003) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PN, Kleijnen J (2006) Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMCMed Res Methodol 6:9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilson SR, Burns PN (2006) An algorithm for the diagnosis of focal liver masses using microbubble contrast-enhanced pulse-inversion sonography. Am J Roentgenol 186:1401–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wu W, Chen MH, Yin SS, Yan K, Fan ZH, Yang W, Dai Y, Huo L, Li JY (2006) The role of contrast-enhanced sonography of focal liver lesions before percutaneous biopsy. AJR 87:752–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xu PJ, Yan FH, Wang JH, Shan Y, Ji Y, Chen CZ (2010) Contribution of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the characterization of hepatocellular carcinomas and dysplastic nodules in cirrhotic liver. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34(04):506–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A (2006) Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zheng YL, Yin XY, Xie XY, Xu HX, Xu ZF, Liu GJ, Liang JY, Lu MD (2010) Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in assessing the vascularity of liver metastases: comparison with contrast-enhanced computed tomography. J Ultrasound Med 29(10):1403–1410PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yang Guang
    • 1
  • LiMei Xie
    • 1
  • Hailong Ding
    • 2
  • AiLu Cai
    • 1
  • Ying Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UltrasoundShengjing Hospital of China Medical UniversityShenyangChina
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthChina Medical UniversityShenyangChina

Personalised recommendations