Abstract Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performance of two algorithms for HCC diagnosis: SonoVue-CEUS based on CEUS LI-RADS version 2017 and a modified algorithm incorporating Kupffer-phase findings for Sonazoid-CEUS. Materials and Methods: This single center prospective study enrolled high-risk patients for HCC. Each participant underwent same-day SonoVue-CEUS and Sonazoid-CEUS. Each liver observation was assigned two LI-RADS categories according to each algorithm: SonoVue-CEUS LI-RADS SHF and modified Sonazoid-CEUS LI-RADS. For the latter method, observations at least 10 mm with nonrim arterial phase hyperenhancement were upgraded LR-4 to LR-5 if there was no washout with a Kupffer defect and were reassigned LR-M to LR-5 if there was early washout with mild Kupffer defect. The reference standard was pathologic confirmation. Results: Overall, 66 patients (mean age, 61.2 years ± 10.9; 54 male patients, 12 female patients) with 66 observations (mean size, 31mm ± 16) were eventually enrolled. Compared with the SonoVue-CEUS LI-RADS, the results of Sonazoid-CEUS LI-RADS showed significant changes in sensitivity (88% vs. 63%, P<0.001), accuracy (85% vs. 68%, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in specificity (71% vs 76%, P =.26). Conclusion: When incorporating Kupffer-phase findings, Sonazoid-CEUS LI-RADS had higher sensitivity without loss of specificity comparing with SonoVue-CEUS LI-RADS. Background: Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) was designed for contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) with pure blood pool agents for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), such as SonoVue, but Kupffer-cell agents, such as Sonazoid, allow additional lesion characterization in the Kupffer phase yet remain unaddressed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhai et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: