GASTROINTESTINAL AND ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY / ORIGINAL PAPER
Comparative efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus B-mode ultrasound in the diagnosis and monitoring of hepatic abscesses
1
I Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Norbert Barlicki Memorial Teaching Hospital No. 1, Medical University of Lodz, Łódź, Poland
2
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Polish Mother's Memorial Hospital Research Institute, Łódź, Poland
3
Department of General Surgery and Transplantology, Norbert Barlicki Memorial Teaching Hospital No. 1, Medical University of Lodz, Łódź, Poland
4
Department of Digestive Tract Diseases, Norbert Barlicki Memorial Teaching Hospital No. 1, Medical University of Lodz, Łódź, Poland
Submission date: 2024-05-22
Final revision date: 2024-08-06
Acceptance date: 2024-08-09
Publication date: 2024-10-08
Corresponding author
Adam Dobek
I Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Norbert Barlicki Memorial Teaching Hospital No. 1, Medical University of Lodz, dr. Stefana Kopcińskiego 22, 90-153 Łódź, Poland, e-mail: adamdobek41@gmail.com
I Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Norbert Barlicki Memorial Teaching Hospital No. 1, Medical University of Lodz, dr. Stefana Kopcińskiego 22, 90-153 Łódź, Poland, e-mail: adamdobek41@gmail.com
Pol J Radiol, 2024; 89: 470-479
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in diagnosing and monitoring hepatic abscesses (HA).
Material and methods:
This retrospective study included 29 patients (9 females, 20 males) with 64 HA. Computed tomography (CT) served as the diagnostic benchmark, compared with CEUS and B-mode ultrasound (B-mode). Two radiologists assessed the presence, size, and characteristics of the HA.
Results:
The contrast enhancement pattern on CEUS matched post-contrast CT. Lesion size detected by CEUS ranged from 1.16 cm to 15.33 cm (median 5.74 cm). CT classified lesions into four types: I (tumor-like) – 2, II (honeycomb) – 5, III (lacunar) – 23, IV (cystic-like) – 34. CEUS fully agreed with these classifications. B-mode missed two type I lesions. For type III abscesses, agreement with CEUS was perfect (κ = 1, 100%), and moderate with B-mode (κ = 0.50, 79.7%). For type IV abscesses, agreement with CEUS was perfect (κ = 1, 100%), and high with B-mode (κ = 0.88, 93.75%). Pus enhancement remained stable (± 15 dB), while the abscess pouch background varied (± 11 dB to ± 6 dB). The Mann-Whitney U test confirmed these observations (arterial: p = 1.02e-14, portal: p = 3.79e-12, late venous: p = 4.53e-13). No significant difference in enhancement values was found based on abscess size (> 4 cm vs. < 4 cm).
Conclusions:
CEUS is superior to B-mode for diagnosing and monitoring HA, offering clearer views of the abscess pouch, septa, and liver parenchyma. The purulent part lacks contrast, allowing accurate assessment. CEUS can replace CT for monitoring and aid in patient selection for percutaneous intervention.
This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in diagnosing and monitoring hepatic abscesses (HA).
Material and methods:
This retrospective study included 29 patients (9 females, 20 males) with 64 HA. Computed tomography (CT) served as the diagnostic benchmark, compared with CEUS and B-mode ultrasound (B-mode). Two radiologists assessed the presence, size, and characteristics of the HA.
Results:
The contrast enhancement pattern on CEUS matched post-contrast CT. Lesion size detected by CEUS ranged from 1.16 cm to 15.33 cm (median 5.74 cm). CT classified lesions into four types: I (tumor-like) – 2, II (honeycomb) – 5, III (lacunar) – 23, IV (cystic-like) – 34. CEUS fully agreed with these classifications. B-mode missed two type I lesions. For type III abscesses, agreement with CEUS was perfect (κ = 1, 100%), and moderate with B-mode (κ = 0.50, 79.7%). For type IV abscesses, agreement with CEUS was perfect (κ = 1, 100%), and high with B-mode (κ = 0.88, 93.75%). Pus enhancement remained stable (± 15 dB), while the abscess pouch background varied (± 11 dB to ± 6 dB). The Mann-Whitney U test confirmed these observations (arterial: p = 1.02e-14, portal: p = 3.79e-12, late venous: p = 4.53e-13). No significant difference in enhancement values was found based on abscess size (> 4 cm vs. < 4 cm).
Conclusions:
CEUS is superior to B-mode for diagnosing and monitoring HA, offering clearer views of the abscess pouch, septa, and liver parenchyma. The purulent part lacks contrast, allowing accurate assessment. CEUS can replace CT for monitoring and aid in patient selection for percutaneous intervention.
REFERENCES (30)
1.
Zhuo LY, Xing LH, Ma X, Zhang Y, Ma ZP, Yin XP, et al. Differentiating Between an Atypical Hepatic Abscess and Tumor Metastasis Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Hepatobiliary Phase Imaging. Infect Drug Resist 2021; 14: 3263-3274.
2.
Masuda T, Kobashi K, Sugimoto R, Ishii H, Tsunemitsu K. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with a liver abscess due to hepatic actinomycosis. Surg Case Rep 2023; 9: 43.
3.
Vera M, Vera M, Bravo A. Liver abscess mimicking tumor: a pediatric case report. Archivos Venezolanos de Farmacología y Terapéutica 2020; 39: 516-523.
4.
Lin ZY, Wang JH, Wang LY, Lu SN, Chen SC, Chuang WL, et al. Changes in intrahepatic portal hemodynamic in early stage hepatic abscesses. J Ultrasound Med 1996; 15: 595-598.
5.
Nino-Murcia M, Ralls PW, Jeffrey RB, Johnson M. Color flow Doppler characterization of focal hepatic lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 159: 1195-1197.
6.
Dobek A, Kobierecki M, Ciesielski W, Grząsiak O, Fabisiak A, Stefańczyk L. Usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differentiation between hepatocellular carcinoma and benign liver lesions. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13: 2025. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13122025.
7.
Harvey CJ, Albrecht T. Ultrasound of focal liver lesions. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 1578-1593.
9.
Guo Y, Qin X, Chen S, Liu X, Gu P. Diagnosis efficacy of CEUS for hepatic inflammatory lesions. J Clin Lab Anal 2020; 34: e23231. DOI: 10.1002/jcla.23231.
10.
Sun K, Zhu W, Luo Y, Li Y, Zhou X. Transient segmental enhancement of pyogenic liver abscess: a comparison between contrast-enhanced ultrasound and computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2018; 42: 133-138.
11.
Lardière-Deguelte S, Ragot E, Amroun K, Piardi T, Dokmak S, Bruno O, et al. Hepatic abscess: diagnosis and management. J Visc Surg 2015; 152: 231-243.
12.
Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Kamaya A, Kielar AZ, Elsayes KM, Bashir MR, et al. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018: imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in at-risk patients. Radiology 2018; 289: 816-830.
13.
Francica G. Pyogenic liver abscess: contrast-enhanced ultrasound allows morpho-evolutive classification and guides personalized management. Explor Med 2022; 3: 289-299.
14.
Dietrich CF, Nolsøe CP, Barr RG, Berzigotti A, Burns PN, Cantisani V, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver – update 2020 WFUMB in Cooperation with EFSUMB, AFSUMB, AIUM, and FLAUS. Ultrasound Med Biol 2020; 46: 2579-2604.
15.
D’Onofrio M, Crosara S, De Robertis R, Canestrini S, Mucelli RP. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of focal liver lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 205: W56-66. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.14203.
16.
Roche V, Pigneur F, Tselikas L, Roux M, Baranes L, Djabbari M, et al. Differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatocellular adenomas with low-mechanical-index contrast-enhanced sonography (CEUS): effect of size on diagnostic confidence. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 186-195.
17.
Wadhera S, Arora N, Dhibar DP. Review: Modern management of liver abscess. J Gastro Infect 2022; 12: 086-093.
18.
Khim G, Em S, Mo S, Townell N. Liver abscess: diagnostic and management issues found in the low resource setting. Br Med Bull 2019; 132: 45-52.
19.
McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012; 22: 276-282.
20.
Kunze G, Staritz M, Köhler M. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in different stages of pyogenic liver abscess. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015; 41: 952-959.
21.
Gee MS, Kim JY, Gervais DA, Hahn PF, Mueller PR. Management of abdominal and pelvic abscesses that persist despite satisfactory percutaneous drainage catheter placement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 815-820.
22.
Popescu A, Sporea I, Şirli R, Dănilă M, Mare R, Grădinaru Taşcău O, et al. Does contrast enhanced ultrasound improve the management of liver abscesses? A single centre experience. Med Ultrason 2015; 17: 451-455.
23.
Mahmoud A, Abuelazm M, Ahmed AAS, Elshinawy M, Abdelwahab OA, Abdalshafy H, et al. Percutaneous catheter drainage versus needle aspiration for liver abscess management: an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials. Ann Transl Med 2023; 11: 190. DOI: 10.21037/atm-22-4663.
24.
Morita M, Ogawa C, Omura A, Noda T, Kubo A, Matsunaka T, et al. The efficacy of sonazoid-enhanced ultrasonography in decision-making for liver abscess treatment. Intern Med 2020; 59: 471-477.
25.
Cai YL, Xiong XZ, Lu J, Cheng Y, Yang C, Lin YX, et al. Percutaneous needle aspiration versus catheter drainage in the management of liver abscess: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford) 2015; 17: 195-201.
26.
Giambelluca D, Panzuto F, Giambelluca E, Midiri M. The “double target sign” in liver abscess. Abdom Radiol 2018; 43: 2885-2886.
27.
Kishina M, Koda M, Tokunaga S, Miyoshi K, Fujise Y, Kato J, et al. Usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound with Sonazoid for evaluating liver abscess in comparison with conventional B-mode ultrasound. Hepatol Res 2015; 45: 337-342.
28.
Priyadarshi RN, Sherin L, Kumar R, Anand U, Kumar P. CT of amebic liver abscess: different morphological types with different clinical features. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021; 46: 4148-4158.
29.
Lin JW, Chen CT, Hsieh MS, Lee IH, Yen DHT, Cheng HM, et al. Percutaneous catheter drainage versus percutaneous needle aspiration for liver abscess: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. BMJ Open 2023; 13: e072736. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072736.
30.
Yoo J, Lee DH. Usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided biopsy for suspected viable hepatocellular carcinoma after treatment: a single-arm prospective study. Ultrasonography 2024; 43: 88-97.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
