Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Incidental focal solid liver lesions: diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and MR imaging

  • Hepatobiliary-Pancreas
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To prospectively assess the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and MR imaging in incidental solid focal liver lesions not characterised on ultrasound.

Materials and methods

Forty-seven patients with 50 lesions underwent MR imaging and CEUS: 24 focal nodular hyperplasias (FNH), 11 adenomas, 10 haemangiomas, 1 focal fatty change and 4 malignant lesions were identified. Two experienced radiologists randomly reviewed contrast-enhanced MR imaging and CEUS data, and provided the most likely diagnosis. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), likelihood ratios (LR) and kappa value were calculated.

Results

A histotype diagnosis was obtained in 66–52% with MR imaging and 52–53% with CEUS, respectively, for both readers. Se, Sp and LR for haemangioma were 100–100, 100–100 and 78–78 with MR imaging and 89–89, 100–100 and 68–70 with CEUS; for FNH with MR imaging they were 88–63, 96–100 and 23–34 and 74–67, 88–96 and 6–17 with CEUS. If the diagnosis of haemangioma was uncertain with CEUS, MR imaging always confirmed the diagnosis. If the diagnosis of FNH was uncertain with either CEUS or MR imaging, the other imaging technique confirmed the diagnosis in approximately half the cases.

Conclusion

Both CEUS and MR imaging have a high diagnostic performance in incidental focal liver lesions and are complementary when diagnosis is uncertain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Little JM, Richardson A, Tait N (1991) Hepatic dystychoma: a five year experience. HPB Surg 4:291–297

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Semelka RC, Sofka CM (1997) Hepatic hemangiomas. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 5:241–253

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Vilgrain V (2006) Focal nodular hyperplasia. Eur J Radiol 58:236–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Quaia E, Stacul F, Gaiani S, Ricci P, Passariello R, Curzio D et al (2004) Comparison of diagnostic performance of unenhanced vs SonoVue - enhanced ultrasonography in focal liver lesions characterization. The experience of three Italian centers. Radiol Med (Torino) 108:71–81

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nicolau C, Vilana R, Catala V, Bianchi L, Gilabert R, Garcia A et al (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 186:158–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Albrecht T, Blomley M, Bolondi L, Claudon M, Correas JM, Cosgrove D et al (2004) Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound. January 2004. Ultraschall Med 25:249–256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Claudon M, Cosgrove D, Albrecht T, Bolondi L, Bosio M, Calliada F et al (2008) Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) - update 2008. Ultraschall Med 29:28–44

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Elsayes KM, Leyendecker JR, Menias CO et al (2007) MRI characterization of 124 CT-indeterminate focal hepatic lesions: evaluation of clinical utility. HPB (Oxford) 9:208–215

    Google Scholar 

  9. Phongkitkarun S, Srianujata T, Jatchavala J (2009) Supplement value of magnetic resonance imaging in small hepatic lesion (< or = 20 mm) detected on routine computed tomography. J Med Assoc Thai 92:677–686

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vilgrain V, Flejou JF, Arrive L, Belghiti J, Najmark D, Menu Y et al (1992) Focal nodular hyperplasia of the liver: MR imaging and pathologic correlation in 37 patients. Radiology 184:699–703

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Soyer P, Gueye C, Somveille E, Laissy JP, Scherrer A (1995) MR diagnosis of hepatic metastases from neuroendocrine tumors versus hemangiomas: relative merits of dynamic gadolinium chelate-enhanced gradient-recalled echo and unenhanced spin-echo images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 165:1407–1413

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Buetow PC, Pantongrag-Brown L, Buck JL, Ros PR, Goodman ZD (1996) Focal nodular hyperplasia of the liver: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 16:369–388

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Horton KM, Bluemke DA, Hruban RH, Soyer P, Fishman EK (1999) CT and MR imaging of benign hepatic and biliary tumors. Radiographics 19:431–451

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Arrive L, Flejou JF, Vilgrain V, Belghiti J, Najmark D, Zins M et al (1994) Hepatic adenoma: MR findings in 51 pathologically proved lesions. Radiology 193:507–512

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Quaia E, Calliada F, Bertolotto M, Rossi S, Garioni L, Rosa L et al (2004) Characterization of focal liver lesions with contrast-specific US modes and a sulfur hexafluoride-filled microbubble contrast agent: diagnostic performance and confidence. Radiology 232:420–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim TK, Jang HJ, Burns PN, Murphy-Lavallee J, Wilson SR (2008) Focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatic adenoma: differentiation with low-mechanical-index contrast-enhanced sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:58–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilson SR, Burns PN (2006) An algorithm for the diagnosis of focal liver masses using microbubble contrast-enhanced pulse-inversion sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 86:1401–1412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Harvey CJ, Albrecht T (2001) Ultrasound of focal liver lesions. Eur Radiol 11:1578–1593

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Trillaud H, Bruel JM, Valette PJ et al (2009) Characterization of focal liver lesions with SonoVue-enhanced sonography: international multicenter-study in comparison to CT and MRI. World J Gastroenterol 15:3748–3756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fagan TJ (1975) Letter: Nomogram for Bayes theorem. N Engl J Med 293:257

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ihaka R, Gentleman R (1996) R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comp GraphStat 5:299–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Begg CB, Greenes RA, Iglewicz B (1986) The influence of uninterpretability on the assessment of diagnostic tests. J Chronic Dis 39:575–584

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Youk JH, Kim CS, Lee JM (2003) Contrast-enhanced agent detection imaging: value in the characterization of focal hepatic lesions. J Ultrasound Med 22:897–910

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Leen E, Ceccotti P, Kalogeropoulou C, Angerson WJ, Moug SJ, Horgan PG (2006) Prospective multicenter trial evaluating a novel method of characterizing focal liver lesions using contrast-enhanced sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1551–1559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 242:162–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL (1994) Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 271:703–707

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nguyen BN, Flejou JF, Terris B, Belghiti J, Degott C (1999) Focal nodular hyperplasia of the liver: a comprehensive pathologic study of 305 lesions and recognition of new histologic forms. Am J Surg Pathol 3(12):1441–1454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Attal P, Vilgrain V, Brancatelli G, Paradis V, Terris B, Belghiti J et al (2003) Telangiectatic focal nodular hyperplasia: US, CT, and MR imaging findings with histopathologic correlation in 13 cases. Radiology 228:465–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Paradis V, Champault A, Ronot M, Deschamps L, Valla DC, Vidaud D et al (2007) Telangiectatic adenoma: an entity associated with increased body mass index and inflammation. Hepatology 46:140–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Romanini L, Passamonti M, Aiani L, Cabassa P, Raieli G, Montermini I et al (2007) Economic assessment of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for evaluation of focal liver lesions: a multicentre Italian experience. Eur Radiol 17(Suppl 6):F99–F106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cherqui D, Rahmouni A, Charlotte F, Boulahdour H, Metreau JM, Meignan M et al (1995) Management of focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma in young women: a series of 41 patients with clinical, radiological, and pathological correlations. Hepatology 22:1674–1681

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Semelka RC, Brown ED, Ascher SM, Patt RH, Bagley AS, Li W et al (1994) Hepatic hemangiomas: a multi-institutional study of appearance on T2-weighted and serial gadolinium-enhanced gradient-echo MR images. Radiology 192:401–406

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Herman P, Pugliese V, Machado MA et al (2000) Hepatic adenoma and focal nodular hyperplasia: differential diagnosis and treatment. World J Surg 24:372–376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Choi BY, Nguyen MH (2005) The diagnosis and management of benign hepatic tumors. J Clin Gastroenterol 39:401–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, APHP, Hôpital Beaujon, 100 bd du Général Leclerc, 92110, Clichy, France

    Michael Soussan & Valérie Vilgrain

  2. Department of Radiology, CHU Angers, Angers, France

    Christophe Aubé

  3. Laboratoire HIFIH, UPRES 3859, IFR 132 Université, Angers, France

    Christophe Aubé

  4. Department of Medical Statistics, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, APHP, Université Paris-Dauphine, Paris, France

    Stéphane Bahrami

  5. Department of Hepatogastroenterology and Laboratoire HIFIH, CHU Angers, UPRES 3859, IFR 132 Université, Angers, France

    Jérôme Boursier

  6. Université Paris7 Denis Diderot, 75018, Paris, France

    Dominique Charles Valla & Valérie Vilgrain

  7. INSERM Centre de recherche Biomédicale Bichat Beaujon, CRB3 U773, 75018, Paris, France

    Dominique Charles Valla & Valérie Vilgrain

  8. Department of Hepatology, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, APHP, Hôpital Beaujon, Clichy, France

    Dominique Charles Valla

Authors
  1. Michael Soussan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christophe Aubé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stéphane Bahrami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jérôme Boursier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dominique Charles Valla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Valérie Vilgrain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valérie Vilgrain.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Soussan, M., Aubé, C., Bahrami, S. et al. Incidental focal solid liver lesions: diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and MR imaging. Eur Radiol 20, 1715–1725 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1700-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1700-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation