Contrast-enhanced US for characterization of focal liver lesions: a comprehensive meta-analysis
- 186 Downloads
This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in differentiating malignant from benign focal liver lesions (FLLs).
Cochrane Library, PubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched and checked for studies using CEUS in characterization of FLLs. Data necessary to construct 2×2 contingency tables were extracted from included studies. The QUADAS tool was utilized to assess the methodologic quality of the studies. Meta-analysis included data pooling, subgroup analyses, meta-regression and investigation of publication bias was comprehensively performed.
Fifty-seven studies were included in this meta-analysis and the overall diagnostic accuracy in characterization of FLLs was as follows: pooled sensitivity, 0.92 (95%CI: 0.91–0.93); pooled specificity, 0.87 (95%CI: 0.86–0.88); diagnostic odds ratio, 104.20 (95%CI: 70.42–154.16). Subgroup analysis indicated higher diagnostic accuracy of the second-generation contrast agents (CAs) than the first-generation CA (Levovist; DOR: 118.27 vs. 62.78). Furthermore, Sonazoid demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy among three major CAs (SonoVue, Levovist and Sonazoid; DOR: 118.82 vs. 62.78 vs. 227.39). No potential publication bias was observed of the included studies.
CEUS is an accurate tool to stratify the risk of malignancy in FLLs. The second-generation CAs, especially Sonazoid may greatly improve diagnostic performance.
• CEUS shows excellent diagnostic accuracy in differentiating malignant from benign FLLs.
• The second-generation CAs have higher diagnostic accuracy than first-generation CAs.
• Sonazoid demonstrates the highest diagnostic accuracy among three major CAs.
KeywordsUltrasonography Contrast media Liver neoplasms Diagnosis Meta-analysis
Focal liver lesions
Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
Diagnostic odds ratio
Positive likelihood ratio
Negative likelihood ratio
Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic
Area under the curve
Relative diagnostic odds ratio
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Xuening Zhang.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Written informed consent was not required for this study because the study concerns a meta-analysis.
Institutional review board approval was not required because the study concerns a meta-analysis.
• diagnostic study
• performed at one institution
- 8.Paefgen V, Doleschel D, Kiessling F (2015) Evolution of contrast agents for ultrasound imaging and ultrasound-mediated drug delivery. Front Pharmacol 15:197Google Scholar
- 14.Quaia E, De Paoli L, Angileri R, Cabibbo B, Cova MA (2014) Indeterminate solid hepatic lesions identified on non-diagnostic contrast-enhanced computed tomography: assessment of the additional diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the non-cirrhotic liver. Eur J Radiol 83:456–462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.von Herbay A, Westendorff J, Gregor M (2010) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound with SonoVue: differentiation between benign and malignant focal liver lesions in 317 patients. J Clin Ultrasound 38:1–9Google Scholar
- 32.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 19:651–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 64.Beissert M, Delorme S, Mutze S et al (2002) Comparison of B-mode and conventional colour/power Doppler ultrasound, contrast-enhanced Doppler ultrasound and spiral CT in the diagnosis of focal lesions of the liver: Results of a multicentre study. Ultraschall Med 23:245–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar