US has a number of characteristics which make it a very useful diagnostic technique both for general application and for oncology in particular. First of all, US is a simple technique. This simplicity, which is sometimes confused with ease of use, is related to the way the examination is performed. No preliminary analysis or special preparation is required and it can always be immediately carried out, making it much more accessible in any hospital setting than the “heavy” devices of CT and MR. The immediacy of the image is another advantage, whereby the clinical picture may be clarified at the very time the US transducer is placed on the skin in the anatomic area in question. In addition, the rapidity of the examination is an important characteristic, particularly in other areas, such as emergency medicine. In oncology, however, a careful and comprehensive study is recommended, which slowly and repeatedly explores all the anatomic areas involved in the examination in question. This is particularly important in the “positive” patient: a pathologic finding indicating malignancy in a particular organ should increase the level of attention of the US operator due to the elevated probability that there are other associated findings.


Contrast Medium General Consideration Pulse Repetition Frequency Peak Systolic Velocity Ultrasound Beam 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Belton AL et al (2003) Tumour size measurement in an oncology clinical trial: comparison between off-site and onsite measurements. Clin Radiol 58:311–314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Catalano O et al (2004) Ethical, deontologic, social, and economic reflections on screening with helical CT. Part I: general aspects. Radiol Med 108:299–309PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Catalano O et al (2004) Ethic, deontologic, social, and economic reflections on screening with helical CT. Part II: specific aspects. Radiol Med 108:310–319PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Black WC et al (1997) Screening for disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:3–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herman CR et al (2002) Screening for preclinical disease. Test and disease characteristics. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:825–831PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stanley RJ (2001) Inhert dangers in radiologic screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:989–992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Obuchowski NA et al (2001) Ten criteria for effective screening: their application to multislice CT screening for pulmonary and colorectal cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:1357–1362PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baker SR (2003) Abdominal CT screening: inflated promises, serious concerns. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:27–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berg WA (2004) Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 42:845–851PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eden K et al (2001) Screening high-risk populations for thyroid cancer. Med Pediatr 36:583–591Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suehiro F (2006) Thyroid cancer detected by mass screening over a period of 16 years at a health care center in Japan. Surg Today 36:947–953PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Park JS et al (2006) Sonographic screening for thyroid cancer in females undergoing breast sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1025–1028PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kane RA et al (2003) Ultrasound of the thyroid and parathyroid glands. Controversies in the diagnosis of thyroid cancer. Ultrasound Q 19:177–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mihmanli I et al (2006) Concurrent routine breast and thyroid sonography for detection of thyroid tumors (letter). AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:W448PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miki H et al (1998) Value of mass screening for thyroid cancer. World J Surg 22:99–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clements R (2001) Ultrasound of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 11:2119–2125PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharma A et al (2006) Screening for gynaecological cancers. Eur J Surg Oncol 32:818–824PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ascher SM et al (2002) Cancer of the adnexal organs. In: Bragg DG et al (eds) Oncologic imaging. WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 549–574Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hensley ML et al (2004) Cancer screening: how good is good enough?. J Clin Oncol 22:4037–4039PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Priest PD et al (1992) Transvaginal ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol 35:40–44Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jeong et al (2000) Imaging evaluation of ovarian masses. Radiographics 20:1445–1470PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jacobs I et al (1993) Prevalence screening for ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women by CA-125 measurement and ultrasonography. BMJ 306:1030–1034PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Valenzano M et al (2001) The role of transvaginal ultrasound and sonohysterography in the diagnosis and staging of endometrial adenocarcinoma. Radiol Med 101:365–370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vuento MH et al (1999) Screening for endometrial cancer in asymptomatic postmenopausal women with conventional and color Doppler sonography. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106:14–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fleischer AC (1997) Transvaginal sonography of endometrial cancer. In: Fleischer AC et al (eds) Ultrasound and the endometrium. Parthenon Publishing Group, New York, 69–74Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim B et al (2003) Testicular microlithiasis: clinical significance and review of the literature. Eur Radiol 13:2567–2576PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Leval J et al (1993) Testis tumor: the problem of the undescended testis. J Belge Radiol 76:100–101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Giwercman A et al (1989) Prevalence of carcinoma in situ and other histopatological abnormalities in the testes of men with a history of cryptorchidism. J Urol 142:998–1002PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miller FN et al (2007) Testicular calcification and microlithiasis: association with primary intra-testicular malignancy in 3,477 patients. Eur Radiol 17:363–369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rashid HH et al (2004) Testicular microlithiasis: a review and its association with testicular cancer. Urol Oncol 22:285–289PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bruix J et al (2005) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 42:1208–1236PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Colombo M (2005) Natural history of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Imaging 5:85–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rockall TA et al (2004) Multidisciplinary treatment for cancer: surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. In: Husband JE et al (eds) Imaging in oncology. Taylor & Francis, London, 43–65Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sangiovanni A et al (2004) Increased survival of cirrhotic patients with a hepatocellular carcinoma detected during surveillance. Gastroenterology 126:1005–1014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ren F-Y et al (2006) Efficacy of ultrasonography and alphafetoprotein on early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 12:4656–4659PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Arguedas MR et al (2003) Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis: a costutility analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 98:679–690PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Peterson MS et al (2000) Pretransplantation surveillance for possible hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: epidemiology and CT-based tumor detection rate in 430 cases with surgical-pathologic correlation. Radiology 217:743–749PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Federle MP (2002) Use of radiologic techniques to screen for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Gastroenterol 35 (5 Suppl 2):92–100Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kubota K et al (2003) Growth rate of primary single hepatocellular carcinoma: determining optimal screening interval with contrast enhanced computed tomography. Dig Dis Sci 48:581–586PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Majima Y (1984) Growth rate of hepatocellular carcinoma by ultrasonography and its clinical significance. Acta Hepatol Jpn 25:754–765Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hirata K et al (1997) Mass screening for hepatocellular carcinoma by ultrasonography In: Gandolfi L et al (eds), Current trends in digestive ultrasonography. Karger, Basel, 17–27Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bennett GL et al (2002) Sonographic detection of hepatocellular carcinoma and dysplastic nodules in cirrhosis: correlation of pretransplantation sonography and liver explant pathology in 200 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:75–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dodd GD et al (1992) Detection of malignant tumors in endstage cirrhosis livers: efficacy of sonography as a screening technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 159:727–733PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Liu WC et al (2003) Poor sensitivity of sonography in detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in advanced liver cirrhosis: accuracy of pretransplantation sonography in 118 patients. Eur Radiol 13:1693–1698PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bruix J et al (2001) Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver. J Hepatol 35:4214–30Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bosniak MA et al (1995) Small renal parenchymal neoplasms: further observations on growth. Radiology 197:589–597PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jamis-Dow CA et al (1996) Small (≤3-cm) renal masses: detection with CT versus US and pathologic correlation. Radiology 198:785–788PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mihara S et al (1998) Efficacy of ultrasonic mass survey for abdominal cancer. J Med Syst 22:55–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mihara S et al (1999) Early detection of renal cell carcinoma by ultrasonographic screening. Based on the results of 13 years screening in Japan. Ultrasound Med Biol 25:1033–1039PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jeswani T et al (2005) Imaging tumour angiogenesis. Cancer Imaging 5:131–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nishida T (2005) Angiogenesis, which is essential for cancer growth, is a diagnostic and therapeutic target. J Gastroenterol 40:320–321PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kelland LR (2005) Targeting established tumor vasculature: a novel approach to cancer treatment. Curr Cancer Ther Rev 1:1–9Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rehman S et al (2005) Molecular imaging of antiangiogenic agents. Oncologist 10:92–103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cuenod CA et al (2006) Tumor angiogenesis: pathophysiology and implications for contrast-enhanced MRI and CT assessment. Abdom Imaging 31:188–193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cosgrove D (2003) Angiogenesis imaging — ultrasound. Br J Radiol 76:S43–S49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Anderson H et al (2001) Measuring changes in human tumour vasculature in response to therapy using functional imaging techniques. Br J Cancer 85:1085–1093PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Forsberg F et al (2002) Comparing contrast-enhanced ultrasound to immunohistochemical markers of angiogenesis in a human melanoma xenograft model: preliminary results. Ultrasound Med Biol 28:445–451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Provenzale JM (2007) Imaging of angiogenesis: clinical techniques and novel imaging methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:11–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ferrara KW et al (2000) Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis with US: imaging, Doppler, and contrast agents. Acad Radiol 7:824–839PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Delorme S et al (2006) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for examining tumor biology. Cancer Imaging 6:148–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kruskal JB et al (2006) Will improved assessment of response to antiangiogenic therapies be achieved with contrast-enhanced gray-scale US?. Radiology 240:1–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cosgrove D (2003) Angiogenesis imaging-ultrasound. Br J Radiol 76:S43–S49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Blomley MJ et al (1998) Liver vascular transit time analyzed with dynamic hepatic venography with bolus injections of a US contrast agent: early experience in seven patients with metastases. Radiology 209:862–866PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Donnelly EF et al (2001) Quantified power Doppler US of tumor blood flow correlates with microscopic quantification of tumor blood vessels. Radiology 219:166–170PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schroeder RJ et al (2001) Tumor vascularization in experimental melanomas: correlation between unenhanced and contrast enhanced power Doppler imaging and histological grading. Ultrasound Med Biol 27:761–771PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lassau N et al (2006a) Gastrointestinal stromal tumors treated with Imatinib: monitoring response with contrast-enhanced sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:1267–1273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lucidarme O et al (2004) Angiogenesis model for ultrasound contrast research: exploratory study. Acad Radiol 11:4–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pollard RE et al (2002) Contrast-assisted destruction-replenishment ultrasound for the assessment of tumor microvasculature in a rate model. Technol Cancer Res Treat 1:459–470PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Fleischer AC et al (2008) Contrast-enhanced transvaginal sonography of benign versus malignant ovarian masses: preliminary findings. J Ultrasound Med 27:1011–1018PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Li J et al (2005) Time-intensity-based quantification of vascularity with single-level dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. A pilot animal study. J Ultrasound Med 24:975–983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rubaltelli L et al (2007) Automated quantitative evaluation of lymph node perfusion on contrast-enhanced sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:977–983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Du J et al (2008) Correlation of real-time gray scale contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with microvessel density and vascular endothelial growth factor expression for assessment of angiogenesis in breast lesions. J Ultrasound Med 27:821–831PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    McCarville MB et al (2006) Angiogenesis inhibitors in a murine neuroblastoma model: quantitative assessment of intratumoral blood flow with contrast-enhanced gray-scale US. Radiology 240:73–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Krix M et al (2003) Sensitive noninvasive monitoring of tumor perfusion during antiangiogenic therapy by intermittent bolus-contrast power Doppler sonography. Cancer Res 63:8264–8270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Galiè M et al (2005) Tumor vessel compression hinders perfusion of ultrasonographic contrast agents. Neoplasia 7:528–536PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lindner JR (2004) Molecular imaging with contrast ultrasound and target microbubbles. J Nucl Cardiol 11:215–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Neal AJ (2004) Staging of cancer. In: Husband JE et al (eds) Imaging in oncology. Taylor & Francis, London, 31–41Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Wittekind Ch et al (2005) TNM atlas. Springer-Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ferrozzi F et al (2002) Structural changes induced by antineoplastic therapies: keys to evaluate tumor response to treatment. Eur Radiol 12:928–937PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Husband JE (1996) Monitoring tumor response. Eur Radiol 6:775–785PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lagalla R et al (1998b) Monitoring treatment response with color and power Doppler Eur J Radiol 28:149–156Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    MacVicar D et al (1997) Assessment of response following treatment for malignant disease. Br J Radiol 70:41–49Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Miller AB et al (1981) Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47:207–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Therasse P et al (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Therasse P et al (2006) RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer 42:1031–1039PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Park SH et al (2004) Volumetric tumor measurement using three-dimensional ultrasound: in vitro phantom study on measurement accuracy under various scanning condition. Ultrasound Med Biol 30:27–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Bellomi M et al (2004) Evaluation of the response to therapy of neoplastic lesions. Radiol Med 107:450–458PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ollivier L et al (2002) Monitoring tumor response. Cancer Imaging 3:5–6Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Prasad SR et al (2003a) Radiological evaluation of oncologic treatment response: current update. Cancer Imaging 3:93–95Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Catalano O et al (1999) Hepatocellular carcinoma treated with chemoembolization: assessment with contrast-enhanced Doppler ultrasonography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 22:486–492PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Gee MS et al (2001) Doppler ultrasound imaging detects changes in tumor perfusion during antivascular therapy associated with vascular anatomic alterations Cancer Res 61:2974–2982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Miller JC et al (2005) Imaging angiogenesis: applications and potential for drug development. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:172–187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    De Giorgi U et al (2005) Effect of angiosonography to monitor response during Imatinib treatment in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Clin Cancer Res 11:6171–6176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Krix M (2005) Quantification of enhancement in contrast ultrasound: a tool for monitoring of therapies in liver metastases. Eur Radiol 15(Suppl 5):104–108Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    giovagnoni A et al (2005) Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) and Evidence Based Radiology (EBR) in the follow-up of the patients after surgery for lung and colonrectal carcinoma. Radiol Med 109:345–357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Liberati A et al (1997) Assessing the effectiveness of follow-up care for colorectal cancer: a great conceptual and methodological challenge for clinical oncology. Ann Oncol 8:1059–1062PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Puylaert JB (1986) Acute appendicitis: US evaluation using graded compression Radiology 158:355–360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Testa AC et al (2005) The use of contrasted transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of gynecologic diseases. A preliminary study. J Ultrasound Med 24:1267–1278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Menzel J et al (2000) Gastrointestinal miniprobe sonography: the current status. Am J Gastroenterol 95:605–616PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Harvey CJ et al (2002) Advances in ultrasound. Clin Radiol 57:157–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Madrazo BL et al (2000) Doppler imaging. In: Shirkhoda A (eds) Variants and pitfalls in body imaging. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 455–473Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Lencioni R et al (2002) Tissue harmonic and contrast-specific imaging: back to gray scale in ultrasound. Eur Radiol 12:151–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Szopinski KT et al (2003) Tissue harmonic imaging. Utility in breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med 22:479–487PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Cha JH et al (2007) Characterization of benign and malignant solid breast masses: comparison of conventional US and tissue harmonic imaging. Radiology 242:63–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Desser TS et al (2000) Native tissue harmonic imaging: basic principles and clinical applications Ultrasound Q 16:40–48Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Rosenthal SJ et al (2001) Phase inversion tissue harmonic sonographic imaging: a clinical utility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:1393–1398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Entrekin RR et al (2001) Real-time spatial compound imaging: application to breast, vascular, and musculoskeletal ultrasound. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 22:50–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Oktar SÖ et al (2003) Comparison of conventional sonography, real-time compound sonography, tissue harmonic sonography, and tissue harmonic compound sonography of abdominal and pelvic lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:1341–1347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Mehta TS (2003) Current uses of ultrasound in the evaluation of the breast. Radiol Clin North Am 41:841–856PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Kim SE et al (2003) Extended field-of-view sonography. Advantages in abdominal applications. J Ultrasound Med 22:385–394PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Henrich W et al (2002) Transvaginal and transabdominal extended field-of-view (EFOV) and power Doppler EFOV sonography in gynecology. Advantages and applications J Ultrasound Med 21:1137–1144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Ying M et al (2006) Reliability of 3-D ultrasound measurements of cervical lymph node volume. Ultrasound Med Biol 32:995–1001PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Bega G et al (2003) Three-dimensional ultrasonography in gynecology. Technical aspects and clinical applications J Ultrasound Med 22:1249–1269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Lyshchik A et al (2004) Three-dimensional ultrasonography for volume measurement of thyroid nodules in children. J Ultrasound Med 23:247–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Alam F et al (2008) Accuracy of sonographic elastography in the differential diagnosis of enlarged cervical lymph nodes: comparison with conventional B-mode sonography AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:604–610PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Giuseppetti GM et al (2005) Elastosonography in the diagnosis of the nodular breast lesions: preliminary report. Radiol Med 110:69–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Zhi H et al (2007) Comparison of ultrasound elastography, mammography, and sonography in the diagnosis of solid breast lesions. J Ultrasound Med 26:807–815PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Wachsberg RH (2003) B-flow, a non-Doppler technology for flow mapping: early experience in the abdomen. Ultrasound Q 19:114–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Youk JK et al (2005) Focal fibrosis of the breast diagnosed by a sonographically guided core biopsy of nonpalpable lesions. Imaging findings and clinical relevance. J Ultrasound Med 24:1377–1384Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Konno K et al (2001) Liver tumors in fatty liver: difficulty in ultrasonographic interpretation. Abdom Imaging 26:487–491PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Riccabona M et al (1995) Distance and volume measurement using three-dimensional ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 14:881–886PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Nishino M et al (2003) Primary retroperitoneal neoplasms: CT and MR imaging findings with anatomic and pathologic diagnostic clues. Radiographics 23:45–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Moody AR et al (1993) Atypical hepatic hemangioma: a suggestive sonographic morphology. Radiology 188:413–417PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Blachar A et al (2002) Hepatic capsular retraction: spectrum of benign and malignant etiologies. Abdom Imaging 27:690–699PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Middleton WD (1998) Color Doppler. Image interpretation and optimization. Ultrasound Q 14:194–208Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Taylor KJ (1995) Fulse Doppler and color flow of tumors. In: Taylor KJW et al (eds) Clinical applications of Doppler ultrasound, Raven Press, New York, 355–366Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Grenier N et al (2001) Interpretation of Doppler signals. Eur Radiol 11:1295–1307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Hata K et al (2002) Prognostic significance of ultrasound derived peak systolic velocity in epithelial ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 20:186–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Kaushik S et al (2003) Spectral Doppler sonography of musculoskeletal soft tissue masses. J Ultrasound Med 22:1333–1336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    del Cura JL et al (2005) The use of unenhanced Doppler sonography in the evaluation of solid breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1788–1794PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Özdemir A et al (2001) Differential diagnosis of solid breast lesions J Ultrasound Med 20:1091–1101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Bodner G et al (2002) Differentiation of malignant and benign musculoskeletal tumors: combined color and power Doppler US and spectral wave analysis. Radiology 223:410–416PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Schick S et al (1998) Differentiation of benign and malignant tumors of the parotid gland: value of pulsed Doppler and color Doppler sonography. Eur Radiol 8:1462–1467PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Hata K et al (1995) Intratumoral peak systolic velocity as a new possible predictor for detection of adnexal malignancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 172:1496–1500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Brniç Z et al (2003) Usefulness of Doppler waveform analysis in differential diagnosis of cervical lymphadenopathy. Eur Radiol 13:175–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Peters-Engl C et al (1999) Tumor flow in malignant breast tumors measured by Doppler ultrasound: an independent predictor of survival Breast Cancer Res Treat 54:65–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Kubota K et al (2000) Evaluation of the intratumoral vasculature of hepatocellular carcinoma by power Doppler sonography: advantages and disadvantages versus conventional color Doppler sonography. Abdom Imaging 25:172–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Schroeder RJ et al (2003) Role of power Doppler techniques and ultrasound contrast enhancement in the differential diagnosis of focal breast lesions. Eur Radiol 13:68–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Quaia E (2005) Contrast media in ultrasonography. Basic principles and clinical applications Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Wilson WD et al (2006) Sonographic quantification of ovarian tumor vascularity. J Ultrasound Med 25:1577–1581PubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Epstein E et al (2002) An algorithm including results of gray-scale and power Doppler ultrasound examination to predict endometrial malignancy in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 20:370–376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    De Marchi A et al (2002) A preliminary experience in the study of soft tissue superficial masses: color Doppler US and wash-in and wash-out curves with contrast media compared to histological results. Radiol Med 104:451–458PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Numata K et al (1997) Use of hepatic tumor index on color Doppler sonography for differentiating large hepatic tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:991–995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Jeffrey RB et al (1995) Sonography of the abdomen. Raven Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Tanaka S et al (1990) Color-Doppler imaging of liver tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 154:509–514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Bartolozzi C et al (2001) contrast-specific ultrasound imaging of focal liver lesions. Prologue to a promising future. Eur Radiol 11(Suppl 3):13–14Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Harvey CJ et al (2001) Developments in ultrasound contrast media. Eur Radiol 11:675–689PubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Liu J-B et al (2008) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging. In: McGahan JP et al (eds) Diagnostic ultrasound, II edition. Informa Healthcare, New York, 39–62Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Correas J-M et al (2001) Ultrasound contrast agents: properties, principles of action, tolerance, and artifacts. Eur Radiol 11:1316–1328PubMedGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Piscaglia F et al (2006) The safety of Sono Vue® in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound Med Biol 32:1369–1375PubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Forsberg F et al (1999) Tissue-specific US contrast agent for evaluation of hepatic and splenic parenchyma. Radiology 210:125–132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Numata K et al (2008) Ablation therapy guided by contrast-enhanced sonography with sonazoid for hepatocellular carcinoma lesions not detected by conventional sonography. J Ultrasound Med 27:395–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Catalano O et al (2007b) Terminology for contrast-enhanced sonography: a practical glossary. J. Ultrasound Med 26:717–730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Bauer A et al (2002) Ultrasound imaging with Sono Vue: low mechanical index real-time imaging. Acad Radiol 9(Suppl 1): 282–284Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Forsberg F et al (1994) Artifacts in ultrasonic contrast agent studies. J Ultrasound Med 13:357–365PubMedGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Chami L et al (2007) Benefits of contrast-enhaced sonography for the detection of liver lesions: comparison with histologic findings AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:683–690Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Claudon M et al (2008) Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-update 2008. Ultraschall Med 29:28–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Catalano O et al (2005a) Real-time harmonic contrast material-specific US of focal liver lesions. Radiographics 25:333–349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Isozaki T et al (2003) Differential diagnosis of hepatic tumors by using contrast enhancement patterns at US. Radiology 229:798–805PubMedGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Minami Y et al (2004) Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with radiofrequency ablation: usefulness of contrast harmonic sonography for lesions poorly defined with B-mode sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:153–156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Solbiati L et al (1997) Hepatic metastases: percutaneous radiofrequency ablation with cooled-tip electrodes. Radiology 205:367–373PubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Quaia E et al (2007) Diagnostic value of hepatocellular nodule vascularity after microbubble injection for characterizing malignancy in patients with cirrhosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1474–1483PubMedGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Burns PN et al (2007) Focal liver masses: enhancement patterns of contrast-enhanced images-concordance of US scans with CT scans and MR images. Radiology 242:162–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Catalano O et al (2006a) Contrast-enhanced sonography of the spleen. Semin Ultrasound CT and MRI 27:426–433Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Thorelius L (2003) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: beyond the liver. Eur Radiol 13(Suppl 3): 91–108Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Robbin ML et al (2003) Renal imaging with ultrasound contrast: current status. Radiol Clin North Am 41:963–978PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2009

Personalised recommendations