Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (DCE-US) for the Characterization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Cholangiocellular Carcinoma

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose: In a prospective study, we compared the different perfusion kinetics of HCC and ICC using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US).

Materials and Methods: Patients with proven HCC and ICC were included. Three-minute video clips of CEUS examinations (CPS – low MI mode) after a bolus injection of 1.2 ml SonoVue^® were recorded and analyzed with quantification software (VueBox^®). Parameters for the arterial contrast enhancement [rise time (RT), time-to-peak (TTP)] towards portal venous contrast enhancement [mean transit time (local) (mTTl) and fall time (FT)] were quantified. Furthermore, contrast wash-out after peak enhancement (PE) (40 s, 80 s, 100 s and 120 s after PE) was compared between HCC and ICC.

Results: 43 patients with proven HCC (n = 23 HCC; cirrhosis n = 16) and ICC (n = 20 ICC; Cirrhosis n = 6) were examined. No statistical difference of the arterial DCEUS parameters was found between HCC and ICC. Contrast enhancement of the portal venous and late phases showed significantly lower values in the ICC group indicating early wash-out of the contrast agent: mTTl (p = 0.0209): HCC 118.4 s (SD± 88.4); ICC 64.8 s (SD± 49.7). FT (p = 0.0433): HCC 42.5 s (SD± 27.7); ICC 27.7 s (SD± 16.2). The percental loss of intensity at a definite time point after PE was significantly higher in ICC than in HCC lesions.

Conclusion: DCE-US is able to detect and quantify differences in perfusion kinetics between HCC and ICC. Whereas arterial contrast enhancement patterns may overlap between HCC and ICC, a timed characterization of wash-out kinetics may offer an additional tool to characterize HCC and ICC. The presence of a rapid loss of signal intensity in the early portal venous phase is significantly higher in ICC than in HCC lesions.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Prospektiver Vergleich der Perfusionskinetik von HCC und ICC mittels quantifizierender Kontrastmittelsonografie (DCE-US).

Material und Methoden: Eingeschlossen wurden Patienten mit gesichertem HCC oder ICC. Videoclips der CEUS nach Bolusinjektion von 1,2 ml SonoVue^® (CPS – low MI Mode) wurden kontinuierlich über 3 Minuten aufgezeichnet, die Kontrastierungsparameter der arteriellen und portalvenösen Phase [Rise-Time (RT), Time-To-Peak (TTP), mean Transit Time (local) (mTTl) und Fall-Time (FT)] wurden mittels Quantifizierungs-Software analysiert. Zu definierten Zeitpunkten wurde der Intensitätsabfall nach Erreichen der Maximalintensität [Peak-Enhancement (PE)] zwischen HCC und ICC verglichen.

Ergebnisse: Es wurden 43 Patienten mit gesichertem HCC (n = 23; Zirrhose n = 16) bzw. ICC (n = 20; Zirrhose n = 6) untersucht. Die Mittelwerte der arteriellen DCE-US-Parameter von HCC versus ICC unterschieden sich nicht signifikant. Die DCE-US Parameter der portalvenösen Phase und Spätphase waren in der ICC-Gruppe signifikant niedriger (früheres Wash-Out in der ICC-Gruppe). mTTl (p = 0,0209): HCC 118,4 s (SD± 88,4); ICC 64,8 s (SD± 49,7). FT (p = 0,0433): HCC 42,5 s (SD± 27,7); ICC 27,7 s (SD± 16,2). Der Abfall des Kontrastmittelenhancement nach Erreichen der Spitzenintensität (PE) war in der ICC-Gruppe signifikant größer verglichen mit der HCC-Gruppe.

Schlussfolgerung: In der Charakterisierung von HCC und ICC kann DCE-US signifikante Vaskularisationsunterschiede quantitativ erfassen. Während die arteriellen Vaskularisationsparameter beider Tumorentitäten überlappen, ist eine statistisch signifikante Unterscheidung zwischen HCC und ICC durch die definierte Auswaschkinetik möglich. Das Vorliegen eines raschen Intensitätsverlusts in der frühen portalvenösen Phase zeigt sich signifikant häufiger bei ICC verglichen mit HCC.

References
• 1 Dietrich CF, Averkiou MA, Correas JM et al. An EFSUMB introduction into Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (DCE-US) for quantification of tumour perfusion. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33: 344-351
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Greis C. Quantitative evaluation of microvascular blood flow by contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 2011; 49: 137-149
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Marcus CD, Ladam-Marcus V, Cucu C et al. Imaging techniques to evaluate the response to treatment in oncology: current standards and perspectives. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2009; 72: 217-238
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Cao Y. The promise of dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging in radiation therapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2011; 21: 147-156
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Clevert DA, D'Anastasi M, Jung EM. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and microcirculation: efficiency through dynamics--current developments. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 2013; 53: 171-186
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Kang Y, Lee JM, Kim SH et al. Intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma: enhancement patterns on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images. Radiology 2012; 264: 751-760
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Lassau N, Chapotot L, Benatsou B et al. Standardization of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the evaluation of antiangiogenic therapies: the French multicenter Support for Innovative and Expensive Techniques Study. Invest Radiol 2012; 47: 711-716
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Tranquart F, Mercier L, Frinking P et al. Perfusion quantification in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)--ready for research projects and routine clinical use. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33 Suppl 1: 31-38
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Yang X, Knopp MV. Quantifying tumor vascular heterogeneity with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a review. J Biomedicine Biotechnol 2011; 2011: 732848
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver--update 2012: a WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultraschall in Med 2013; 34: 11-29
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Kim AY, Lee MW, Rhim H et al. Pretreatment evaluation with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinomas with poor conspicuity on conventional ultrasonography. Korean J Radiol 2013; 14: 754-763
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Frieser M, Kiesel J, Lindner A et al. Efficacy of contrast-enhanced US versus CT or MRI for the therapeutic control of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation in the case of hepatic malignancies. Ultraschall in Med 2011; 32: 148-153
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Jung EM, Friedrich C, Hoffstetter P et al. Volume navigation with contrast enhanced ultrasound and image fusion for percutaneous interventions: first results. PloS one 2012; 7: e33956
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Knieling F, Waldner MJ, Goertz RS et al. Quantification of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound in HCC: prediction of response to a new combination therapy of sorafenib and panobinostat in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. BMJ case reports 2012; 2012
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Egger C, Goertz RS, Strobel D et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) for easy and rapid evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma compared to dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (DCE-CT) – a pilot study. Ultraschall in der Medizin (Stuttgart, Germany: 1980) 2012; 33: 587-592
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Zocco MA, Garcovich M, Lupascu A et al. Early prediction of response to sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: the role of dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound. J Hepatol 2013; 59: 1014-1021
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Frampas E, Lassau N, Zappa M et al. Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: early evaluation of response to targeted therapy and prognostic value of Perfusion CT and Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-Ultrasound. Preliminary results. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82: e205-e211
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Beyer L, Pregler B, Wiesinger I et al. Continuous Dynamic Registration of Microvascularization of Liver Tumors with Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound. Radiol Res Pract 2014; DOI: 10.1155/2014/347416.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Greten TF, Malek NP, Schmidt S et al. Diagnosis of and therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Z Gastroenterol 2013; 51: 1269-1326
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2012; 56: 908-943
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 2011; 53: 1020-1022
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Dietrich CF, Cui XW, Boozari B et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the diagnostic algorithm of hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma, comments on the AASLD guidelines. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33 Suppl 1: 57-66
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Iavarone M, Sangiovanni A, Forzenigo LV et al. Diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis by dynamic contrast imaging: the importance of tumor cell differentiation. Hepatology 2010; 52: 1723-1730
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Galassi M, Iavarone M, Rossi S et al. Patterns of appearance and risk of misdiagnosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis at contrast enhanced ultrasound. Liver Int 2013; 33: 771-779
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Chen LD, Xu HX, Xie XY et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma: differential diagnosis with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Eur Radiol 20: 743-753
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Boozari B, Soudah B, Rifai K et al. Grading of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma using late phase of contrast enhanced sonography – a prospective study. Dig Liver Dis 2011; 43: 484-490
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Strobel D, Seitz K, Blank W et al. Tumor-specific vascularization pattern of liver metastasis, hepatocellular carcinoma, hemangioma and focal nodular hyperplasia in the differential diagnosis of 1,349 liver lesions in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Ultraschall in Med 2009; 30: 376-382
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Bernatik T, Seitz K, Blank W et al. Unclear focal liver lesions in contrast-enhanced ultrasonography--lessons to be learned from the DEGUM multicenter study for the characterization of liver tumors. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 577-581
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Strobel D, Seitz K, Blank W et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of focal liver lesions--diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice (DEGUM multicenter trial). Ultraschall in Med 2008; 29: 499-505
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Bhayana D, Kim TK, Jang HJ et al. Hypervascular liver masses on contrast-enhanced ultrasound: the importance of washout. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 977-983
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Jang HJ, Kim TK, Burns PN et al. Enhancement patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma at contrast-enhanced US: comparison with histologic differentiation. Radiology 2007; 244: 898-906
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Liu GJ, Xu HX, Lu MD et al. Correlation between enhancement pattern of hepatocellular carcinoma on real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound and tumour cellular differentiation on histopathology. The Br J Radiol 2007; 80: 321-330
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Schacherer D, Girlich C, Wiest R et al. Semiquantitative characterization of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)--perfusion with contrast-enhanced ultrasound and perfusion analysis. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 2010; 44: 97-105
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Xia Y, Jiang YX, Dai Q et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of hepatocellular carcinoma: Correlation of washout time and angiogenesis. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 2011; 48: 265-273
  PubMedGoogle Scholar