Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Algorithms (CEUS-LIRADS/ESCULAP) for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma - A Prospective Multicenter DEGUM Study.

CEUS-Algorithmen für den kontrastverstärkten Ultraschall (CEUS-LIRADS/ESCULAP) in der nichtinvasiven Diagnostik des hepatozellulären Karzinoms – eine prospektive, multizentrische DEGUM-Studie.

Journal

Ultraschall in der Medizin (Stuttgart, Germany : 1980)
ISSN: 1438-8782
Titre abrégé: Ultraschall Med
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8303585

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Historique:
pubmed: 15 7 2020
medline: 15 4 2021
entrez: 15 7 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

 This prospective multicenter study funded by the DEGUM assesses the diagnostic accuracy of standardized contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients.  Patients at high risk for HCC with a histologically proven focal liver lesion on B-mode ultrasound were recruited prospectively in a multicenter approach. Clinical and imaging data were entered via online entry forms. The diagnostic accuracies for the noninvasive diagnosis of HCC were compared for the conventional interpretation of standardized CEUS at the time of the examination (= CEUS on-site) and the two CEUS algorithms ESCULAP (Erlanger Synopsis for Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound for Liver lesion Assessment in Patients at risk) and CEUS LI-RADS (Contrast-Enhanced UltraSound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System).  321 patients were recruited in 43 centers; 299 (93.1 %) had liver cirrhosis. The diagnosis according to histology was HCC in 256 cases, and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) in 23 cases. In the subgroup of cirrhotic patients (n = 299), the highest sensitivity for the diagnosis of HCC was achieved with the CEUS algorithm ESCULAP (94.2 %) and CEUS on-site (90.9 %). The lowest sensitivity was reached with the CEUS LI-RADS algorithm (64 %; p < 0.001). However, the specificity of CEUS LI-RADS (78.9 %) was superior to that of ESCULAP (50.9 %) and CEUS on-site (64.9 %; p < 0.001). At the same time, the negative predictive value (NPV) of CEUS LI-RADS was significantly inferior to that of ESCULAP (34.1 % vs. 67.4 %; p < 0.001) and CEUS on-site (62.7 %; p < 0.001). The positive predictive values of all modalities were high (around 90 %), with the best results seen for CEUS LI-RADS and CEUS on-site.  This is the first multicenter, prospective comparison of standardized CEUS and the recently developed CEUS-based algorithms in histologically proven liver lesions in cirrhotic patients. Our results reaffirm the excellent diagnostic accuracy of CEUS for the noninvasive diagnosis of HCC in high-risk patients. However, on-site diagnosis by an experienced examiner achieves an almost equal diagnostic accuracy compared to CEUS-based diagnostic algorithms.  Diese prospektive, multizentrische, DEGUM-geförderte Studie untersucht die diagnostische Genauigkeit standardisierter Algorithmen für die Kontrastmittelsonografie (CEUS-Algorithmen) in der nichtinvasiven Diagnostik des hepatozellulären Karzinoms (HCC) bei Hochrisikopatienten.  HCC-Hochrisikopatienten mit histologisch gesicherter Leberläsion im B-Bild-Ultraschall wurden prospektiv multizentrisch eingeschlossen. Klinische Daten und Bildgebungsbefunde wurden über Online-Eingabemasken erfasst. Es erfolgte ein direkter Vergleich der diagnostischen Genauigkeiten für die konventionelle CEUS-Befundung zum Untersuchungszeitpunkt (CEUS-on-site) und die CEUS-Algorithmen ESCULAP (Erlanger Synopsis for Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound for Liver lesion Assessment in Patients at risk) und CEUS LI-RADS (Contrast-Enhanced UltraSound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System).  321 Patienten an 43 Zentren wurden eingeschlossen (93,1 % Leberzirrhose). Der histologische Befund ergab 256 HCCs und 23 intrahepatische cholangiozelluläre Karzinome (iCCA). Die höchste Sensitivität bei Zirrhose-Patienten (n = 299) erzielten der CEUS-Algorithmus ESCULAP (94,2 %) und CEUS-on-site (90,9 %), die geringste Sensitivität der CEUS LI-RADS-Algorithmus (64 %; p < 0,001). Die Spezifität war höher für CEUS LI-RADS (78,9 %) versus ESCULAP (50,9 %) und CEUS on-site (64,9 %; p < 0,001). Der negativ prädiktive Wert (NPW) war für CEUS LI-RADS niedriger als für ESCULAP (34,1 % vs. 67,4 %; p < 0,001) und CEUS-on-site (62,7 %; p < 0,001). Der positiv prädiktive Wert (PPW) war für alle Modalitäten hoch (rund 90 %).  Dies ist die erste prospektive, multizentrische Studie zum Vergleich der standardisierten Kontrastmittelsonografie mit den kürzlich entwickelten CEUS-Algorithmen in histologisch gesicherten Leberläsionen bei Zirrhose-Patienten. Unsere Ergebnisse bestätigen die exzellente diagnostische Genauigkeit der Kontrastmittelsonografie in der nichtinvasiven HCC-Diagnostik bei Hochrisikopatienten. Die On-site-Diagnose eines erfahrenen Untersuchers erzielt dabei eine beinahe ebenso gute diagnostische Genauigkeit wie die CEUS-basierten Diagnosealgorithmen.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
 This prospective multicenter study funded by the DEGUM assesses the diagnostic accuracy of standardized contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients.
METHODS METHODS
 Patients at high risk for HCC with a histologically proven focal liver lesion on B-mode ultrasound were recruited prospectively in a multicenter approach. Clinical and imaging data were entered via online entry forms. The diagnostic accuracies for the noninvasive diagnosis of HCC were compared for the conventional interpretation of standardized CEUS at the time of the examination (= CEUS on-site) and the two CEUS algorithms ESCULAP (Erlanger Synopsis for Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound for Liver lesion Assessment in Patients at risk) and CEUS LI-RADS (Contrast-Enhanced UltraSound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System).
RESULTS RESULTS
 321 patients were recruited in 43 centers; 299 (93.1 %) had liver cirrhosis. The diagnosis according to histology was HCC in 256 cases, and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) in 23 cases. In the subgroup of cirrhotic patients (n = 299), the highest sensitivity for the diagnosis of HCC was achieved with the CEUS algorithm ESCULAP (94.2 %) and CEUS on-site (90.9 %). The lowest sensitivity was reached with the CEUS LI-RADS algorithm (64 %; p < 0.001). However, the specificity of CEUS LI-RADS (78.9 %) was superior to that of ESCULAP (50.9 %) and CEUS on-site (64.9 %; p < 0.001). At the same time, the negative predictive value (NPV) of CEUS LI-RADS was significantly inferior to that of ESCULAP (34.1 % vs. 67.4 %; p < 0.001) and CEUS on-site (62.7 %; p < 0.001). The positive predictive values of all modalities were high (around 90 %), with the best results seen for CEUS LI-RADS and CEUS on-site.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
 This is the first multicenter, prospective comparison of standardized CEUS and the recently developed CEUS-based algorithms in histologically proven liver lesions in cirrhotic patients. Our results reaffirm the excellent diagnostic accuracy of CEUS for the noninvasive diagnosis of HCC in high-risk patients. However, on-site diagnosis by an experienced examiner achieves an almost equal diagnostic accuracy compared to CEUS-based diagnostic algorithms.
HINTERGRUND UNASSIGNED
 Diese prospektive, multizentrische, DEGUM-geförderte Studie untersucht die diagnostische Genauigkeit standardisierter Algorithmen für die Kontrastmittelsonografie (CEUS-Algorithmen) in der nichtinvasiven Diagnostik des hepatozellulären Karzinoms (HCC) bei Hochrisikopatienten.
METHODEN METHODS
 HCC-Hochrisikopatienten mit histologisch gesicherter Leberläsion im B-Bild-Ultraschall wurden prospektiv multizentrisch eingeschlossen. Klinische Daten und Bildgebungsbefunde wurden über Online-Eingabemasken erfasst. Es erfolgte ein direkter Vergleich der diagnostischen Genauigkeiten für die konventionelle CEUS-Befundung zum Untersuchungszeitpunkt (CEUS-on-site) und die CEUS-Algorithmen ESCULAP (Erlanger Synopsis for Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound for Liver lesion Assessment in Patients at risk) und CEUS LI-RADS (Contrast-Enhanced UltraSound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System).
ERGEBNISSE UNASSIGNED
 321 Patienten an 43 Zentren wurden eingeschlossen (93,1 % Leberzirrhose). Der histologische Befund ergab 256 HCCs und 23 intrahepatische cholangiozelluläre Karzinome (iCCA). Die höchste Sensitivität bei Zirrhose-Patienten (n = 299) erzielten der CEUS-Algorithmus ESCULAP (94,2 %) und CEUS-on-site (90,9 %), die geringste Sensitivität der CEUS LI-RADS-Algorithmus (64 %; p < 0,001). Die Spezifität war höher für CEUS LI-RADS (78,9 %) versus ESCULAP (50,9 %) und CEUS on-site (64,9 %; p < 0,001). Der negativ prädiktive Wert (NPW) war für CEUS LI-RADS niedriger als für ESCULAP (34,1 % vs. 67,4 %; p < 0,001) und CEUS-on-site (62,7 %; p < 0,001). Der positiv prädiktive Wert (PPW) war für alle Modalitäten hoch (rund 90 %).
SCHLUSSFOLGERUNGEN UNASSIGNED
 Dies ist die erste prospektive, multizentrische Studie zum Vergleich der standardisierten Kontrastmittelsonografie mit den kürzlich entwickelten CEUS-Algorithmen in histologisch gesicherten Leberläsionen bei Zirrhose-Patienten. Unsere Ergebnisse bestätigen die exzellente diagnostische Genauigkeit der Kontrastmittelsonografie in der nichtinvasiven HCC-Diagnostik bei Hochrisikopatienten. Die On-site-Diagnose eines erfahrenen Untersuchers erzielt dabei eine beinahe ebenso gute diagnostische Genauigkeit wie die CEUS-basierten Diagnosealgorithmen.

Autres résumés

Type: Publisher (ger)
 Diese prospektive, multizentrische, DEGUM-geförderte Studie untersucht die diagnostische Genauigkeit standardisierter Algorithmen für die Kontrastmittelsonografie (CEUS-Algorithmen) in der nichtinvasiven Diagnostik des hepatozellulären Karzinoms (HCC) bei Hochrisikopatienten.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32663881
doi: 10.1055/a-1198-4874
doi:

Substances chimiques

Contrast Media 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

178-186

Commentaires et corrections

Type : ErratumIn

Informations de copyright

Thieme. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Auteurs

Barbara Schellhaas (B)

Department of Internal Medicine 1, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany.

Thomas Bernatik (T)

Department of Internal Medicine 1, Kreisklinik Ebersberg gGmbH, Ebersberg, Germany.

Wolfram Bohle (W)

Klinik für Allgemeine Innere Medizin, Gastroenterologie, Hepatologie und Infektiologie, Katharinenhospital, Klinikum Stuttgart, Germany.

Fanny Borowitzka (F)

Department of Internal Medicine 2, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Germany.

Johannes Chang (J)

Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Bonn, Germany.

Christoph F Dietrich (CF)

Medizinische Klinik 2, Caritas-Krankenhaus, Bad Mergentheim, Germany.

Klaus Dirks (K)

Gastroenterologie und Innere Medizin, Rems-Murr-Klinikum Winnenden, Germany.

Robert Donoval (R)

Klinik für Gastroenterologie, Diabetologie und Infektiologie, Lausitzer Seenland Klinikum GmbH, Hoyerswerda, Germany.

Kristine Drube (K)

Department of Internal Medicine, Allgemeines Krankenhaus Celle, Germany.

Mireen Friedrich-Rust (M)

Department of Internal Medicine 1, J.W. Goethe University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany.

Christine Gall (C)

Institut für Medizininformatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, FAU IMBE, Erlangen, Germany.

Fleur Gittinger (F)

Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Halle, Halle, Germany.

Martin Gutermann (M)

Department of Internal Medicine, Hufeland-Hospital, Mühlhausen, Germany.

Mark Martin Haenle (MM)

Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Ulm, Germany.

Alexandra von Herbay (A)

Department of Internal Medicine, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Hamm gGmbH, Hamm, Germany.

Chau Hong Ho (CH)

Department of Internal Medicine, Hufeland-Hospital, Mühlhausen, Germany.

Rico Hochdoerffer (R)

Department of Internal Medicine, Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe gGmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Tatjana Hoffmann (T)

Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Matthias Hüttig (M)

Department of Internal Medicine, DRK-Kliniken Berlin-Köpenick, Berlin, Germany.

Christopher Janson (C)

Department of Internal Medicine, Städtisches Klinikum Braunschweig gGmbH, Braunschweig, Germany.

Ernst-Michael Jung (EM)

Department of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Regensburg, Germany.

Norbert Jung (N)

Department of Internal Medicine, Klinikum Heidenheim, Germany.

Thomas Karlas (T)

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Germany.

Christoph Klinger (C)

Medizinische Klinik I, Klinikum Ludwigsburg, Ludwigsburg, Germany.

Adam Kornmehl (A)

Department of Internal Medicine, Klinikum Weiden, Germany.

Wolfgang Kratzer (W)

Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Ulm, Germany.

Sebastian Krug (S)

Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Halle, Halle, Germany.

Georg Kunze (G)

Internal Medicine, KH Villingen-Schwenningen, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany.

Jens Leitlein (J)

Department of Internal Medicine, Klinikum am Steinenberg Reutlingen, Germany.

Alexander Link (A)

Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Magdeburg, Germany.

Christian Lottspeich (C)

Medical Clinic and Policlinic IV, Division of Vascular Medicine, Hospital of the Ludwig Maximilians University Hospital, Munich, Germany.

Aldo Marano (A)

Department of Internal Medicine, ViDia Christliche Kliniken Karlsruhe, Germany.

Martin Mauch (M)

Department of Internal Medicine, Innere, Kreisklinik Sigmaringen, Germany.

Lukas Moleda (L)

Department of Internal Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Regensburg, Germany.

Albrecht Neesse (A)

Klinik für Gastroenterologie, gastrointestinale Onkologie und Endokrinologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.

Golo Petzold (G)

Klinik für Gastroenterologie, gastrointestinale Onkologie und Endokrinologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.

Andrej Potthoff (A)

Gastroenterology and Hepatology and Endocrinology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.

Michael Praktiknjo (M)

Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Bonn, Germany.

Klaus-Dieter Rösner (KD)

Department of Internal Medicine, Barmherzige Brüder Klinikum Sankt Elisabeth Straubing GmbH, Straubing, Germany.

Stefan Schanz (S)

Department of Internal Medicine, Kreisklinikum Siegen gGmbH, Siegen, Germany.

Michael Schultheiß (M)

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Freiburg Hospital, Freiburg, Germany.

Visvakanth Sivanathan (V)

Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Mainz, Department of Internal Medicine 3, Mainz, Germany.

Joachim Stock (J)

Department of Internal Medicine, Klinikum Barnim, Eberswalde, Germany.

Thomas Thomsen (T)

Department of Internal Medicine, Westküstenklinik Brunsbüttel, Brunsbüttel, Germany.

Johanna Vogelpohl (J)

Department of Internal Medicine I, Krankenhaus GmbH Alb-Donau-Kreis Blaubeuren, Germany.

Christoph Vogt (C)

Department of Internal Medicine, St.-Josef-Krankenhaus Moers, Germany.

Siegfried Wagner (S)

Department of Internal Medicine, Donau-Isar-Kliniken Deggendorf, Germany.

Christiane Wiegard (C)

Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf Center of Internal Medicine, Hamburg, Germany.

Isabel Wiesinger (I)

Department of Internal Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Regensburg, Germany.

Uwe Will (U)

Internal Medicine, Klinikum Gera, Gera, Germany.

Matthias Ziesch (M)

Department of Internal Medicine, Diakonissenkrankenhaus Dresden, Germany.

Patrick Zimmermann (P)

Internal Medicine, Klinikum Gera, Gera, Germany.

Deike Strobel (D)

Department of Internal Medicine 1, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH