Hydralazine-augmented contrast ultrasound imaging improves the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma.
cancer imaging
contrast-enhanced ultrasound
hepatocellular carcinoma
hydralazine
imaging biomarkers
tumor detection
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2023
Mar 2023
Historique:
revised:
04
01
2023
received:
12
05
2022
accepted:
11
01
2023
pubmed:
22
1
2023
medline:
22
3
2023
entrez:
21
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) detection with B-mode and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CUS) imaging often varies between subjects, especially in patients with background cirrhosis. Various factors contribute to this variability, including the tumor blood flow, tumor size, internal echoes, and its location in livers with diffuse fibro-cirrhotic changes. Towards improving lesion detection, this study evaluates a vasodilator, hydralazine, to enhance the visibility of HCC by reducing its blood flow relative to the surrounding liver tissue. HCC were analyzed for tumor visibility measured for B-mode, CUS, and hydralazine-augmented-contrast ultrasound (HyCUS) in an autochthonous HCC rat model. 21 tumors from 12 rats were studied. B-mode and CUS images were acquired before hydralazine injection. Rats received an intravenous hydralazine injection of 5 mg/kg, then images were acquired 20 min later. Four rats were used as controls. The difference in echo intensity of the lesion and the surrounding tissue was used to determine the visibility index (VI). The visibility index for HCC was found to be significantly improved with the use of HyCUS imaging compared to traditional B-mode and CUS imaging. The visibility index for HCC was 16.5 ± 2.8 for HyCUS, compared to 5.3 ± 4.8 for B-mode and 4.1 ± 3.8 for CUS. The differences between HyCUS and the other imaging modalities were statistically significant, with p-values of 0.001 and 0.02, respectively. Additionally, when compared to control cases, HyCUS showed higher discrimination of HCC (VI = 6.4 ± 1.2) with a p-value of 0.003, while B-mode (VI = 6.7 ± 1.4, p = 0.5) and CUS (VI = 6.4 ± 1.2, p = 0.3) showed lower discrimination. Vascular blood flow modulation by hydralazine enhances the visibility of HCC. HyCUS offers a potential problem-solving method for detecting HCC when B-mode and CUS are unsuccessful, especially with background fibro-cirrhotic liver disease. Future evaluation of the approach in humans will determine its translatability for clinical applications.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) detection with B-mode and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CUS) imaging often varies between subjects, especially in patients with background cirrhosis. Various factors contribute to this variability, including the tumor blood flow, tumor size, internal echoes, and its location in livers with diffuse fibro-cirrhotic changes.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
Towards improving lesion detection, this study evaluates a vasodilator, hydralazine, to enhance the visibility of HCC by reducing its blood flow relative to the surrounding liver tissue.
METHODS
METHODS
HCC were analyzed for tumor visibility measured for B-mode, CUS, and hydralazine-augmented-contrast ultrasound (HyCUS) in an autochthonous HCC rat model. 21 tumors from 12 rats were studied. B-mode and CUS images were acquired before hydralazine injection. Rats received an intravenous hydralazine injection of 5 mg/kg, then images were acquired 20 min later. Four rats were used as controls. The difference in echo intensity of the lesion and the surrounding tissue was used to determine the visibility index (VI).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The visibility index for HCC was found to be significantly improved with the use of HyCUS imaging compared to traditional B-mode and CUS imaging. The visibility index for HCC was 16.5 ± 2.8 for HyCUS, compared to 5.3 ± 4.8 for B-mode and 4.1 ± 3.8 for CUS. The differences between HyCUS and the other imaging modalities were statistically significant, with p-values of 0.001 and 0.02, respectively. Additionally, when compared to control cases, HyCUS showed higher discrimination of HCC (VI = 6.4 ± 1.2) with a p-value of 0.003, while B-mode (VI = 6.7 ± 1.4, p = 0.5) and CUS (VI = 6.4 ± 1.2, p = 0.3) showed lower discrimination.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Vascular blood flow modulation by hydralazine enhances the visibility of HCC. HyCUS offers a potential problem-solving method for detecting HCC when B-mode and CUS are unsuccessful, especially with background fibro-cirrhotic liver disease. Future evaluation of the approach in humans will determine its translatability for clinical applications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36680519
doi: 10.1002/mp.16232
pmc: PMC10128060
mid: NIHMS1893837
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Hydralazine
26NAK24LS8
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1728-1735Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA204446
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : R01 EB022612
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : EB022612-01
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : CA204446-01
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2023 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
J Ultrasound Med. 2011 Apr;30(4):495-9
pubmed: 21460149
Mol Reprod Dev. 2015 Jul-Aug;82(7-8):518-29
pubmed: 26153368
Phys Med Biol. 2013 Sep 21;58(18):6447-58
pubmed: 23999099
Ultrasonography. 2017 Apr;36(2):160-169
pubmed: 28145108
Oncol Res. 1999;11(4):179-85
pubmed: 10566616
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2004 Feb;30(2):229-37
pubmed: 14998675
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989 Oct;17(4):785-9
pubmed: 2777668
Radiother Oncol. 1990 Nov;19(3):281-91
pubmed: 2281156
Gastrointest Radiol. 1989 Summer;14(3):255-61
pubmed: 2543605
Biotechniques. 2021 Mar;70(3):181-185
pubmed: 33337254
Ultrasonography. 2019 Jul;38(3):200-214
pubmed: 31006227
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013 Feb;39(2):187-210
pubmed: 23137926
Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Sep;109(9):1328-47; quiz 1348
pubmed: 25135008
Radiol Med. 2007 Feb;112(1):47-55
pubmed: 17310292
Liver Cancer. 2015 Dec;4(4):241-52
pubmed: 26779444
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015 May;41(5):1287-93
pubmed: 25677641
J Med Ultrason (2001). 2020 Apr;47(2):239-255
pubmed: 32170489
Radiat Med. 1987 Jan-Feb;5(1):14-9
pubmed: 2819956
Liver Cancer. 2014 Oct;3(3-4):458-68
pubmed: 26280007
Radiol Med. 2010 Aug;115(5):714-31
pubmed: 20082225
Biology (Basel). 2021 Jan 22;10(2):
pubmed: 33499069
Dig Dis Sci. 1988 Jan;33(1):47-51
pubmed: 2448095
Hepatol Int. 2017 Jul;11(4):317-370
pubmed: 28620797
Ultraschall Med. 2008 Oct;29(5):499-505
pubmed: 19241506
Nihon Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi. 1992 Jun;89(6):1360-8
pubmed: 1323723
Invest Radiol. 2011 Feb;46(2):106-15
pubmed: 20938345
Pediatr Nephrol. 2009 Oct;24(10):1939-49
pubmed: 17690916
Radiographics. 2017 Nov-Dec;37(7):1994-2017
pubmed: 29131761
Kidney Int. 2017 Jan;91(1):157-176
pubmed: 27692563
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Mar;83(3):456-62
pubmed: 24387826
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:349172
pubmed: 26090401
World J Gastroenterol. 2008 Mar 21;14(11):1710-9
pubmed: 18350602
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Apr 7;20(13):3590-6
pubmed: 24707142
Br J Cancer. 1995 Dec;72(6):1474-8
pubmed: 8519662
Sci Rep. 2019 Jun 18;9(1):8708
pubmed: 31213661
Hepatology. 2018 Jan;67(1):358-380
pubmed: 28130846
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 22;9(12):e113586
pubmed: 25532146
Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Apr;11(4):277-279
pubmed: 28162003
Hepatology. 2011 Mar;53(3):1020-2
pubmed: 21374666
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Aug 25;10(9):
pubmed: 32854253
Magn Reson Med. 1996 Aug;36(2):204-11
pubmed: 8843373
NMR Biomed. 1990 Aug;3(4):178-83
pubmed: 2206850