Low torcular Herophili position and large brainstem-tentorium angle in fetuses with open spinal dysraphism at 11-13 weeks' gestation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether in fetuses with open spina bifida (OSB) the tentorium can be seen to be displaced downwards and vertically oriented by the time of the 11-13-week scan and whether this is reflected in an alteration of the brainstem-tentorium (BST) angle. METHODS: The study population was recruited between 2015 and 2020 from three fetal medicine referral centers and comprised a control group and a study group of pregnancies with OSB. The control group was recruited prospectively and included singleton pregnancies with a normal sonographic examination after first-trimester combined screening for chromosomal abnormalities and normal outcome. The study group was selected retrospectively and included all cases with OSB between 2015 and 2020. All cases underwent detailed ultrasound assessment at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks' gestation. The position of the torcular Herophili (TH) was identified in the midsagittal view of the fetal brain with the use of color Doppler and was considered as a proxy for the insertion of the tentorium on the fetal skull. The BST angle was calculated in the same view and was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Sixty normal fetuses were included in the control group and 22 fetuses with OSB in the study group. In both groups, the BST angle was found to be independent of gestational age or crown-rump length (P = 0.8815, R2 = 0.0003861 in the controls, and P = 0.2665, R2 = 0.00978 in the OSB group). The mean BST angle was 48.7 ± 7.8° in controls and 88.1 ± 1.18°, i.e. close to 90°, in fetuses with OSB. Comparison of BST-angle measurements between the control group and cases with OSB showed a statistically significant difference (P = 0.0153). In all fetuses with OSB, the downward displacement of the TH and tentorium was clearly visible at the 11-13-week scan. CONCLUSIONS: In fetuses with OSB, the BST angle is significantly larger than in normal controls, with the tentorium being almost perpendicular to the brainstem. This sign confirms the inferior displacement of the tentorium cerebelli with respect to its normal insertion on the occipital clivus as early as the first trimester of pregnancy and is useful in the diagnosis of Chiari-II malformation at this early stage. In fetuses with OSB, the low position of the tentorium and TH is clearly visible, even subjectively, at the 11-13-week scan. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Importance of main pancreatic duct dilatation in IPMN undergoing surveillance.

BACKGROUND: The association between risk of pancreatic cancer and a dilated main pancreatic duct (MPD) in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) is debated. The aim of this study was to assess the role of MPD size in predicting pancreatic cancer in resected IPMNs and those kept under surveillance. METHODS: All patients with IPMN referred to the Pancreas Institute, University of Verona Hospital Trust, from 2006 to 2016 were included. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of malignancy detected at surgery or during follow-up. RESULTS: The final cohort consisted of 1688 patients with a median follow-up of 60 months. Main pancreatic duct dilatation was associated with other features of malignancy in both the resected and surveillance groups. In patients who underwent resection, only a MPD of at least 10 mm was an independent predictor of malignancy. In patients kept under surveillance, MPD dilatation was not associated with malignancy. Fifteen of 71 patients (21 per cent) with malignancy in the resection cohort had a dilated MPD alone, whereas only one of 30 (3 per cent) under surveillance with MPD dilatation alone developed malignancy. Patients with a dilated MPD and other worrisome features had an increased 5-year cumulative incidence of malignancy compared with those with a non-dilated duct (11 versus 1·2 per cent; P < 0·001); however, the risk of malignancy was not significantly increased in patients with a dilated MPD alone (4 versus 1·2 per cent; P = 0·448). CONCLUSION: In patients under surveillance, a dilated MPD alone was not associated with an increased incidence of malignancy in IPMN.

Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (ECEUS) for the differentiation of pancreatic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate CEUS for the diagnosis of pancreatic diseases and its application in the clinical routine with a focus on the value of CEUS in ductal pancreatic carcinoma and its use for the differentiation of neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All prospective and retrospective studies published in any language by March 6, 2014 were included based on the following criteria: use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (ECEUS) as the imaging methods, use of histology as the reference method and availability of a complete translation. Two authors analyzed the titles and abstracts of the search results to identify all relevant publications. Two independent readers then analyzed the full articles to identify those meeting the inclusion criteria. Details regarding study design, patient characteristics, interventions, and results were then independently extracted by two radiologists and one reviewer with methodological expertise. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were used to obtain overall estimates. RESULTS: 1293 articles were initially identified. 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. CEUS was the index test in 23 studies while ECEUS was the index test in 4 studies. The primary study objective was met by 20 studies with respect to ductal adenocarcinoma. CEUS sensitivity was evaluated in all studies. The pooled estimate of CEUS sensitivity for the diagnosis of ductal adenocarcinoma was 0.89 (95 % CI, 0.85 - 0.92). 15 out of 20 studies examined CEUS specificity. The average specificity was 0.84 (95 % CI, 0.77 - 0.89). The pooled estimate for DOR was 61.12 (95 % CI, 34.81 - 107.32). With regard to the secondary study objective, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.95 (95 % CI, 0.93 - 0.96) from 14 studies and 0.72 (95 % CI, 0.58 - 0.83) from 13 studies, respectively. The pooled DOR was 57.63 (95 % CI, 33.62 - 98.78). CONCLUSION: The sensitivity, specificity, and DOR results show the high value of CEUS for the characterization and differentiation of ductal adenocarinomas from other pancreatic diseases and for cystic pancreatic lesions. For this reason and due to their noninvasive nature, CEUS and ECEUS should be used as the first methods for characterizing neoplastic pancreatic lesions, especially since these are often incidental findings. The methods improve the quality of ultrasound diagnostics and result in faster diagnosis and better disease management.

Malignant focal liver lesions at contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and magnetic resonance with hepatospecific contrast agent.

The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the late phase of CEUS and the hepatobiliary phase of CE-MR with Gd-BOPTA in the characterization of focal liver lesions in terms of benignity and malignancy. A total of 147 solid focal liver lesions (38 focal nodular hyperplasias, 1 area of focal steatosis, 3 regenerative nodules, 8 adenomas, 11 cholangiocarcinomas, 36 hepatocellular carcinomas and 49 metastases) were retrospectively evaluated in a multicentre study, both with CEUS, using sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles (SonoVue, Bracco, Milan, Italy) and CE-MR, performed with Gd-BOPTA (Multihance, Bracco, Milan, Italy). All lesions thought to be malignant were cytohistologically proven, while all lesions thought to be benign were followed up. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values and accuracy were calculated for the late phase of CEUS and the hepatobiliary phase of CE-MRI, respectively, and in combination. Analysis of data revealed 42 benign and 105 malignant focal liver lesions. We postulated that all hypoechoic/hypointense lesions on the two phases were malignant. The diagnostic errors were 13/147 (8.8%) by CEUS and 12/147 (8.2%) by CE-MR. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of the late phase of CEUS were 90%, 93%, 97%, 80% and 91%, 93%, 97%, 81% and 92% for the hepatobiliary phase of CE-MRI, respectively. If we considered both techniques, the misdiagnosis diminished to 3/147 (2%) and sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were 98%, 98%, 99%, 95% and 98%. The combination of the late phase of CEUS and the hepatobiliary phase of CE-MR in the characterization of solid focal liver lesions in terms of benignity and malignancy is more accurate than the two techniques used separately.

Comparison between CT and CEUS in the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare CEUS and MDCT features of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in relation to tumor size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with pathological diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and studied by means of CEUS and MDCT were enrolled in this study. Two radiologists evaluated tumor size, site and imaging appearance. Patients in which at least one method yielded a positive result were divided into 4 groups on the basis of lesion size. For each dimensional category, sensitivity of the two imaging methods was calculated and compared using McNemar test. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three patients were included in this study. In 9 of 133 patients neither MDCT nor US/CEUS could identify the lesion, while in 9 of 133 patients only MDCT and in 13 of 133 only US/CEUS could identify the lesion. In the remaining 102 patients, both MDCT and US/CEUS yielded a positive result. US/CEUS sensitivity was 86.47% while MDCT sensitivity was 83.58%, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.523). For lesions smaller than 2 cm US/CEUS had a 100% sensitivity, while MDCT had a 73.33% sensitivity with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.125). For lesions between 2.1 and 3 cm US/CEUS had a sensitivity of 95.35%, while MDCT had a sensitivity of 83.72% with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.180). For lesions between 3.1 and 4 cm, US/CEUS had a sensitivity of 87.88%, while MDCT had a sensitivity of 93.94% with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.688). For lesions larger than 4 cm US/CEUS, had a sensitivity of 90.91%, while MDCT had a sensitivity of 100% with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.250). CONCLUSION: US/CEUS sensitivity in diagnosing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is adequate and does not statistically differ from that of MDCT. US/CEUS sensitivity seems to be higher for small and medium lesions, while MDCT sensitivity is higher for large lesions. By combining both the imaging methods a higher accuracy in diagnosing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma can be expected.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) immediately after percutaneous ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the effectiveness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), performed immediately after percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) or radiofrequency thermal ablation (RFTA), by comparing results with the computed tomography (CT) follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine consecutive patients with a diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were included in this prospective study. All patients underwent PEI or RFTA. After treatment, three CEUS enhancement patterns were observed: isovascular, hypovascular and avascular, which were compared with the CT findings. Sensitivity of the avascular pattern at CEUS and effectiveness of the ablative procedures were evaluated and compared with the chi-square test. RESULTS: Ninety hypervascular HCCs, with a mean diameter of 2.6 cm (0.5-4.9 cm), underwent PEI (n=54) and RFTA (n=36). In the first group, CT identified complete necrosis in 28/54 (52%) lesions, 21 (75%) of which had avascular, one (4%) isovascular and six (21%) hypovascular patterns at CEUS. In the second group, CT showed complete necrosis in 31/36 (86%) lesions, all (100%) of which had a corresponding avascular pattern at CEUS. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of the avascular pattern at CEUS compared with CT findings were 75%, 69%, 72%, 72% and 72% for PEI and 100%, 20%, 89%, 100% and 89%, for RFTA, respectively. A statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between the sensitivity of CEUS after PEI and after RFTA and between the necrosis obtained by RFTA and PEI were observed. CONCLUSIONS: CEUS performed immediately after percutaneous ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma to evaluate treatment efficacy is compulsory in the case of RFTA but not for PEI.