Bolus versus continuous infusion of microbubble contrast agent for liver US: initial experience.

Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. To prospectively assess if continuous infusion of galactose-palmitic acid can prolong the duration of hepatic enhancement at ultrasonography over bolus injection, 11 patients received two injections--one bolus injection (2 mL/sec) and one continuous infusion (1.5 mL/min)--with the same dose of galactose-palmitic acid (4 g, 300 mg/dL). Two unenhanced baseline sweep scans (mechanical index of 0.7 and 1.3) of the relevant liver lobe were acquired followed by contrast-enhanced sweeps after bolus injection and continuous infusion. Each sweep was saved as cine loops and analyzed with a personal computer. Duration of enhancement more than 3 dB was prolonged by continuous infusion from 4.3 minutes +/- 2.4 (+/-standard deviation) at bolus injection to 10.1 minutes +/- 3.0 (P < .005). Maximal parenchymal enhancement was 11.0 dB +/- 3.2 (bolus injection) and 9.2 dB +/- 3.8 (infusion, P < .05). Peak liver-to-lesion contrast was 14.2 dB +/- 6.3 (bolus injection) and 13.2 dB +/- 7.1 (infusion, not significant). Continuous infusion of galactose-palmitic acid markedly prolongs but slightly diminishes hepatic enhancement; liver-to-lesion contrast remains unchanged.

Improved characterization of liver lesions with liver-phase uptake of liver-specific microbubbles: prospective multicenter study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate in a prospective multicenter study whether conventional ultrasonographic (US) characterization of liver lesions can be improved by imaging during the liver-specific phase of SH U 508A uptake in the microbubble-specific agent detection imaging mode. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-two patients with liver lesions underwent conventional gray-scale and color Doppler US and SH U 508A-enhanced US. Two radiologists blindly read digital cine clips and assigned scores for confidence in diagnosis of benignancy or malignancy, diagnosis of specific lesion types, and relative difference in SH U 508A uptake between the lesion and the liver parenchyma (ie, subjective conspicuity score [SCS]). Comparisons were made to see whether the addition of agent detection imaging led to improved diagnostic performance. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed improved discrimination of benign and malignant lesions for readers 1 (P =.049) and 2 (P <.001). The number of patients with a correct diagnosis of benignancy or malignancy assigned by readers 1 and 2, respectively, improved from 114 and 113 to 125 and 128 with agent detection imaging (reader 1: P =.027; reader 2: P =.008; McNemar test). Specific diagnoses were made more accurately with agent detection imaging: At McNemar testing, the number of correct lesion type determinations increased from 83 to 92 (P =.022) for reader 1 and from 85 to 99 (P <.001) for reader 2. Both readers assigned high scores for differences in SH U 508A uptake between the liver parenchyma and the lesion for metastases and cholangiocarcinomas and low scores for uptake differences in most of the benign lesions. Hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), hemangiomas, and adenomas had more variable uptake differences. Fourteen of 22 hemangiomas were assigned an SCS of less than 50%, and 22 (reader 1) and 15 (reader 2) of 31 HCCs were assigned an SCS of greater than 50%. CONCLUSION: With use of SH U 508A-enhanced agent detection imaging, liver lesion characterization and diagnostic performance are significantly improved.

Improved detection of hepatic metastases with pulse-inversion US during the liver-specific phase of SHU 508A: multicenter study.

PURPOSE: To compare conventional B-mode ultrasonography (US) alone with the combination of conventional B-mode US and contrast material-enhanced (SHU 508A) late-phase pulse-inversion US for the detection of hepatic metastases by using dual-phase spiral computed tomography (CT) as the standard of reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-three patients underwent conventional US, US in the liver-specific phase of SHU 508A, and single-section spiral CT. US and CT images were assessed by blinded readers. Differences in sensitivity, specificity, and the number and smallest size of metastases at conventional and contrast-enhanced US were compared by using CT as the standard of reference. Lesion conspicuity was assessed objectively (quantitatively) and subjectively by one reader before and after contrast material administration. RESULTS: In 45 of 80 (56%) patients with metastases, more metastases were seen at contrast-enhanced US than at conventional US. In three of these patients, conventional US images appeared normal. The addition of contrast-enhanced US improved sensitivity for the detection of individual metastases from 71% to 87% (P <.001). On a patient basis, sensitivity improved from 94% to 98% (P =.44), and specificity improved from 60% to 88% (P <.01). Contrast enhancement improved the subjective conspicuity of metastases in 66 of 75 (88%) patients and the objective contrast by a mean of 10.8 dB (P <.001). Contrast-enhanced US showed more metastases than did CT in seven patients, and CT showed more than did contrast-enhanced US in one of 22 patients in whom an independent reference (magnetic resonance imaging, intraoperative US, or pathologic findings) was available. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced US improved sensitivity and specificity in the detection of hepatic metastases.