Percutaneous Treatment of Malignant Liver Lesions: Evaluation of Success Using Contrast- Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) and Perfusion Software.

AIM: Using new perfusion software for evaluation of the success of percutaneous treatments of malignant liver tumors with CEUS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 88 patients (74 male, 14 female; 30 - 84 years) with 165 malignant liver lesions. The lesions were 57 metastases and 108 HCCs. The success of interventional treatment (IRE n = 47; RFA n = 38; MWA n = 44; TACE n = 36) was evaluated by CEUS and perfusion software (VueBox®). CEUS was performed after injection of 1 - 2.4 ml of sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles (SonoVue®) using a 1 - 5 MHz convex probe. DICOM loops up to 1 min. in the ablation area were stored digitally in the PACS. Regions of interest (ROI) were manually placed in the center, the margins of the lesions as well as in the surrounding tissue. Using VueBox® peak, time to peak (TTP), mean transit time (mTT), rise time (RT), the wash-in and wash-out rate were calculated for the regions, in order to evaluate the success of the percutaneous treatment after the ablation in comparison to the ceCT/ceMRI up to 6 months after the treatment. RESULTS: There were significant differences in all cases between the center compared to the margins for the main perfusion parameters (peak, mTT, RT) (p < 0.001). Peak, wash-in and wash-out ratios were further analyzed with the type of lesion and the method of ablation. All parameters were significantly different between lesions treated successfully vs. lesions with recurrence. CONCLUSION: A combination of CEUS with perfusion imaging enables critical assessment of successful treatment after percutaneous interventional procedures for a malignant liver lesion.

CT diagnosis of recurrence after pancreatic cancer: is there a pattern?

AIM: To investigate predilection sites of recurrence of pancreatic cancer by computed tomography (CT) in follow-up after surgery. METHODS: Seventy seven patients with recurrence after pancreatic cancer surgery were retrospectively identified. The operative technique, R-status, T-stage and development of tumor markers were evaluated. Two radiologists analyzed CT scans with consensus readings. Location of local recurrence, lymph node recurrence and organ metastases were noted. Surgery and progression of findings on follow-up CT were considered as reference standard. RESULTS: The mean follow-up interval was 3.9 ± 1.8 mo, with a mean relapse-free interval of 12.9 ± 10.4 mo. The predominant site of recurrence was local (65%), followed by lymph node (17%), liver metastasis (11%) and peritoneal carcinosis (7%). Local recurrence emerged at the superior mesenteric artery (n = 28), the hepatic artery (n = 8), in an area defined by the surrounding vessels: celiac trunk, portal vein, inferior vena cava (n = 22), and in a space limited by the mesenteric artery, portal vein and inferior vena cava (n = 17). Lymph node recurrence occurred in the mesenteric root and left lateral to the aorta. Recurrence was confirmed by surgery (n = 22) and follow-up CT (n = 55). Tumor markers [carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)] increased in accordance with signs of recurrence in most cases (86% CA19-9; 79.2% CEA). CONCLUSION: Specific changes of local and lymph node recurrence can be found in the course of the cardinal peripancreatic vessels. The superior mesenteric artery is the leading structure for recurrence.