title: Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in assessing the vascularity of liver metastases: comparison with contrast-enhanced computed tomography.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to compare the capability of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in evaluating the vascularity of liver metastases.
  
  
  METHODS
  Both CEUS and CECT examinations were performed on 70 patients with liver metastases, which were from colon carcinoma in 31, rectal carcinoma in 17, pancreatic carcinoma in 5, and others in 17. In patients with multiple lesions, the most easily observed lesion was selected as the target lesion for evaluation of vascularity.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Peak enhancement of the target lesion during the arterial phase was characterized as hyperenhancement, isoenhancement, hypo-enhancement, and nonenhancement in 61 (87.1%), 6 (8.6%), 3 (4.3%), and 0 (0%) patients on CEUS, respectively, and in 52 (74.3%), 8 (11.4%), 8 (11.4%), and 2 (2.9%) on CECT. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography showed more lesions with hyperenhancement than CECT (P < .01). The enhancement pattern during the arterial phase was homogeneous, inhomogeneous, and rimlike in 30 (42.9%), 16 (22.9%), and 24 (34.2%) patients on CEUS and in 13 (18.6%), 8 (11.4%), and 49 (70%) on CECT. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography revealed more lesions with homogeneous enhancement than CECT (P < .01). Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography showed dysmorphic vessels in 33 patients (47.1%) during the arterial phase, whereas CECT showed dysmorphic vessels in 27 (38.6%; P < .01). Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography showed hypervascular lesions in 58.6% of patients, whereas CECT showed hypervascular lesions in 12.9% (P < .01).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography was superior to CECT in assessing the vascularity of liver metastases.
authors.affiliation: Department of Medical Ultrasonics, First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
authors.forename: Yan-Ling
authors.initials: YL
authors.lastname: Zheng
authors.forename: Xiao-Yu
authors.initials: XY
authors.lastname: Yin
authors.forename: Xiao-Yan
authors.initials: XY
authors.lastname: Xie
authors.forename: Hui-Xiong
authors.initials: HX
authors.lastname: Xu
authors.forename: Zuo-Feng
authors.initials: ZF
authors.lastname: Xu
authors.forename: Guang-Jian
authors.initials: GJ
authors.lastname: Liu
authors.forename: Jin-Yu
authors.initials: JY
authors.lastname: Liang
authors.forename: Ming-De
authors.initials: MD
authors.lastname: Lu
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D003110:Colonic Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007089:Image Enhancement; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D008113:Liver Neoplasms / Q000098:blood supply* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000556:secondary; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010190:Pancreatic Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology; D010743:Phospholipids; D011856:Radiographic Image Enhancement / Q000379:methods; D012004:Rectal Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology; D013459:Sulfur Hexafluoride; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods; D018084:Ultrasonography, Interventional / Q000379:methods
chemical_list: D010743:Phospholipids; C420843:contrast agent BR1; D013459:Sulfur Hexafluoride