title: Efficacy of contrast-enhanced US versus CT or MRI for the therapeutic control of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation in the case of hepatic malignancies.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The goal of this study was to assess the informative value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound after radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Patients who had undergone RFA of malignant liver tumors were followed up with contrast-enhanced sonography (CEUS), computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance tomography (MRI), and the outcomes were compared.
  
  
  METHODS
  76 patients undergoing 194 RFAs for 118 hepatic neoplasms (n = 55 HCC, n = 63 metastases) in the course of a 7-year period were examined post-interventionally using CEUS and CT or MRI. During follow-up (gold standard of evaluation), contrast agent rim accumulations with a diameter greater than 5 mm and a growth rate of at least 25 % were counted as a recurrence.
  
  
  RESULTS
  CEUS-CT comparison group: A total of 65 scan pairs were compared. In 54 cases (83.1 %) the findings were the same with either method. In 7 cases (10.8 %) CEUS confirmed the correct diagnosis, and in 2 cases (3.1 %) only CT was correct. In 2 cases (3.1 %) both methods yielded incorrect results. Diagnostic accuracy (DA): CEUS 93.8 %, CT 86.2 %. CEUS-MRI comparison group: In 23 cases (88.5 %) of a total of 26 scan pairs, the findings were the same for both CEUS and MRI. In 3 discordant cases only CEUS confirmed the correct diagnosis (3 cases, 11.5 %). Diagnostic accuracy DA (n = 26): CEUS 100 %, MRI 88.4 %.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  CEUS performs equally to CT and MRI in the follow-up of patients treated for liver tumors by RFA.
authors.affiliation: Department of Medicine I, NOZ, Erlangen, Germany. markus.frieser@uk-erlangen.de
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Frieser
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Kiesel
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Lindner
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Bernatik
authors.forename: J M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Haensler
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Janka
authors.forename: E G
authors.initials: EG
authors.lastname: Hahn
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Strobel
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D006528:Carcinoma, Hepatocellular / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery*; D017115:Catheter Ablation / Q000379:methods*; D003287:Contrast Media / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D008099:Liver / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery; D008113:Liver Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000473:pathology / Q000556:secondary* / Q000601:surgery*; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D019060:Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D009364:Neoplasm Recurrence, Local / Q000175:diagnosis; D018365:Neoplasm, Residual / Q000175:diagnosis; D009389:Neovascularization, Pathologic / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery; D010743:Phospholipids; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000175:diagnosis*; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013459:Sulfur Hexafluoride; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014463:Ultrasonography; D018084:Ultrasonography, Interventional
chemical_list: D003287:Contrast Media; D010743:Phospholipids; C420843:contrast agent BR1; D013459:Sulfur Hexafluoride